Maybe i'm out of my league by criticizing this incredibly intelligent man's arguments, but here goes.
First, Dijkstra argues, "There is no such thing as 'making money': some people succeed in transferring money out of the pockets of others into their own." The implication of his argument is that economic activity is zero sum - you can't create value, you can only take it from someone else. This is patently false - there is far more wealth in the world now than there was 100 years ago. If it is impossible to 'make money,' then where did this extra wealth come from? When I buy a computer from Dell, it's a win-win situation. Dell gets money from me, and i get a powerful tool which I could use to develop software, which I could then sell to others for more than the cost of the computer. The software that I write is wealth that I have created - the world is better off with the software in it than without the software.
Dijkstra then expresses his animus against banks, saying they become rich by trying to speculate at someone else's expense. This may be true of investment banks, but what about a bank that makes loans to new businesses? Exactly whose expense are the banks profiting from? The business gets ahead because it needs capital to get off the ground, and the banks get ahead because they earn interest on money that would otherwise be sitting idle.
I agree with his main argument, that 'software engineering' is a rather meaningless term, but I disagree with his hateful attitude towards the industrial world.
It seems you misread Dijkstra. He uses 'making money' within the context of financial 'industry' and questions the legitimacy of that 'industry' which does not produce any goods, thereby pointing out one of the many euphemisms adopted by financial sector to swindle people out of money. (Of course, one can legitimately disagree here and say that moving money where it is most useful is a useful thing to do and that's one of the good things financial sector does). Between, this essay did not seem to me at all to indicate a hateful attitude towards the industrial world.
Knowing how pedantic Dijkstra were, I am sure he was talking about money, not value. (EDIT: gsk is more accurate than I am on this.)
Now, there is a way to literally "make money": producing it out of thin air (this produces zero value by itself). Central banks do it by printing bank notes, the others do it through loans (using a complicated recursive scheme I don't fully understand).
Dijkstra's animosity against bank is understandable: they create money (about 90% of it) out of nothing, make loans with it (for an interest rate, not for a fee), and sometimes even speculate with your deposit (which is 90% created money by them). Despite the current regulation systems, this sounds like an awful lot of power in the hands of private interests.
On making money, to a first approximation he is right. Value can of course be created, but the majority of marketing activity ('money making') is concerned with a market share land grab and nothing more.
Banks aren't intrinsically sociopathic, but i think their unique position at the center of all the economic transactions means that they are especially prone to bad behaviour and distortion. They do need special regulatory treatment. You'd put even the kindliest rottweiler on a leash as a precaution, but it would be senseless to extend this to all dogs.
Maybe i'm out of my league by criticizing this incredibly intelligent man's arguments
Thats an even better reason to try. I find that the best way to learn from smart people is to question them. That way you learn what they know and/or see the way they reason.
> It was illegal in 1860 to have a half black half white president in U.S.
No, it wasn't. Disagree? Point to the relevant part of the US constitution. (The 3/5ths clause isn't on point, and before you point to it, ask yourself who benefits from a higher number and who benefits from a lower number. Hint - slave states wanted a higher number....)
There were free blacks in the US from before the revolution. The males were eligible to vote and hold office.
>> The mediocre mistrust the exceptional man because they don’t understand him, and they fear him because he can do things beyond their comprehension. As far as human memory is concerned, this circumstance has led to bloody conflicts — Christ was neither the first nor the last excentric to be crucified.
Fascinating take on things from the perspective of academia. I've always held the same distrust of the term 'Software Engineer,' given that software development is rarely as rigorous and disciplined as actual 'Engineering.'
I love Dijkstra's writings (and his penmanship, for that matter). I also quietly enjoy that most of them end by referencing my alma mater. Hook 'em Horns. :-)
First, Dijkstra argues, "There is no such thing as 'making money': some people succeed in transferring money out of the pockets of others into their own." The implication of his argument is that economic activity is zero sum - you can't create value, you can only take it from someone else. This is patently false - there is far more wealth in the world now than there was 100 years ago. If it is impossible to 'make money,' then where did this extra wealth come from? When I buy a computer from Dell, it's a win-win situation. Dell gets money from me, and i get a powerful tool which I could use to develop software, which I could then sell to others for more than the cost of the computer. The software that I write is wealth that I have created - the world is better off with the software in it than without the software.
Dijkstra then expresses his animus against banks, saying they become rich by trying to speculate at someone else's expense. This may be true of investment banks, but what about a bank that makes loans to new businesses? Exactly whose expense are the banks profiting from? The business gets ahead because it needs capital to get off the ground, and the banks get ahead because they earn interest on money that would otherwise be sitting idle.
I agree with his main argument, that 'software engineering' is a rather meaningless term, but I disagree with his hateful attitude towards the industrial world.