Iranian military engine development news and updates

[Arash1991]

True. But using western capitalist terminology is false as well. Nothing there to imitate or learn from. Nothing that maps to the Iranian burgeoning resistance economy.

Both ‘capitalism’ and ‘communism’ are synthetic constructs that have failed mightily in practice if not in theory.

I see it exactly the same way as you do. There is the motto: Neither East nor West, but only the Islamic Republic.
Also what the topic resistance economy is necessary. But if it is about the point that competition must be present then that is nothing that speaks against the resistance economy. resistance economy does not exclude the existence of competition in the economy. The core question was whether there should be competition or not as a result of the discussion whether one should bundle all resources for a large project. If I start to build up monopolies in a country, then there will inevitably be problems. That is basically my core statement.
Today's companies in Iran also work somewhere as companies and also large leading companies.

The current model in Iran (especially in the field of defense) works partly in such a way that there are strong and large IRGC companies which, in addition to their own resources and research facilities, also use many subcontractors, universities or startups to develop things. These companies develop many small projects or large projects independently. Thus, many competing resources are directed in a common direction. IRGC projects are based on the interests and needs of the country. Care is also taken to ensure that a large part of the production and research (if possible all parts of a production line) are produced in Iran itself.

What the one cheeky colleague promoted, on the other hand, was very communist in nature.

 

[jauk]

I see it exactly the same way as you do. There is the motto: Neither East nor West, but only the Islamic Republic.
Also what the topic resistance economy is necessary. But if it is about the point that competition must be present then that is nothing that speaks against the resistance economy. resistance economy does not exclude the existence of competition in the economy. The core question was whether there should be competition or not as a result of the discussion whether one should bundle all resources for a large project. If I start to build up monopolies in a country, then there will inevitably be problems. That is basically my core statement.
Today's companies in Iran also work somewhere as companies and also large leading companies.

The current model in Iran (especially in the field of defense) works partly in such a way that there are strong and large IRGC companies which, in addition to their own resources and research facilities, also use many subcontractors, universities or startups to develop things. These companies develop many small projects or large projects independently. Thus, many competing resources are directed in a common direction. IRGC projects are based on the interests and needs of the country. Care is also taken to ensure that a large part of the production and research (if possible all parts of a production line) are produced in Iran itself.

What the one cheeky colleague promoted, on the other hand, was very communist in nature.

I understand your perspective. However, not sure the resistance economy is promoting competition or monopolies. As an exercise, can you exclude these terms and make your points again without them? The resulting modification might indeed shed light on what are fixes, suggestions, or best practices are. One of the foundations of change is elimination of terminology.

 

[Arash1991]

I understand your perspective. However, not sure the resistance economy is promoting competition or monopolies. As an exercise, can you exclude these terms and make your points again without them? The resulting modification might indeed shed light on what are fixes, suggestions, or best practices are. One of the foundations of change is elimination of terminology.

ok when it comes to the terminology then make me a suggestion how I can express it better in your opinion. I can't think of much about it, unless I paraphrase this one word with many more words. but the point of the matter is to understand the meaning behind the sentence in the first place.

 

[jauk]

ok when it comes to the terminology then make me a suggestion how I can express it better in your opinion. I can't think of much about it, unless I paraphrase this one word with many more words. but the point of the matter is to understand the meaning behind the sentence in the first place.

I can’t fix your ideas. The concept is more than terminology. Terminology is a good first step but entirely insufficient. You’ve painted yourself in a corner with your argumentation. Nobody Is responsible but you to redress from ground up.

 

[SalarHaqq]

the question is that if north pay people enough to not be hungry at night?
do they let them choose their profession?

In the mainstream sector there are no reliable sources about the DPRK. In the same way as their reporting on Iran consists of propaganda, horror stories spread about Korea are equally baseless. Now to my knowledge these mainstream media themselves don't claim that north Koreans are facing starvation. It was in the 1990's when food supplies seemed to face some shortages.

Outside the velayat of a ma'sum Imam, no government's perfect but at the end of the day the comparison here is between these two existing models. One has brought supposedly greater material wealth (although unequally distributed) coupled with the highest suicide rate among developed nations, demographic meltdown, promotion of prostitution around military bases of a foreign occupier and complete political submission to said neo-colonial overlord, while the other has safeguarded honor, independence and self-determination of the Korean nation and with limited domestic resources endowed Korea with the means to resist the predatory agenda of the imperial superpower, in addition to enabling the formation of an extremely disciplined, highly functional society (no crime, none of the widespread mental afflictions plaguing modern capitalist society, no commercial advertising, clean orderly cities etc). There's no question to me as to which would be preferable.

Dignity, rectitude and freedom from the imperial yoke do not come for free nor can their absence be made up for with money or consumerist superficiality, the opium of the masses.

 

[Hack-Hook]

In the mainstream sector there are no reliable sources about the DPRK. In the same way as their reporting on Iran consists of propaganda, horror stories spread about Korea are equally baseless. Now to my knowledge these mainstream media themselves don't claim that north Koreans are facing starvation. It was in the 1990's when food supplies seemed to face some shortages.

Outside the velayat of a ma'sum Imam, no government's perfect but at the end of the day the comparison here is between these two existing models. One has brought supposedly greater material wealth (although unequally distributed) coupled with the highest suicide rate among developed nations, demographic meltdown, promotion of prostitution around military bases of a foreign occupier and complete political submission to said neo-colonial overlord, while the other has safeguarded honor, independence and self-determination of the Korean nation and with limited domestic resources endowed Korea with the means to resist the predatory agenda of the imperial superpower, in addition to enabling the formation of an extremely disciplined, highly functional society (no crime, none of the widespread mental afflictions plaguing modern capitalist society, no commercial advertising, clean orderly cities etc). There's no question to me as to which would be preferable.

Dignity, rectitude and freedom from the imperial yoke do not come for free nor can their absence be made up for with money or consumerist superficiality, the opium of the masses.

there is no accurate data for N.Korea but there are glimpses here and there that you can make some conclusion from them .
you can't say because there is no accurate data you can't reach conclusion otherwise if that waśtruth you must have thrown all the science of statistics and probabilities into the rubbish bin

you can criticize S.Korea for many things but for each of them there are several thing to criticize in N. Korea

 

[Arash1991]

I can’t fix your ideas. The concept is more than terminology. Terminology is a good first step but entirely insufficient. You’ve painted yourself in a corner with your argumentative. Nobody Is responsible but you to redress from ground up.

I understand that you disagree and are constructing your image, but I think we could get somewhere if we focused on the facts. Could we focus on what we know and try to look at the issue from different angles?
The original issue was whether or not an engine should be realized in a joint project of all the institutions in Iran.

I would like to summarize my key statements on this subject once again:

• In my view, competing projects are more efficient because the military, as the customer, has a greater choice.
• In my opinion, competing projects have an impact on innovation and quality. I have given some examples from the real world.
• In the long term, it is not good if a product is produced in a country by only one organization or company.
• I also mentioned that I consider this principle to be valid for all areas of the economy.

It would be for outside readers (that are most of the people who read the discussion here) surely an added value if you @jauk can now give me facts and factual clear answers to what you disagree with in my argumentation instead of putting up diffuse, general theses or argue on a @yugocrosrb95 personal level.

 

[SalarHaqq]

there is no accurate data for N.Korea but there are glimpses here and there that you can make some conclusion from them .

Nothing I've seen leads me to conclude there's famine in Korea. Multiple people I know who traveled there witnessed no signs of such either.

you can criticize S.Korea for many things but for each of them there are several thing to criticize in N. Korea

As said no government is perfect but on balance the DPRK is more conforming to values I consider to be most fundamental and worthy of sacrifice.

 

[SalarHaqq]

• In my view, competing projects are more efficient because the military, as the customer, has a greater choice.
• In my opinion, competing projects have an impact on innovation and quality. I have given some examples from the real world.
• In the long term, it is not good if a product is produced in a country by only one organization or company.
• I also mentioned that I consider this principle to be valid for all areas of the economy.

The supposed virtues classical economic theory attributes to competition fail to take shape when:

- The producers in question are state owned companies.
- As such, aren't motivated by profit maximization.
- Are too few in numbers. This is also why in capitalist regimes nowadays, competition in most key sectors is a delusion given how said sectors are dominated by a token few oligopolistic corporations, which align the price of commodities and services they produce by (tacit) consensus.

 

[Arash1991]

The supposed virtues classical economic theory attributes to competition fail to take shape when:

- The producers in question are state owned companies.
- As such, aren't motivated by profit maximization.
- Are too few in numbers. This is also why in capitalist regimes nowadays, competition in most key sectors is a delusion given how said sectors are dominated by a token few oligopolistic corporations, which align the price of commodities and services they produce by (tacit) consensus.

I share your views as well. However, competition does not necessarily have to be driven by greed. In the USSR, for example, many projects, especially military ones, were the result of competition between design bureaus. The winner got the project.
NASA was and is a purely state institution in the USA and carried out the moon landing and was the only space organization in the USA for a long time.

From your last point, the question arises for me: What is real competition and what is not?

Negative examples are, for example, the current graphics card prices, which are mainly driven by Nvidea, since AMD has nothing to counter the new graphics card generation 4090s in terms of quality.Nvidea virtually asserts itself as the sole market dominator here.

Fuel prices in Germany and probably elsewhere are not in relation to market conditions. During crises, the price is driven up and when the crisis subsides, the price drops only with great difficulty. Also, the price adjustments of different gas stations are so similar that it is difficult to believe that there is no collusion.

Positive examples would be the development of the Raptor rocket engine by spaceX. It costs much less than other engines (unit price: 2 million dollars) while other comparable engines cost 25 to 50 million dollars. Raptor engine: $1000 per kilo newton. In addition, it can be reused almost 50 times more often, while others cannot be reused or can be reused 10 to 25 times at most.

 

[jauk]

I understand that you disagree and are constructing your image, but I think we could get somewhere if we focused on the facts. Could we focus on what we know and try to look at the issue from different angles?
The original issue was whether or not an engine should be realized in a joint project of all the institutions in Iran.

I would like to summarize my key statements on this subject once again:

• In my view, competing projects are more efficient because the military, as the customer, has a greater choice.
• In my opinion, competing projects have an impact on innovation and quality. I have given some examples from the real world.

I fundamentally challenge this. Other than the standard propaganda, why do you believe 'competition' breeds innovation rather than sowing destruction? This is the pith of my argument against your statement. Why can't projects contribute to one another instead (amplification model)? Additionally, can you share an example of a competitive model that is better than an amplification model in real world practice? I am not aware of one.

• In the long term, it is not good if a product is produced in a country by only one organization or company.

Why?

• I also mentioned that I consider this principle to be valid for all areas of the economy.

Why?

It would be for outside readers (that are most of the people who read the discussion here) surely an added value if you @jauk can now give me facts and factual clear answers to what you disagree with in my argumentation instead of putting up diffuse, general theses or argue on a @yugocrosrb95 personal level.

You are making broad statements of 'belief' and not giving supporting facts. The burden is one you to demonstrate why your beliefs are correct.

 

[Arash1991]

I fundamentally challenge this. Other than the standard propaganda, why do you believe 'competition' breeds innovation rather than sowing destruction? This is the pith of my argument against your statement. Why can't projects contribute to one another instead (amplification model)? Additionally, can you share an example of a competitive model that is better than an amplification model in real world practice? I am not aware of one.

Why?

Yes you are right: Projects can certainly contribute to one another in an amplification model, and this can be a very effective way to build on existing work and achieve greater impact.
However, it's worth noting that competition can also be beneficial in certain contexts. In a competitive model, different organizations or individuals may compete to produce the best product or service, with the aim of achieving success in the marketplace. This can drive innovation and efficiency, as each organization tries to outperform the others.

One example of a competitive model that is better than an amplification model in real-world practice is the technology industry. In this industry, different companies compete to produce the best products and services, and this competition has led to significant technological advancements and improved products for consumers. The competition has also helped to keep prices down and improve customer service, as companies vie for market share.

One practical example of a competitive model in the technology industry is the competition between Apple and Samsung in the smartphone market. Both companies are constantly developing and improving their products in order to outdo each other and gain a larger share of the market. This competition has led to significant technological advancements, such as the development of new features like facial recognition, better cameras, and longer battery life.

The competition between Apple and Samsung has also helped to keep prices down, as both companies have to compete on price as well as features. In addition, the companies offer excellent customer service and support to try to win and retain customers. As a result of this competition, consumers have access to better products at lower prices, and the market as a whole benefits from the innovation and advancements made by both companies.

Some Sources:

1. "Competition and Innovation: The Role of Internal R&D and Licensing" by Dirk Czarnitzki, Cédric Schneider, and Kornelius Kraft, published in the Journal of Economics and Management Strategy in 2009
2. "Innovation in the High-Tech Industry: A Historical Perspective" by Pierre Barbaroux, published in the Journal of Innovation Economics & Management in 2018
3. "The Innovation Impacts of Competition Policy Enforcement" by Joseph E. Stiglitz and Bruce C. Greenwald, published in the Journal of Industrial Economics in 1986
4. Competition, Product Proliferation, and Quality in the Personal Computer Industry" by Timothy F. Bresnahan and Shane Greenstein, published in the RAND Journal of Economics in 1996
5. "Competition and Product Quality in the High-Tech Electronics Industry" by Sanjay Jain and Chung-Lun Li, published in the Journal of Industrial Economics in 2004

why is In the long term, it is not good if a product is produced in a country by only one organization or company?

In the long term, it is not good if a product is produced in a country by only one organization or company for several reasons:

1. When there is only one company producing a product it can lead to a lack of innovation and high prices. Without competition, the company may have no incentive to improve its product or offer competitive prices.
2. If the company is the only producer of a product, it can gain significant market power and control prices. This can harm consumers, who may end up paying higher prices for the product.
3. Vulnerability to disruptions: If the company producing the product faces unexpected problems, such as a natural disaster, supply chain disruption, or bankruptcy, there may be a shortage of the product. This can have serious consequences for consumers and the economy.
4. Dependence on a single supplier: If a country relies on a single company for a product, it may become dependent on that company. This can be problematic if the company decides to stop producing the product or if it goes out of business.

In conclusion, having multiple companies producing a product in a country is generally beneficial for consumers, as it promotes competition, innovation, and better prices. It also reduces the risk of disruptions and dependency on a single supplier.

Why?

You are making broad statements of 'belief' and not giving supporting facts. The burden is one you to demonstrate why your beliefs are correct.

I've already provided some factual evidence to support my argument, but I'm not seeing any acknowledgment of that evidence in your responses. I want to complete my already mentioned perspective with following sources after the next text paragraph.

I appreciate your perspective, but could you provide some evidence to support your argument? I believe that having data and facts can help us make more informed decisions and come to a better understanding of the issue at hand. It would only be fair if you would also provide facts and not just demand this unilaterally.


Competition and Innovation:

• "Competition and Innovation: An Inverted-U Relationship" by Philippe Aghion, Nicholas Bloom, Richard Blundell, Rachel Griffith, and Peter Howitt, published in The Quarterly Journal of Economics in 2005:https://www.jstor.org/stable/25098750
• Does Competition drives Innovation? : https://edisonawards.com/competitio...river,Workshop on Emerging Competition Issues.
• The World Intellectual Property Organization discusses how competition can lead to the development of new technologies and products (https://www.wipo.int/policy/en/competition/innovation.html)

 

[jauk]

Yes you are right: Projects can certainly contribute to one another in an amplification model, and this can be a very effective way to build on existing work and achieve greater impact.
However, it's worth noting that competition can also be beneficial in certain contexts. In a competitive model, different organizations or individuals may compete to produce the best product or service, with the aim of achieving success in the marketplace. This can drive innovation and efficiency, as each organization tries to outperform the others.

One example of a competitive model that is better than an amplification model in real-world practice is the technology industry. In this industry, different companies compete to produce the best products and services, and this competition has led to significant technological advancements and improved products for consumers. The competition has also helped to keep prices down and improve customer service, as companies vie for market share.

One practical example of a competitive model in the technology industry is the competition between Apple and Samsung in the smartphone market. Both companies are constantly developing and improving their products in order to outdo each other and gain a larger share of the market. This competition has led to significant technological advancements, such as the development of new features like facial recognition, better cameras, and longer battery life.

The competition between Apple and Samsung has also helped to keep prices down, as both companies have to compete on price as well as features. In addition, the companies offer excellent customer service and support to try to win and retain customers. As a result of this competition, consumers have access to better products at lower prices, and the market as a whole benefits from the innovation and advancements made by both companies.

Some Sources:

1. "Competition and Innovation: The Role of Internal R&D and Licensing" by Dirk Czarnitzki, Cédric Schneider, and Kornelius Kraft, published in the Journal of Economics and Management Strategy in 2009
2. "Innovation in the High-Tech Industry: A Historical Perspective" by Pierre Barbaroux, published in the Journal of Innovation Economics & Management in 2018
3. "The Innovation Impacts of Competition Policy Enforcement" by Joseph E. Stiglitz and Bruce C. Greenwald, published in the Journal of Industrial Economics in 1986
4. Competition, Product Proliferation, and Quality in the Personal Computer Industry" by Timothy F. Bresnahan and Shane Greenstein, published in the RAND Journal of Economics in 1996
5. "Competition and Product Quality in the High-Tech Electronics Industry" by Sanjay Jain and Chung-Lun Li, published in the Journal of Industrial Economics in 2004

why is In the long term, it is not good if a product is produced in a country by only one organization or company?

In the long term, it is not good if a product is produced in a country by only one organization or company for several reasons:

1. When there is only one company producing a product it can lead to a lack of innovation and high prices. Without competition, the company may have no incentive to improve its product or offer competitive prices.
2. If the company is the only producer of a product, it can gain significant market power and control prices. This can harm consumers, who may end up paying higher prices for the product.
3. Vulnerability to disruptions: If the company producing the product faces unexpected problems, such as a natural disaster, supply chain disruption, or bankruptcy, there may be a shortage of the product. This can have serious consequences for consumers and the economy.
4. Dependence on a single supplier: If a country relies on a single company for a product, it may become dependent on that company. This can be problematic if the company decides to stop producing the product or if it goes out of business.

In conclusion, having multiple companies producing a product in a country is generally beneficial for consumers, as it promotes competition, innovation, and better prices. It also reduces the risk of disruptions and dependency on a single supplier.



I've already provided some factual evidence to support my argument, but I'm not seeing any acknowledgment of that evidence in your responses. I want to complete my already mentioned perspective with following sources after the next text paragraph.

I appreciate your perspective, but could you provide some evidence to support your argument? I believe that having data and facts can help us make more informed decisions and come to a better understanding of the issue at hand. It would only be fair if you would also provide facts and not just demand this unilaterally.


Competition and Innovation:

• "Competition and Innovation: An Inverted-U Relationship" by Philippe Aghion, Nicholas Bloom, Richard Blundell, Rachel Griffith, and Peter Howitt, published in The Quarterly Journal of Economics in 2005:https://www.jstor.org/stable/25098750
• Does Competition drives Innovation? : https://edisonawards.com/competitio...river,Workshop on Emerging Competition Issues.
• The World Intellectual Property Organization discusses how competition can lead to the development of new technologies and products (https://www.wipo.int/policy/en/competition/innovation.html)

You misunderstood my question. I did not ask about successful competitive models. There are plenty of examples of both successful and disastrous competitive models (although you chose to exemplify the successful ones only).

My question was show examples of competitive models that coexist with amplified ones and how they are better (or worse). You’re comparisons are self referential within one model. I’m not aware of cross referenced examples.

There are few issues with the theory of competitive models in practice. There are no real examples. Most are affected either by government regulation, politics, or monopsonous investment networks. So even ‘successful’ competitive models are faulty by nature. The examples are manifest. Implementation of cellular and communication networks by a jumble of ‘competitive’ providers has been proven not only disastrous but entirely the root cause of delayed progress. That’s one huge example.

Space industries are also seemingly competitive although in fact they are not and supported by governments or large investor networks as a mere diversification strategy m—not to ‘root out laggards or promot the best’—as we are led to believe.

The theory of things usually is positive. In practice is when tihe wheels come off.

 

[Arash1991]

You misunderstood my question. I did not ask about successful competitive models. There are plenty of examples of both successful and disastrous competitive models (although you chose to exemplify the successful ones only).

My question was show examples of competitive models that coexist with amplified ones and how they are better (or worse). You’re comparisons are self referential within one model. I’m not aware of cross referenced examples.

There are few issues with the theory of competitive models in practice. There are no real examples. Most are affected either by government regulation, politics, or monopsonous investment networks. So even ‘successful’ competitive models are faulty by nature. The examples are manifest. Implementation of cellular and communication networks by a jumble of ‘competitive’ providers has been proven not only disastrous but entirely the root cause of delayed progress. That’s one huge example.

Space industries are also seemingly competitive although in fact they are not and supported by governments or large investor networks as a mere diversification strategy m—not to ‘root out laggards or promot the best’—as we are led to believe.

The theory of things usually is positive. In practice is when tihe wheels come off.

I appreciate your willingness to engage in this discussion, but I believe you may have misunderstood my argument. I did not argue that competition is always better than cooperation or amplification models. My point was simply that competition can be beneficial in certain contexts, and I provided some examples from the technology industry to support this point.

You stated that you were not aware of any cross-referenced examples of competitive models coexisting with amplified ones, but my examples of the smartphone market competition between Apple and Samsung demonstrate that these models can coexist and benefit consumers.

In your response, you stated that there are no real examples of successful competitive models, which seems to be a sweeping statement without any supporting evidence. I have provided sources to support my argument, but I have not seen any evidence to support your counterargument.

Additionally, your statement that competition only leads to destruction is a totalizing and unfounded claim. While there may be examples of disastrous competitive models, there are also many examples of successful ones that have driven innovation and efficiency.

I believe that a fact-based discussion can help us come to a better understanding of this issue, but this requires both of us to provide evidence to support our arguments. I hope that we can continue this discussion with a willingness to engage in constructive debate.

 

[jauk]

I appreciate your willingness to engage in this discussion, but I believe you may have misunderstood my argument. I did not argue that competition is always better than cooperation or amplification models. My point was simply that competition can be beneficial in certain contexts, and I provided some examples from the technology industry to support this point.

You stated that you were not aware of any cross-referenced examples of competitive models coexisting with amplified ones, but my examples of the smartphone market competition between Apple and Samsung demonstrate that these models can coexist and benefit consumers.

Thiose are not valid examples. You misunderstand my comments.

In your response, you stated that there are no real examples of successful competitive models, which seems to be a sweeping statement without any supporting evidence. I have provided sources to support my argument, but I have not seen any evidence to support your counterargument.

I did not say that. Please read again.

Additionally, your statement that competition only leads to destruction is a totalizing and unfounded claim. While there may be examples of disastrous competitive models, there are also many examples of successful ones that have driven innovation and efficiency.

I did not say that. Please read again.

I believe that a fact-based discussion can help us come to a better understanding of this issue, but this requires both of us to provide evidence to support our arguments. I hope that we can continue this discussion with a willingness to engage in constructive debate.