|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 22 2016 01:45 Plansix wrote:
Ending "free trade" only means that regions that are developing will no longer have the means to develop using the current infrastructure. So they will either retool, serve themselves or implode. The second one is far more likely. And then we might get countries returning to the good, old fashion way of economic stimulus, gear up and declare war on your neighbor.
To take a bit of an extreme counter-position on this: "Feeding the world American style, back up the investors with a military regime, then say its to keep the world free". It's right that you put "free trade" in quotations in the way that you did, I suppose.
I haven't looked into it, but I wonder if China may actually be doing a better job in terms of genuinely investing. I haven't heard of them fucking around with regimes to get things done, at least. Granted, the backlash would probably be pretty harsh if they did. If only there was some way to deter other certain nations from installing regimes...
But no, I'm obviously not saying end all trade and stop investing in poorer countries. There just need to be more of a conscious effort towards raising the living conditions of people who are not well off, and if the west needs to take a hit for that to happen, I am not opposed to that.
I mean, KwarK was talking about how our time is valued much higher, but the other end of the coin says that we can't get jobs anymore because they're all being moved towards poorer countries. In essence, we are already beginning to feel the results of this aren't we? How much further does this need to go before we realize that this economic model we are using now is as unsustainable as it is to continue burning fossil fuels? It seems inevitable to me that it's all going to come crashing down in one way or another. I obviously can't predict what will happen exactly, as I'm about as poorly informed on economics as I am on climate change, but it seems incredibly obvious that we will run out of poor people to exploit... or will we become the poor people? I mean... am I just being retarded in this whole line of thinking, or what?
What is the best move in the long term, meaning 50-100 years from now? I don't think this model is going to keep working. From local peasants being exploited by the warlords and kings in the middle ages, to the industrial conglomerate exploiting entire countries in the 20th century. What's next? Exploiting the poor asteroid miners? Is it just going to go on and on, ever expanding the cycle?
|
On September 22 2016 01:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 01:49 LegalLord wrote:On September 22 2016 01:27 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:19 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:02 LegalLord wrote:On September 22 2016 00:42 Gorsameth wrote:On September 22 2016 00:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 22 2016 00:04 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2016 12:48 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 21 2016 12:26 a_flayer wrote:
At this point, I'm sort of hoping Trump wins and tanks the US into such a deep pit of depression it no longer capable of projecting its power throughout the world. Can't wait to see what europe has to cut to fund having a millitary not propped up by the USA Nobody has any doubts that Germany could steamroll basically any country but the United States and China if it wanted to. That's basically why we keep US troops in Germany. It's not because we think Germany can't have a strong military, it's because the last 100 years have convinced us that Germany can't be allowed to have a strong military. It'd probably be fine if we relaxed on that one if we're honest, it's been 70 years, but the post war institutions were basically set up to establish a global American hegemony and the permanent occupation of Germany and Japan. They're not occupied because they're weak, they're occupied because they're great powers which rose too late to take their rightful place on the world stage in the 19th Century and acted out because of it in the 20th. If Trump really dissolved NATO (he won't anyway), the EU would have to finally get a coordinated army. The only reason it doesn't exist already is NATO. All the european armies put together would be easily the second force in the world. Europe has let them armies slide a lot in the last few decades. I would doubt that 2nd place at this point. Especially considering the level of cooperation required. But if the need arose (such as from a disbanded NATO) they have the economy and supply to quickly catch up in equipment (soldiers is a different problem). Look at the current resistance to a EU Army to see why it's not as simple as it would be for a single nation-state to just organize an army and to provide the infrastructure to make it happen. Besides, the end result would basically be replacing US (semi-)occupation with German (semi-)occupation. The strongest nation in the union will exert a disproportionate influence. And I'm sure plenty of countries could be less thrilled with the prospect of that outcome. I'm fairly certain it would be the same as it is now, except without America, and I never see any American soldiers now. Germany "occupying" Europe is a joke. France can pretty much match them in numbers. Every state would just have their own army, but they'd be coordinated together if the unthinkable should happen. And I really don't think there will be more wars in or around Europe, although I suppose things can definitely change over the next 25-50 years. At some point we're going to run out of oil. I imagine that's what America has been preparing for since they took over the Middle East after WW2. You know, in Civ5, when you have a defensive military alliance with another civilization, and you proceed to declare war on a 3rd party without going through your allied civ, the alliance is dissolved. I know that life isn't the same as Civ5, but I'd still like to uphold that rule in this case. Fucking cunts doing whatever they please on the world stage without repercussions. I don't want to condone it anymore by staying in a military alliance with these people who think that's a good idea. I thought it would be different when Obama got elected, but I suppose I was naive, and now there's Hillary and Trump on the horizon. Enough is enough, its time to move on. The United States is the primary force behind the peace and prosperity which is keeping life so awesome for the western world. European interests and American interests are naturally aligned to keep this good thing going. Disagreements about shit like Iraq is insignificant compared to agreements like upholding the rights of international investors, guaranteeing the freedom of the oceans and creating a system for the protection of intellectual property, not to mention preventing any serious war before it starts. Getting mad at the United States is like being mad at your parents for not letting you stay out late when you still get free room and board. Sure, you're pissed off but you probably also should have a think about what it'd feel like to be homeless and maybe get some perspective. The world is great for us but that doesn't mean that it was always going to be great or that it always would be great, it didn't happen by accident. Guess what you're saying is, it's good to be a colony of a big strong foreign nation. They ensure international trade, they fight your wars for you, and all you have to do is be a loyal puppy dog and pay your dues and align with their policy interests and the like. Which is a fair assessment to be sure, but also one that has historical precedent of a not-so-rosy variety. Western Europe is no colony. Western Europe set up a system of economic imperialism, along with direct colonization, which directed the majority of the world's resources towards Western Europe. The USA ended up taking over most of that game but we still have enough of a slice to be worthwhile. And the fact that the strongest power is a stakeholder in the same game as us means we all get to keep playing. British patents, overseas investments and finances are protected from seizure and nationalization by the same system that protects American ones. Hell, the CIA deposed the Iranian government on behalf of BP. We don't have to try to align our interests with the United States, they're naturally aligned. The disputes are small picture, the agreements are big picture.
US and Britain are historically pretty closely aligned; that much is true. This was true well before the US became the dominant partner in that relationship. Western Europe as a whole, even if you could treat it as a unified entity (not the case since every nation is very different from one another), not so much; many European nations are far less sympathetic to the US than the UK is.
|
On September 22 2016 02:04 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 01:45 Plansix wrote:
Ending "free trade" only means that regions that are developing will no longer have the means to develop using the current infrastructure. So they will either retool, serve themselves or implode. The second one is far more likely. And then we might get countries returning to the good, old fashion way of economic stimulus, gear up and declare war on your neighbor. To take a bit of an extreme counter-position on this: "Feeding the world American style, back up the investors with a military regime, then say its to keep the world free". It's right that you put "free trade" in quotations in the way that you did, I suppose. I haven't looked into it, but I wonder if China may actually be doing a better job in terms of genuinely investing. I haven't heard of them fucking around with regimes to get things done, at least. Granted, the backlash would probably be pretty harsh if they did. If only there was some way to deter other certain nations from installing regimes... But no, I'm obviously not saying end all trade and stop investing in poorer countries. There just need to be more of a conscious effort towards raising the living conditions of people who are not well off, and if the west needs to take a hit for that to happen, I am not opposed to that. I mean, KwarK was talking about how our time is valued much higher, but the other end of the coin says that we can't get jobs anymore because they're all being moved towards poorer countries. In essence, we are already beginning to feel the results of this aren't we? How much further does this need to go before we realize that this economic model we are using now is as unsustainable as it is to continue burning fossil fuels? It seems inevitable to me that it's all going to come crashing down in one way or another. I obviously can't predict what will happen exactly, as I'm about as poorly informed on economics as I am on climate change, but it seems incredibly obvious that we will run out of poor people to exploit... or will we become the poor people? I mean... am I just being retarded in this whole line of thinking, or what?
Yes. On a long enough time line capitalism will devalue labor to the point where it is no longer able to sustain a person or family. But that is a long way down the road and there are ways we can improve the plight the poor in our country without upending trade agreements. Taxing the wealthy and regulating banks to a level that makes sense so we don’t have the stuff that is happening with Wells Fargo for instance. Dealing with the fact that the wealthy of the US have increased their share of total wealth from 8% to + 20%. All of these are ways we can deal with the problem locally for us.
Nations like India and South Korea used to be sources of cheap labor for the US, but have moved into become their own developed countries. Other nations will move forward as well, simply because their people will demand it. It won’t be a clean process or one we will be comfortable with all the time, but it will happen. We are better off having business relationships with these nations than not having them and hopefully it works out for them in the long run.
|
On September 22 2016 02:04 a_flayer wrote:To take a bit of an extreme counter-position on this: "Feeding the world American style, back up the investors with a military regime, then say its to keep the world free". It's right that you put "free trade" in quotations in the way that you did, I suppose. ... + Show Spoiler +I haven't looked into it, but I wonder if China may actually be doing a better job in terms of genuinely investing. I haven't heard of them fucking around with regimes to get things done, at least. Granted, the backlash would probably be pretty harsh if they did. If only there was some way to deter other certain nations from installing regimes...
But no, I'm obviously not saying end all trade and stop investing in poorer countries. There just need to be more of a conscious effort towards raising the living conditions of people who are not well off, and if the west needs to take a hit for that to happen, I am not opposed to that.
I mean, KwarK was talking about how our time is valued much higher, but the other end of the coin says that we can't get jobs anymore because they're all being moved towards poorer countries. In essence, we are already beginning to feel the results of this aren't we? How much further does this need to go before we realize that this economic model we are using now is as unsustainable as it is to continue burning fossil fuels? It seems inevitable to me that it's all going to come crashing down in one way or another. I obviously can't predict what will happen exactly, as I'm about as poorly informed on economics as I am on climate change, but it seems incredibly obvious that we will run out of poor people to exploit... or will we become the poor people? I mean... am I just being retarded in this whole line of thinking, or what? What is the best move in the long term, meaning 50-100 years from now? I don't think this model is going to keep working. From local peasants being exploited by the warlords and kings in the middle ages, to the industrial conglomerate exploiting entire countries in the 20th century. What's next? Exploiting the poor asteroid miners? Is it just going to go on and on, ever expanding the cycle?
I guess you'll always have your classic hierarchy in a society where you'll need a main body of people doing alot of gruntwork, some kind of social assimilatory people (customer service, administration, interim, logistics, blablabla) and the cutting edge people that truly progress society (the higher educated and the rich). Where there used to be a certain class intranational, we can move a large portion of that internationally to a country to can use it (or wants to use it) to satisfy our consumption addiction. We're oversaturated and if we wouldn't like it (I'm generalizing here, I for example don't like this trend) we wouldn't be doing it.
|
On September 22 2016 01:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 01:37 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:36 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:31 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:27 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:19 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:02 LegalLord wrote:On September 22 2016 00:42 Gorsameth wrote:On September 22 2016 00:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 22 2016 00:04 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Nobody has any doubts that Germany could steamroll basically any country but the United States and China if it wanted to. That's basically why we keep US troops in Germany. It's not because we think Germany can't have a strong military, it's because the last 100 years have convinced us that Germany can't be allowed to have a strong military. It'd probably be fine if we relaxed on that one if we're honest, it's been 70 years, but the post war institutions were basically set up to establish a global American hegemony and the permanent occupation of Germany and Japan. They're not occupied because they're weak, they're occupied because they're great powers which rose too late to take their rightful place on the world stage in the 19th Century and acted out because of it in the 20th. If Trump really dissolved NATO (he won't anyway), the EU would have to finally get a coordinated army. The only reason it doesn't exist already is NATO. All the european armies put together would be easily the second force in the world. Europe has let them armies slide a lot in the last few decades. I would doubt that 2nd place at this point. Especially considering the level of cooperation required. But if the need arose (such as from a disbanded NATO) they have the economy and supply to quickly catch up in equipment (soldiers is a different problem). Look at the current resistance to a EU Army to see why it's not as simple as it would be for a single nation-state to just organize an army and to provide the infrastructure to make it happen. Besides, the end result would basically be replacing US (semi-)occupation with German (semi-)occupation. The strongest nation in the union will exert a disproportionate influence. And I'm sure plenty of countries could be less thrilled with the prospect of that outcome. I'm fairly certain it would be the same as it is now, except without America, and I never see any American soldiers now. Germany "occupying" Europe is a joke. France can pretty much match them in numbers. Every state would just have their own army, but they'd be coordinated together if the unthinkable should happen. And I really don't think there will be more wars in or around Europe, although I suppose things can definitely change over the next 25-50 years. At some point we're going to run out of oil. I imagine that's what America has been preparing for since they took over the Middle East after WW2. You know, in Civ5, when you have a defensive military alliance with another civilization, and you proceed to declare war on a 3rd party without going through your allied civ, the alliance is dissolved. I know that life isn't the same as Civ5, but I'd still like to uphold that rule in this case. Fucking cunts doing whatever they please on the world stage without repercussions. I don't want to condone it anymore by staying in a military alliance with these people who think that's a good idea. I thought it would be different when Obama got elected, but I suppose I was naive, and now there's Hillary and Trump on the horizon. Enough is enough, its time to move on. The United States is the primary force behind the peace and prosperity which is keeping life so awesome for the western world. European interests and American interests are naturally aligned to keep this good thing going. Disagreements about shit like Iraq is insignificant compared to agreements like upholding the rights of international investors, guaranteeing the freedom of the oceans and creating a system for the protection of intellectual property, not to mention preventing any serious war before it starts. Getting mad at the United States is like being mad at your parents for not letting you stay out late when you still get free room and board. Sure, you're pissed off but you probably also should have a think about what it'd feel like to be homeless and maybe get some perspective. The world is great for us but that doesn't mean that it was always going to be great or that it always would be great, it didn't happen by accident. The "rights of international investors" are troublesome to me. The far overreaching concept of "intellectual property" is also one where I have significant disagreements with the US. Do you not like the fact that your labour is massively overvalued compared to comparable effort expended on the other side of the globe? I think it's pretty fucking sweet that I can sit here and post on teamliquid while earning hundreds of times what people no less smart or capable than myself do in Bangladesh while they make shit for me. We've got a system set up where we extract resources from half the world and consume them in the other half and you were born in the right half. Don't fuck with that. ...You are very clearly laying out exactly what I think is wrong with the world at large in that respect. So no, I do not like it, and I will do my very best to fuck with it. Well at least your position makes sense then. There is no problem with wanting an end to US global hegemony if you also want an end to the peace, stability and prosperity that comes with it. My mistake was assuming you naively wanted an end to the global hegemony while keeping all of the benefits. Carry on.
Anyone who thinks that global capitalism is just in a minor rut before it resumes its glorious march to infinite growth under the same paradigms as the thirty glorious years (1945-1975) is operating purely on unfounded faith, disconnected from the evidence all around. We are clearly in a transition period to a new kind of capitalism. There's been a revolution in what value is. Value has entered the realm of the immaterial and is intricately tied up in production of knowledge through knowledge and production of living through the living. Attention is the new currency. Capitalism today is concerned with capturing free floating value produced through the externalities of networked brains in cooperation producing knowledge (see all of silicon valley). That is the only path forward. The 70s made clear both the limits of material productivism and the potentialities of value embodied in immaterial goods. Intellectual property regimes favored by the US (here meaning the current dominant lobbying groups) only serve to reduce the production of knowledge through knowledge by charging monopoly or near-monopoly rents on immaterial goods that cost essentially nothing to reproduce and make available. Access is everything, and the fenced walls that the American imperialists want to erect are both immoral (because they perpetuate oppressive monopoly relations) and self-destructive (because they inhibit and destroy the potential value of the externalities being created by networked brains in cooperation and being captured by the new form of capitalism). Many of the capitalists know this (i.e. google). And yet we still have people trotting out prosy Reaganite shibboleths about unending 5% growth.
|
United States43752 Posts
On September 22 2016 02:04 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 01:45 Plansix wrote:
Ending "free trade" only means that regions that are developing will no longer have the means to develop using the current infrastructure. So they will either retool, serve themselves or implode. The second one is far more likely. And then we might get countries returning to the good, old fashion way of economic stimulus, gear up and declare war on your neighbor. To take a bit of an extreme counter-position on this: "Feeding the world American style, back up the investors with a military regime, then say its to keep the world free". It's right that you put "free trade" in quotations in the way that you did, I suppose. I haven't looked into it, but I wonder if China may actually be doing a better job in terms of genuinely investing. I haven't heard of them fucking around with regimes to get things done, at least. Granted, the backlash would probably be pretty harsh if they did. If only there was some way to deter other certain nations from installing regimes... But no, I'm obviously not saying end all trade and stop investing in poorer countries. There just need to be more of a conscious effort towards raising the living conditions of people who are not well off, and if the west needs to take a hit for that to happen, I am not opposed to that. I mean, KwarK was talking about how our time is valued much higher, but the other end of the coin says that we can't get jobs anymore because they're all being moved towards poorer countries. In essence, we are already beginning to feel the results of this aren't we? How much further does this need to go before we realize that this economic model we are using now is as unsustainable as it is to continue burning fossil fuels? It seems inevitable to me that it's all going to come crashing down in one way or another. I obviously can't predict what will happen exactly, as I'm about as poorly informed on economics as I am on climate change, but it seems incredibly obvious that we will run out of poor people to exploit... or will we become the poor people? I mean... am I just being retarded in this whole line of thinking, or what?
We can't get jobs anymore because we're too rich and too privileged to work the kind of jobs on offer. That's the opposite of a problem. That's the natural result of leveraging technology. In the bad old days feeding yourself used to be a full time job for everyone. Thousands of years of selective breeding of animals and crops and it's a whole lot easier creates a surplus of labour that can be used for other things. Technology improves over time and suddenly we have people who can don't even need to do any feeding themselves and instead do other things which create value for those who feed them. We're now at the point where technology has leveraged productivity so much that I can buy a year's supply of bread for a single day's work. At that point if all I want to be happy is to have bread I might only work one day a year and voluntarily decline work the other 364.
This is the cause of outsourcing jobs. We just don't want them. We already have too much stuff and we'd rather not do those jobs anymore. For now some other people with less stuff than us will do those jobs but pretty soon they won't want to do them either and they'll get automated away. With the technological boom we're currently experiencing the wealth of the planet is increasing hugely, even poor areas are currently supporting ten times the population they used to at the same living standard as before (which is not to say that isn't a problem but it's not a problem of lack of resources, it's a problem caused by a surplus triggering a population boom).
As for running out of poor people to exploit, another way of phrasing that would be saying that all the poor people we're currently exploiting cease being poor and demand more money. Which isn't really a bad thing, if you think about it. As they start demanding more money western labour may become more comparatively competitive but there isn't any reason it can't be competitive today, it's just nobody wants to sew clothes together for a dollar a day. When the Bangladeshi sweat shop guys start demanding $10/hr plus benefits because they already have so much stuff that they're not going to sew clothes for less than that then those jobs might return. But they'll probably get automated and both we and the Bangladeshi guys can exploit that robotic labour.
Either way we already have a huge head start in the new means of production, capital. It used to be the landowners exploiting the serfs, then the industrialists exploiting the workers, now it'll be the owners of capital reaping a disproportionate share of the economic growth enjoyed by all. If Chinese kids get rich enough to stop making iphones and start buying iphones that absolutely is not going to present a problem for Apple shareholders. Production can be automated, consumption, not so much. The main threat is the same as it always was, the workers seizing the means of production. That used to be the serfs just killing the landowner and taking the land, then the workers seizing the factory, now it means the Chinese simply making iphones themselves and not paying Apple their cut. That's why the current system of protecting our investments and intellectual property is so important to us and that's why I view my own interests as aligned with those of the United States. Incidentally most of the exploited states agree, they'd rather ride the wave of prosperity and productivity up while being a lesser stakeholder in it than see it end. Poverty is relative, for the vast majority of the world things have never been so good and will only get better if the current trends continue.
|
On September 22 2016 02:16 IgnE wrote:
Intellectual property regimes favored by the US (here meaning the current dominant lobbying groups) only serve to reduce the production of knowledge through knowledge by charging monopoly or near-monopoly rents on immaterial goods that cost essentially nothing to reproduce and make available. Access is everything, and the fenced walls that the American imperialists want to erect are both immoral (because they perpetuate oppressive monopoly relations) and self-destructive (because they inhibit and destroy the potential value of the externalities being created by networked brains in cooperation and being captured by the new form of capitalism). Many of the capitalists know this (i.e. google). And yet we still have people trotting out prosy Reaganite shibboleths about unending 5% growth.
You're contradicting yourself here. If it's true that intellectual property schemes are destructive, than the US shouldn't be on the forefront of technological innovation and should have long been surpassed by nations that do not run such rigorous intellectual property schemes. Either virtual goods function similar to classical goods and then you can make the case that the US is exploiting their position, or they don't, but in that case the US wouldn't be where it is in the first place.
I'm all for open access when possible but intellectual property protection has its place in value creation.
|
On September 22 2016 02:23 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 02:16 IgnE wrote:
Intellectual property regimes favored by the US (here meaning the current dominant lobbying groups) only serve to reduce the production of knowledge through knowledge by charging monopoly or near-monopoly rents on immaterial goods that cost essentially nothing to reproduce and make available. Access is everything, and the fenced walls that the American imperialists want to erect are both immoral (because they perpetuate oppressive monopoly relations) and self-destructive (because they inhibit and destroy the potential value of the externalities being created by networked brains in cooperation and being captured by the new form of capitalism). Many of the capitalists know this (i.e. google). And yet we still have people trotting out prosy Reaganite shibboleths about unending 5% growth. You're contradicting yourself here. If it's true that intellectual property schemes are destructive, than the US shouldn't be on the forefront of technological innovation and should have long been surpassed by nations that do not run such rigorous intellectual property schemes. Either virtual goods function similar to classical goods and then you can make the case that the US is exploiting their position, or they don't, but in that case the US wouldn't be where it is in the first place. I'm all for open access when possible but intellectual property protection has its place in value creation.
Chicken and the egg argument over the value of intellectual property protectionism.
A lot of the US' technological advancement in the mid 20th century was due to brain drain from Europe during and following WWII, and many of the major advancements of the 70's-90's were from government or university projects, not commercial ventures (the internet, search engines, space travel, etc.).
There's actually been a lot of stagnation of US tech in the last decade and a half because of patent trolling and industry sponsored regulation.
|
United States43752 Posts
On September 22 2016 02:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:
There's actually been a lot of stagnation of US tech in the last decade and a half because of patent trolling and industry sponsored regulation.
Tell that to Moore's Law. By and large tech is still increasing exponentially.
|
What the US has for itself, is a very low risk aversion and thus spend a lot more than most countries in research.
|
On September 22 2016 02:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 02:04 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:45 Plansix wrote:
Ending "free trade" only means that regions that are developing will no longer have the means to develop using the current infrastructure. So they will either retool, serve themselves or implode. The second one is far more likely. And then we might get countries returning to the good, old fashion way of economic stimulus, gear up and declare war on your neighbor. To take a bit of an extreme counter-position on this: "Feeding the world American style, back up the investors with a military regime, then say its to keep the world free". It's right that you put "free trade" in quotations in the way that you did, I suppose. I haven't looked into it, but I wonder if China may actually be doing a better job in terms of genuinely investing. I haven't heard of them fucking around with regimes to get things done, at least. Granted, the backlash would probably be pretty harsh if they did. If only there was some way to deter other certain nations from installing regimes... But no, I'm obviously not saying end all trade and stop investing in poorer countries. There just need to be more of a conscious effort towards raising the living conditions of people who are not well off, and if the west needs to take a hit for that to happen, I am not opposed to that. I mean, KwarK was talking about how our time is valued much higher, but the other end of the coin says that we can't get jobs anymore because they're all being moved towards poorer countries. In essence, we are already beginning to feel the results of this aren't we? How much further does this need to go before we realize that this economic model we are using now is as unsustainable as it is to continue burning fossil fuels? It seems inevitable to me that it's all going to come crashing down in one way or another. I obviously can't predict what will happen exactly, as I'm about as poorly informed on economics as I am on climate change, but it seems incredibly obvious that we will run out of poor people to exploit... or will we become the poor people? I mean... am I just being retarded in this whole line of thinking, or what? We can't get jobs anymore because we're too rich and too privileged to work the kind of jobs on offer. That's the opposite of a problem. That's the natural result of leveraging technology. In the bad old days feeding yourself used to be a full time job for everyone. Thousands of years of selective breeding of animals and crops and it's a whole lot easier creates a surplus of labour that can be used for other things. Technology improves over time and suddenly we have people who can don't even need to do any feeding themselves and instead do other things which create value for those who feed them. We're now at the point where technology has leveraged productivity so much that I can buy a year's supply of bread for a single day's work. At that point if all I want to be happy is to have bread I might only work one day a year and voluntarily decline work the other 364. This is the cause of outsourcing jobs. We just don't want them. We already have too much stuff and we'd rather not do those jobs anymore. For now some other people with less stuff than us will do those jobs but pretty soon they won't want to do them either and they'll get automated away. With the technological boom we're currently experiencing the wealth of the planet is increasing hugely, even poor areas are currently supporting ten times the population they used to at the same living standard as before (which is not to say that isn't a problem but it's not a problem of lack of resources, it's a problem caused by a surplus triggering a population boom). As for running out of poor people to exploit, another way of phrasing that would be saying that all the poor people we're currently exploiting cease being poor and demand more money. Which isn't really a bad thing, if you think about it. But we already have a huge head start in the new means of production, capital. It used to be the landowners exploiting the serfs, then the industrialists exploiting the workers, now it'll be the owners of capital reaping a disproportionate share of the economic growth enjoyed by all. If Chinese kids get rich enough to stop making iphones and start buying iphones that absolutely is not going to present a problem for Apple shareholders. Production can be automated, consumption, not so much. Basically we're going to be fine.
That is certainly a positive view of the future that I'd like to share with you, but it requires investments that I feel are not being made. Instead, people sit on their big wads of money buying rooms of gold (gold that could be used for something useful instead, for fucks sake), and existing mega-corporations sit on their patents while urging lawmakers to help prevent innovation as much as possible because it might compete with them. I suppose it (improved global equality) will come with time... but I'm still worried about the hypothetical/metaphorical asteroid miners of the future.
Maybe we can make an example of true environmental and economic sustainability on Mars.
Also, this is something that I think I failed to mention properly as a counter-argument to the "peace stability and prosperity" argument, although we did conveniently pretty much neglect to mention regions other than the West in our earlier discussion:
On September 22 2016 02:45 raga4ka wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 01:41 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:37 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:36 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:31 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:27 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:19 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:02 LegalLord wrote:On September 22 2016 00:42 Gorsameth wrote:On September 22 2016 00:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
If Trump really dissolved NATO (he won't anyway), the EU would have to finally get a coordinated army. The only reason it doesn't exist already is NATO.
All the european armies put together would be easily the second force in the world. Europe has let them armies slide a lot in the last few decades. I would doubt that 2nd place at this point. Especially considering the level of cooperation required. But if the need arose (such as from a disbanded NATO) they have the economy and supply to quickly catch up in equipment (soldiers is a different problem). Look at the current resistance to a EU Army to see why it's not as simple as it would be for a single nation-state to just organize an army and to provide the infrastructure to make it happen. Besides, the end result would basically be replacing US (semi-)occupation with German (semi-)occupation. The strongest nation in the union will exert a disproportionate influence. And I'm sure plenty of countries could be less thrilled with the prospect of that outcome. I'm fairly certain it would be the same as it is now, except without America, and I never see any American soldiers now. Germany "occupying" Europe is a joke. France can pretty much match them in numbers. Every state would just have their own army, but they'd be coordinated together if the unthinkable should happen. And I really don't think there will be more wars in or around Europe, although I suppose things can definitely change over the next 25-50 years. At some point we're going to run out of oil. I imagine that's what America has been preparing for since they took over the Middle East after WW2. You know, in Civ5, when you have a defensive military alliance with another civilization, and you proceed to declare war on a 3rd party without going through your allied civ, the alliance is dissolved. I know that life isn't the same as Civ5, but I'd still like to uphold that rule in this case. Fucking cunts doing whatever they please on the world stage without repercussions. I don't want to condone it anymore by staying in a military alliance with these people who think that's a good idea. I thought it would be different when Obama got elected, but I suppose I was naive, and now there's Hillary and Trump on the horizon. Enough is enough, its time to move on. The United States is the primary force behind the peace and prosperity which is keeping life so awesome for the western world. European interests and American interests are naturally aligned to keep this good thing going. Disagreements about shit like Iraq is insignificant compared to agreements like upholding the rights of international investors, guaranteeing the freedom of the oceans and creating a system for the protection of intellectual property, not to mention preventing any serious war before it starts. Getting mad at the United States is like being mad at your parents for not letting you stay out late when you still get free room and board. Sure, you're pissed off but you probably also should have a think about what it'd feel like to be homeless and maybe get some perspective. The world is great for us but that doesn't mean that it was always going to be great or that it always would be great, it didn't happen by accident. The "rights of international investors" are troublesome to me. The far overreaching concept of "intellectual property" is also one where I have significant disagreements with the US. Do you not like the fact that your labour is massively overvalued compared to comparable effort expended on the other side of the globe? I think it's pretty fucking sweet that I can sit here and post on teamliquid while earning hundreds of times what people no less smart or capable than myself do in Bangladesh while they make shit for me. We've got a system set up where we extract resources from half the world and consume them in the other half and you were born in the right half. Don't fuck with that. ...You are very clearly laying out exactly what I think is wrong with the world at large in that respect. So no, I do not like it, and I will do my very best to fuck with it. Well at least your position makes sense then. There is no problem with wanting an end to US global hegemony if you also want an end to the peace, stability and prosperity that comes with it. My mistake was assuming you naively wanted an end to the global hegemony while keeping all of the benefits. Carry on. People in most countries are just happy to be alive, without war. While we here are arguing how you have to work more for a living, while turning a blind eye for every innocent human dying for "our" convenience. Afganistan, Yugoslavia, Lybia, Iraq, and Syria and probably some other countries as well that I forgot, tell them how US brings peace, stability and prosperity. I personally don't mind NATO if it's used to protect our Sovereignty, but right now it's just an instrument to demolish and steal from weak countries, just so the wealthy can become wealthier. It's an offensive alliance, always has been.
|
On September 22 2016 02:23 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 02:16 IgnE wrote:
Intellectual property regimes favored by the US (here meaning the current dominant lobbying groups) only serve to reduce the production of knowledge through knowledge by charging monopoly or near-monopoly rents on immaterial goods that cost essentially nothing to reproduce and make available. Access is everything, and the fenced walls that the American imperialists want to erect are both immoral (because they perpetuate oppressive monopoly relations) and self-destructive (because they inhibit and destroy the potential value of the externalities being created by networked brains in cooperation and being captured by the new form of capitalism). Many of the capitalists know this (i.e. google). And yet we still have people trotting out prosy Reaganite shibboleths about unending 5% growth. You're contradicting yourself here. If it's true that intellectual property schemes are destructive, than the US shouldn't be on the forefront of technological innovation and should have long been surpassed by nations that do not run such rigorous intellectual property schemes. Either virtual goods function similar to classical goods and then you can make the case that the US is exploiting their position, or they don't, but in that case the US wouldn't be where it is in the first place. I'm all for open access when possible but intellectual property protection has its place in value creation.
No I'm not. The value produced via externalities in knowledge production is orders of magnitude greater than the direct value of the immaterial good. By trying to capture value only through direct consumer transactions and restricting access to knowledge goods you are able to collect a monopoly rent on the primary good but you are killing off the massive value that is generated via the knowledge produced by brains in cooperation with access to said goods.
If you prefer, I will use metaphor. Imagine honey as the primary, consumer good. Bee hives are the producers of honey. Bees also create massive value through their pollination activity. That value is external to the production of the primary good, and yet is worth many many times more than the good itself. If you kill off the pollination activity (i.e. you restrict access to knowledge that brains need to produce knowledge through knowledge) you are killing off all of that value.
|
And to this almost all white audience, Trump explains that the black community is the worst shape ever. It's inclear if he is including about before the civil rights movement. Or slavery.
Also the data doesn't back that up.
|
On September 22 2016 02:38 WhiteDog wrote:
What the US has for itself, is a very low risk aversion and thus spend a lot more than most countries in research.
Also a substantially larger military budget which, for all its faults, does lend itself quite consistently to high-tech work and giving rise to technological communities like Silicon Valley.
|
On September 22 2016 02:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 02:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:
There's actually been a lot of stagnation of US tech in the last decade and a half because of patent trolling and industry sponsored regulation. Tell that to Moore's Law. By and large tech is still increasing exponentially.
Oh god, please. You want to kill off all the bees, Kwark. You are ruining capitalism.
|
On September 22 2016 01:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 01:37 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:36 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:31 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:27 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:19 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:02 LegalLord wrote:On September 22 2016 00:42 Gorsameth wrote:On September 22 2016 00:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 22 2016 00:04 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Nobody has any doubts that Germany could steamroll basically any country but the United States and China if it wanted to. That's basically why we keep US troops in Germany. It's not because we think Germany can't have a strong military, it's because the last 100 years have convinced us that Germany can't be allowed to have a strong military. It'd probably be fine if we relaxed on that one if we're honest, it's been 70 years, but the post war institutions were basically set up to establish a global American hegemony and the permanent occupation of Germany and Japan. They're not occupied because they're weak, they're occupied because they're great powers which rose too late to take their rightful place on the world stage in the 19th Century and acted out because of it in the 20th. If Trump really dissolved NATO (he won't anyway), the EU would have to finally get a coordinated army. The only reason it doesn't exist already is NATO. All the european armies put together would be easily the second force in the world. Europe has let them armies slide a lot in the last few decades. I would doubt that 2nd place at this point. Especially considering the level of cooperation required. But if the need arose (such as from a disbanded NATO) they have the economy and supply to quickly catch up in equipment (soldiers is a different problem). Look at the current resistance to a EU Army to see why it's not as simple as it would be for a single nation-state to just organize an army and to provide the infrastructure to make it happen. Besides, the end result would basically be replacing US (semi-)occupation with German (semi-)occupation. The strongest nation in the union will exert a disproportionate influence. And I'm sure plenty of countries could be less thrilled with the prospect of that outcome. I'm fairly certain it would be the same as it is now, except without America, and I never see any American soldiers now. Germany "occupying" Europe is a joke. France can pretty much match them in numbers. Every state would just have their own army, but they'd be coordinated together if the unthinkable should happen. And I really don't think there will be more wars in or around Europe, although I suppose things can definitely change over the next 25-50 years. At some point we're going to run out of oil. I imagine that's what America has been preparing for since they took over the Middle East after WW2. You know, in Civ5, when you have a defensive military alliance with another civilization, and you proceed to declare war on a 3rd party without going through your allied civ, the alliance is dissolved. I know that life isn't the same as Civ5, but I'd still like to uphold that rule in this case. Fucking cunts doing whatever they please on the world stage without repercussions. I don't want to condone it anymore by staying in a military alliance with these people who think that's a good idea. I thought it would be different when Obama got elected, but I suppose I was naive, and now there's Hillary and Trump on the horizon. Enough is enough, its time to move on. The United States is the primary force behind the peace and prosperity which is keeping life so awesome for the western world. European interests and American interests are naturally aligned to keep this good thing going. Disagreements about shit like Iraq is insignificant compared to agreements like upholding the rights of international investors, guaranteeing the freedom of the oceans and creating a system for the protection of intellectual property, not to mention preventing any serious war before it starts. Getting mad at the United States is like being mad at your parents for not letting you stay out late when you still get free room and board. Sure, you're pissed off but you probably also should have a think about what it'd feel like to be homeless and maybe get some perspective. The world is great for us but that doesn't mean that it was always going to be great or that it always would be great, it didn't happen by accident. The "rights of international investors" are troublesome to me. The far overreaching concept of "intellectual property" is also one where I have significant disagreements with the US. Do you not like the fact that your labour is massively overvalued compared to comparable effort expended on the other side of the globe? I think it's pretty fucking sweet that I can sit here and post on teamliquid while earning hundreds of times what people no less smart or capable than myself do in Bangladesh while they make shit for me. We've got a system set up where we extract resources from half the world and consume them in the other half and you were born in the right half. Don't fuck with that. ...You are very clearly laying out exactly what I think is wrong with the world at large in that respect. So no, I do not like it, and I will do my very best to fuck with it. Well at least your position makes sense then. There is no problem with wanting an end to US global hegemony if you also want an end to the peace, stability and prosperity that comes with it. My mistake was assuming you naively wanted an end to the global hegemony while keeping all of the benefits. Carry on.
People in most countries are just happy to be alive, without war. While we here are arguing how you have to work more for a living, while turning a blind eye for every innocent human dying for "our" convenience. Afganistan, Yugoslavia, Lybia, Iraq, and Syria and probably some other countries as well that I forgot, tell them how US brings peace, stability and prosperity.
I personally don't mind NATO if it's used to protect our Sovereignty, but right now it's just an instrument to demolish and steal from weak countries, just so the wealthy can become wealthier. It's an offensive alliance, always has been.
|
I am in favor of Trump spending more time trying to win black voters.
|
United States43752 Posts
On September 22 2016 02:44 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 02:37 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 02:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:
There's actually been a lot of stagnation of US tech in the last decade and a half because of patent trolling and industry sponsored regulation. Tell that to Moore's Law. By and large tech is still increasing exponentially. Oh god, please. You want to kill off all the bees, Kwark. You are ruining capitalism.
What have the bees ever done for us? I mean aqueducts obviously. And wine. But excluding that, what have the bees ever done for us?
|
On September 22 2016 02:43 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/brandonenglish/status/778633460239912967And to this almost all white audience, Trump explains that the black community is the worst shape ever. It's inclear if he is including about before the civil rights movement. Or slavery. Also the data doesn't back that up.
There's a bunch of excited replies about one black guy.
Though seriously, I assume that this is a black church because this is outreach to the black community, so where'd all the white people come from?
|
On September 22 2016 02:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 02:44 IgnE wrote:On September 22 2016 02:37 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 02:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:
There's actually been a lot of stagnation of US tech in the last decade and a half because of patent trolling and industry sponsored regulation. Tell that to Moore's Law. By and large tech is still increasing exponentially. Oh god, please. You want to kill off all the bees, Kwark. You are ruining capitalism. What have the bees ever done for us? I mean aqueducts obviously. And wine. But excluding that, what have the bees ever done for us?
Other than act as the source of value I guess nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
