|
On May 07 2012 14:52 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Yes. But the underlying principle is the same whether it is using pigs or using finance to make a living.
You laugh and are derisive at that towards which you don't have even the most basic understanding.
No, it's really really really not. things are very different between an advanced capitalist economy and pre-industrial animal husbandry. I can't believe you think they are basically the same thing.
Look, I've been doing a lot of research into political economy recently, so I do have a basic understanding of what I'm talking about. I have a great appreciation for what capitalism does, and I understand how markets work. What makes you think I don't have "the most basic understanding?" Because I'm not a neoliberal like you? Nice.
But you're an ideologue and not very much fun to talk to. Just insults and magical market fetishism.
|
next time you post, can you include occupation or what you're studying? seems to me many of you are biased, clinging to the ideology you lived by all your life.
this quote seems relevant :
The Matrix is a system. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.
|
On May 07 2012 14:52 DeepElemBlues wrote:
No I'm not from anywhere within 1500 miles of Dallas, are you from a geographic location that I associate prejudiced stereotypes with? Oh, you poor rube, you're from that place where I think everyone is a moron, how sad and funny to be you. From that place. With all the morons. Because they're from that place. Where you're from. How clever!
No, it's because your handle is named after a Dallas landmark. Just curious. I grew up there.
edit: well, "landmark" is probably not the right word.
edit: also, I have to ask, do you normally make friends when you talk to people like this?
|
On May 07 2012 14:25 xeo1 wrote:
Poll and additional info added.
Thanks for the completely one sided info...
|
On May 07 2012 15:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Thanks for the completely one sided info...
send me your info, I'll include it
|
On May 07 2012 12:57 sam!zdat wrote:
Nationalization of financial institutions is part of the platform in the Manifesto; there seems to be something to this but I haven't thought through all the consequences yet. Finance as we know it now is an abomination. (my republican friend agrees with me on this one)
An abomination? That's a fashionable thing to say but a bit harsh. It has issues (as everything does) but it's also been scapegoated pretty heavily.
What don't you like about finance?
|
No, it's really really really not. things are very different between an advanced capitalist economy and pre-industrial animal husbandry. I can't believe you think they are basically the same thing.
Let's try this again. Because no matter how many reallys you put one after the other, they are at a very basic level the same thing.
I am a seller of pigs, whole pigs alive, whole pigs dead, dead pig parts. Pigs are my resource.
I find a new reason for people to buy my pigs. Some part of the pig that people didn't eat before, I decide to market as being tasty and generally good to eat. People like this new reason I have devised for them to buy my pigs. I sell more pigs than other pig sellers.
Or I don't, and some other pig seller does. I sell less pigs.
I am a global financier or what have you. Money is my resource. I come up with a new way to use that money to make more money. People like this new way and give me more money to use in this new way. I make more money than other global financiers.
Or I don't, and some other financier does, and I get less money.
Now that is if it is a good idea. If I have this idea for either pigs or money and it does not work, I sell less pigs / get less money. Maybe it is so bad that my losses preclude me from either obtaining pigs or money for finance anymore.
That is the similarity between the two. So you can believe that the two are inherently different, they are not, at the most basic level. You don't have to deny this to maintain your position that there are in fact great differences, and more germane differences that exist between the two, because there are.
Look, I've been doing a lot of research into political economy recently, so I do have a basic understanding of what I'm talking about. I have a great appreciation for what capitalism does, and I understand how markets work. What makes you think I don't have "the most basic understanding?" Because I'm not a neoliberal like you? Nice.
If you don't understand the most basic idea of market competition, you don't really understand anything. Everything else is skewed if the foundation is off.
But you're an ideologue and not very much fun to talk to. Just insults and magical market fetishism.
Projection is a funny thing.
edit: also, I have to ask, do you normally make friends when you talk to people like this?
Do you commonly have people respond to you warmly when you mock and laugh at them?
|
On May 07 2012 15:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 12:57 sam!zdat wrote:
Nationalization of financial institutions is part of the platform in the Manifesto; there seems to be something to this but I haven't thought through all the consequences yet. Finance as we know it now is an abomination. (my republican friend agrees with me on this one)
An abomination? That's a fashionable thing to say but a bit harsh. It has issues (as everything does) but it's also been scapegoated pretty heavily. What don't you like about finance?
Drastic inequality in a society is not healthy for its culture. Capitalists don't contribute nearly as much value to society in proportion to their compensation; they encourage actively negative activity like degradation of environment and generation of consumer waste, planned obsolescence, outright fraud...
What would you like about finance? We don't need it. Most of it's an illusion anyway, just moving numbers around. That's not helping anybody lead a better life.
Very strong tendency toward monopolization. There are really a whole host of issues; I don't have a sound bite that encapsulates everything wrong with finance capital.
|
|
|
On May 07 2012 15:09 DeepElemBlues wrote:
If you don't understand the most basic idea of market competition, you don't really understand anything. Everything else is skewed if the foundation is off.
Why do you think I don't understand your little story about the pigs?
I understand what competition is.
|
On May 07 2012 15:09 DeepElemBlues wrote:
I am a global financier or what have you. Money is my resource. I come up with a new way to use that money to make more money. People like this new way and give me more money to use in this new way. I make more money than other global financiers.
Or I don't, and some other financier does, and I get less money.
...
Do you commonly have people respond to you warmly when you mock and laugh at them?
I'm sorry that I mocked you. But if that is your entire conception of what finance capital is about then.... well...
I guess I should recuse myself from this conversation.
|
We go back to Ayn Rand. It is actually to difficult to limit this issue as merely one of money and value. It is not impossible per se, but as Rand notes, the main problem is that there is no viable economic/political structure that could generate the same social movement while taking into account individual eccentricities of the people. It's easy to confuse this as an issue on incentive, but Rand was really distrusting of the nature of man, and would like to give it as much latency as possible, and effectively eliminate any form of non-material form of exchange.
|
Money is just a tool. Simply getting rid of money doesn't solve any problems.
|
On May 07 2012 15:14 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 15:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 12:57 sam!zdat wrote:
Nationalization of financial institutions is part of the platform in the Manifesto; there seems to be something to this but I haven't thought through all the consequences yet. Finance as we know it now is an abomination. (my republican friend agrees with me on this one)
An abomination? That's a fashionable thing to say but a bit harsh. It has issues (as everything does) but it's also been scapegoated pretty heavily. What don't you like about finance? Drastic inequality in a society is not healthy for its culture. Capitalists don't contribute nearly as much value to society in proportion to their compensation; they encourage actively negative activity like degradation of environment and generation of consumer waste, planned obsolescence, outright fraud... What would you like about finance? We don't need it. Most of it's an illusion anyway, just moving numbers around. That's not helping anybody lead a better life. Very strong tendency toward monopolization. There are really a whole host of issues; I don't have a sound bite that encapsulates everything wrong with finance capital.
At its core the financial industry links borrowers to savers and allocates savers' money as efficiently as possible. So we need it as long as individuals can't do it themselves.
Without loans its hard to buy a house or start a business. Conversely those loans provide savers with a source of income.
|
Why do you think I don't understand your little story about the pigs?
I understand what competition is.
Then why did you insist on saying what BluePanther said was wrong? Because that's all he described. Competition.
Drastic inequality in a society is not healthy for its culture.
Good thing capitalist countries don't have that then, isn't it?
Capitalists don't contribute nearly as much value to society in proportion to their compensation;
That's incorrect.
they encourage actively negative activity like degradation of environment and generation of consumer waste, planned obsolescence, outright fraud...
No, they don't encourage degradation of environment or generation of consumer waste, or in the vast majority of products, planned obsolescence (and there are different kinds of planned obsolescence, some are actually good), or outright fraud. That's just rhetoric.
What would you like about finance? We don't need it. Most of it's an illusion anyway, just moving numbers around. That's not helping anybody lead a better life.
That's just nonsense. Finance capital when it works helps the common man get that which he could never otherwise afford. You think the middle class could afford to buy both a house and a car and televisions and other appliances without finance capital? You think businesses could afford to buy equipment and goods, and pay employees without it? Even the largest corporations need loans and their stock and bond issues being bought and such from time to time to pay for the things they need to offer goods and services. For any business but the largest corporations they need financing all the time to stay afloat.
Very strong tendency toward monopolization. There are really a whole host of issues; I don't have a sound bite that encapsulates everything wrong with finance capital.
No it doesn't in and of itself. Go look at the history of finance and you'll see that monopolization started when the government became the gatekeeper and a player in the finance market itself, ironically as a protection against monopolization and abuses. It's very much easier to pinch your competitors out if you can get the government to first be able to hand out favor and then to act as a subsidizer or an ally to your particular enterprise.
|
On May 07 2012 15:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 15:14 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 15:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 12:57 sam!zdat wrote:
Nationalization of financial institutions is part of the platform in the Manifesto; there seems to be something to this but I haven't thought through all the consequences yet. Finance as we know it now is an abomination. (my republican friend agrees with me on this one)
An abomination? That's a fashionable thing to say but a bit harsh. It has issues (as everything does) but it's also been scapegoated pretty heavily. What don't you like about finance? Drastic inequality in a society is not healthy for its culture. Capitalists don't contribute nearly as much value to society in proportion to their compensation; they encourage actively negative activity like degradation of environment and generation of consumer waste, planned obsolescence, outright fraud... What would you like about finance? We don't need it. Most of it's an illusion anyway, just moving numbers around. That's not helping anybody lead a better life. Very strong tendency toward monopolization. There are really a whole host of issues; I don't have a sound bite that encapsulates everything wrong with finance capital. At its core the financial industry links borrowers to savers and allocates savers' money as efficiently as possible. So we need it as long as individuals can't do it themselves. Without loans its hard to buy a house or start a business. Conversely those loans provide savers with a source of income.
Yup, I understand this.
I haven't learned enough yet to give a coherent critique of finance. My starting point for this is elsewhere.
The main problem is that when you have capital with no obvious new markets to invest in, capital is forced to create new markets. A lot of these new markets are just artificial demand, because media is very powerful (and controlled by capital) and convinces people they need to buy things to be happy. So we end up doing a lot of unnecessary things, fighting wars for oil and to preserve economic hegemony, etc.
|
On May 07 2012 15:26 DeepElemBlues wrote:Good thing capitalist countries don't have that then, isn't it?
Seriously?
|
On May 07 2012 15:14 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 15:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 12:57 sam!zdat wrote:
Nationalization of financial institutions is part of the platform in the Manifesto; there seems to be something to this but I haven't thought through all the consequences yet. Finance as we know it now is an abomination. (my republican friend agrees with me on this one)
An abomination? That's a fashionable thing to say but a bit harsh. It has issues (as everything does) but it's also been scapegoated pretty heavily. What don't you like about finance? Drastic inequality in a society is not healthy for its culture. Capitalists don't contribute nearly as much value to society in proportion to their compensation; they encourage actively negative activity like degradation of environment and generation of consumer waste, planned obsolescence, outright fraud...
Inequality creates incentive for people to work hard and create good things for the world. If you couldn't be rewarded for being good at something then much of the activities we enjoy in the world (including competitive starcraft) would fall apart. As for destruction of the environment and consumer waste, the consumers (people like you and me) are just as responsible for that as the corporations are. We create the demand that fuels them. And as for fraud, there is crime in all areas of society. Unfortunately, it seems like the rich people get away with it more often, which I dislike just as much as you do. That doesn't really change how I look upon Capitalism though.
What would you like about finance? We don't need it. Most of it's an illusion anyway, just moving numbers around. That's not helping anybody lead a better life.
Ummmm. Lending people money, spending on credit, mortgages... They are all very practical and useful things. Hardly "just moving numbers around". They have definitely helped me live a better life. Doing away with it would send us back to the stone age (not literally of course, that was a hyperbole).
Very strong tendency toward monopolization. There are really a whole host of issues; I don't have a sound bite that encapsulates everything wrong with finance capital.
I don't see much monopolization right now in finance. There are so many competing firms. Although, there is only one central bank. So that is a monopoly, but its one created by the government.
|
On May 07 2012 15:14 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 15:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 12:57 sam!zdat wrote:
Nationalization of financial institutions is part of the platform in the Manifesto; there seems to be something to this but I haven't thought through all the consequences yet. Finance as we know it now is an abomination. (my republican friend agrees with me on this one)
An abomination? That's a fashionable thing to say but a bit harsh. It has issues (as everything does) but it's also been scapegoated pretty heavily. What don't you like about finance? Drastic inequality in a society is not healthy for its culture. Capitalists don't contribute nearly as much value to society in proportion to their compensation; they encourage actively negative activity like degradation of environment and generation of consumer waste, planned obsolescence, outright fraud... What would you like about finance? We don't need it. Most of it's an illusion anyway, just moving numbers around. That's not helping anybody lead a better life. Very strong tendency toward monopolization. There are really a whole host of issues; I don't have a sound bite that encapsulates everything wrong with finance capital.
I think you deride finance as "imaginary" because you don't really understand what it accomplishes, how it works, or why it works. Finance makes trade incredibly more efficient, and there is a lot of money to be made for that reason.
Part of your problem is that you are substituting personal feelings towards what "culture" is or should be, and equating it to capitalism. This is inherently flawed.
You're not wrong in saying that extreme social inequality causes problems... but that's not what anyone is discussing, nor is it relevant. You can have a capitalist system that is regulated -- anti-monopoly rules is one good example. The idea that removing every single inefficiency from an economy through capitalism creates a higher standard of living is untrue. We could all work 12 hour days in slave labor... our productivity and aggregate wealth would leap, but our quality of life would likely suck.
This all goes back to transparency though. In capitalism, we each get to choose what is worth it to us and what isn't worth it to us. Is the effort of a 12 hour day worth more physical goods? For most of us, it is not. But the key part is that we make that decision for ourselves in a capitalistic system. By doing so, we can hit an equilibrium of what is worth it and what isn't -- a balance between economic efficiency (our creation of wealth) and waste (leisure).
|
On May 07 2012 15:26 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 15:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 15:14 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 15:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 12:57 sam!zdat wrote:
Nationalization of financial institutions is part of the platform in the Manifesto; there seems to be something to this but I haven't thought through all the consequences yet. Finance as we know it now is an abomination. (my republican friend agrees with me on this one)
An abomination? That's a fashionable thing to say but a bit harsh. It has issues (as everything does) but it's also been scapegoated pretty heavily. What don't you like about finance? Drastic inequality in a society is not healthy for its culture. Capitalists don't contribute nearly as much value to society in proportion to their compensation; they encourage actively negative activity like degradation of environment and generation of consumer waste, planned obsolescence, outright fraud... What would you like about finance? We don't need it. Most of it's an illusion anyway, just moving numbers around. That's not helping anybody lead a better life. Very strong tendency toward monopolization. There are really a whole host of issues; I don't have a sound bite that encapsulates everything wrong with finance capital. At its core the financial industry links borrowers to savers and allocates savers' money as efficiently as possible. So we need it as long as individuals can't do it themselves. Without loans its hard to buy a house or start a business. Conversely those loans provide savers with a source of income. Yup, I understand this. I haven't learned enough yet to give a coherent critique of finance. My starting point for this is elsewhere. The main problem is that when you have capital with no obvious new markets to invest in, capital is forced to create new markets. A lot of these new markets are just artificial demand, because media is very powerful (and controlled by capital) and convinces people they need to buy things to be happy. So we end up doing a lot of unnecessary things, fighting wars for oil and to preserve economic hegemony, etc.
Capital is an investment into something that is used towards production. By capital I believe you mean money.
Bottom line is that this project doesn't take into account a fundamental law of economics. We have to make choices between things because resources are scarse. There is not enough shit to go around. That is why money is important, to help allocate the shit we consume.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
