EPTWe have shopping chains, gas stations, apple, amazon, healthcare and internet in Germany too, and they manage to survive here. (I am a bit shocked how many of those top ten are healthcare in the US, though)
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1730
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11338 Posts
We have shopping chains, gas stations, apple, amazon, healthcare and internet in Germany too, and they manage to survive here. (I am a bit shocked how many of those top ten are healthcare in the US, though) | ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
On August 02 2019 05:05 Simberto wrote: Dunno, I think the only companies that would have long-term major problems would be banks and credit institutions. Short term, sure, there is a problem if everyone suddenly becomes responsible. Because people will stop spending money they don't have to pay of debt. Over a period of a few years, people who don't go into absurd debt will buy more stuff, because they have more money, because they pay less money to the banks. We have shopping chains, gas stations, apple, amazon, healthcare and internet in Germany too, and they manage to survive here. (I am a bit shocked how many of those top ten are healthcare in the US, though) Don't forget the automotive industry, which not only builds lending into its model, it also relies heavily on buy here/pay here dealers, who in turn feed predatory lending institutions that are all too happy to issue 20%+ loans to obvious credit risks while knowing that those folks will probably churn the negative equity that builds for years to come. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On August 02 2019 04:52 GreenHorizons wrote: Capitalism, especially US business, is sorta dependent on "financial idiots" to Kwarks point. All of the most successful companies in the US are practically dependent on irrational/self-destructive consumers. + Show Spoiler + The Top 10 1 Walmart 2 Exxon Mobil 3 Apple 4 Berkshire Hathaway 5 Amazon.com 6 UnitedHealth Group 7 McKesson 8 CVS Health 9 AT&T 10 AmerisourceBergen More financially literate/resource aware consumers would devastate all of their bottom lines. I don’t think you are quite right about this. Walmart and Amazon have supply chains that contract with individual producers to sell in/on their stores/platforms. If stuff doesn’t sell they just stop buying it. And if you are honest about it, Amazon and Walmart offer a lot of goods at very cheap price points. It makes sense to shop there for the financially literate. Other companies on that list are either neutral or orthogonal to financial literacy. ATT is a pseudomonopoly that offers a required utility. CVS health is a basic needs provider. Nobody looks to burn excess income there, and if you are in debt because of overspending at CVS you’ve got bigger issues. Even if you are right that an overall reduction in demand would shock the economy, I don’t think it makes sense to provide the list of top ten companies like you did and say they are the ones responsible for what is otherwise a necessary condition in the accumulation of capital. When Rosa Luxemburg was writing 100 years ago about Capital’s need to find new markets in order to sustain itself, the emphasis wasn’t on the business model of the leading profiteers — there’s an inherent governing dynamic that selects successful companies through economic pressures. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
Edit: And household good rental outlets. Those fuckers and their blanket loan arrangements are truly sinister. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22724 Posts
On August 02 2019 05:05 Simberto wrote: Dunno, I think the only companies that would have long-term major problems would be banks and credit institutions. Short term, sure, there is a problem if everyone suddenly becomes responsible. Because people will stop spending money they don't have to pay of debt. Over a period of a few years, people who don't go into absurd debt will buy more stuff, because they have more money, because they pay less money to the banks. We have shopping chains, gas stations, apple, amazon, healthcare and internet in Germany too, and they manage to survive here. (I am a bit shocked how many of those top ten are healthcare in the US, though) You're still capitalist in Germany. I suppose I may be assigning a level of competence beyond what you guys are and presuming it would include not buying themselves into climate oblivion as well. | ||
Falling
Canada11279 Posts
On August 02 2019 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote: I think you're missing the point that if most consumers behaved like the "financially literate (or whatever)" the economy as we know it would collapse. The "dumb" individuals are a desired result, not a problem from businesses/economic elites (short term) perspective. It's not 'or whatever'. It is. Don't get caught up on the dumb language- anyone can be stupid with money and then turn around and be smart about it. It's an action, not an intrinsic state of being that one is born into. It doesn't matter what a desired result is. Individuals are not making their poor financial decisions for the good of Greater Capitalism. That isn't their motivation. They are motivated by trying to improve their lot in life, but they haven't (yet) bought into the idea that living within your means gives you a great amount of peace and does improve your lot in life because you aren't paying through your teeth for things you couldn't afford. I doubt it would be catastrophic unless everyone switched all at once. But as that isn't going to happen over night, any individual can benefit now by letting everyone else look like they are getting ahead by buying bigger and better toys through crippling debt, but get their own financial situation back under control and actually get ahead through sensible living. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On August 01 2019 22:58 Mohdoo wrote: Is this normal for "big'ish" cities? https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2019/07/31/thirty-four-people-have-died-in-portland-traffic-this-year-these-are-three-of-them/ 34 seems like a shit ton to me considering it's all a bunch of accidents. Our city is designed horribly and lighting is a big issue. The vibrant culture of Portland also probably makes this worse. I dunno, seems insane that 34 people are dead just this year from "oops" scenarios. There was 130 fatalities in London in 2017 apparently, but then again London is significantly larger and more densely populated, so it's not a good comparison. I guess you should compare with other American cities. From my anecdotal experience, Americans are the worst drivers in the developed world. Worse than the car worshipping Germans, worse than the angry French, and worse than Italians. Americans seem to have absolutely no spatial awareness at all and seem to resent pedestrians. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22724 Posts
On August 02 2019 05:11 IgnE wrote: I don’t think you are quite right about this. Walmart and Amazon have supply chains that contract with individual producers to sell in/on their stores/platforms. If stuff doesn’t sell they just stop buying it. And if you are honest about it, Amazon and Walmart offer a lot of goods at very cheap price points. It makes sense to shop there for the financially literate. Other companies on that list are either neutral or orthogonal to financial literacy. ATT is pseudomonopoly that offers a required utility. CVS health is a basic needs provider. Nobody looks to burn excess income there, and if you are in debt because of overspending at CVS you’ve got bigger issues. I'm not saying they would cease to exist altogether without capitalism, but their owners would... (be their consumers rather than a billionaires with bunkers and spaceships). They would also be less "efficient" because the exploitation described as efficiency is less sustainable without a subset of desperate workers willing to piss in gatorade bottles to keep their jobs so they can order more useless shit from Amazon to fill the void/mitigate the sad rage of failing at being a successful capitalist. There's also the small town Walmart effect thing where they come in and sell goods at or near cost undercutting local retailers. In the short term it makes financial sense to shop there, but then when all the local shops have gone out of business you're now at the mercy of a superstore that could buy your entire town's council with couch change and turn them into puppets. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21368 Posts
On August 02 2019 05:11 IgnE wrote: Companies like Walmart can offer such cheap prices because they pay their workers below liveable wages, knowing government programs will keep them alive, and that the money from those programs will be spend buying essentials at Walmart.I don’t think you are quite right about this. Walmart and Amazon have supply chains that contract with individual producers to sell in/on their stores/platforms. If stuff doesn’t sell they just stop buying it. And if you are honest about it, Amazon and Walmart offer a lot of goods at very cheap price points. It makes sense to shop there for the financially literate. Other companies on that list are either neutral or orthogonal to financial literacy. ATT is pseudomonopoly that offers a required utility. CVS health is a basic needs provider. Nobody looks to burn excess income there, and if you are in debt because of overspending at CVS you’ve got bigger issues. Even if you are right that an overall reduction in demand would shock the economy, I don’t think it makes sense to provide the list of top ten companies like you did and say they are the ones responsible for what is otherwise a necessary consition in the accumulation of capital. When Rosa Luxemburg was writing 100 years ago about Capital’s need to find new markets in order to sustain itself, the emphasis wasn’t on the business model of the leading profiteers — it’s a governing dynamic that selects successful companies through economic pressures. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11338 Posts
On August 02 2019 05:15 GreenHorizons wrote: You're still capitalist in Germany. I suppose I may be assigning a level of competence beyond what you guys are and presuming it would include not buying themselves into climate oblivion as well. Yeah, but now we are talking about a completely different problem. Previously we were talking about bad decisions which are directly bad for the individual, like going into massive debt to buy stuff you don't really need. Now we are talking about bad decisions which are collectively bad for everyone in the long term if a lot of people make them, but not really bad for the individual making them in the next few years, like buying stuff that you want and that you can afford, but without pricing in the climate effects. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22724 Posts
Now we are talking about bad decisions which are collectively bad for everyone in the long term if a lot of people make them, but not really bad for the individual making them in the next few years, like buying stuff that you want and that you can afford, but without pricing in the climate effects. My presumption was that economic literacy isn't strictly about short term feasibility, as much as it is long term sustainability. Also things like buying food that's basically killing us wouldn't be a thing either. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On August 02 2019 05:22 Gorsameth wrote: Companies like Walmart can offer such cheap prices because they pay their workers below liveable wages, knowing government programs will keep them alive, and that the money from those programs will be spend buying essentials at Walmart. ok but that doesn’t have anything to do with “financial literacy” in the sense of saving and spending | ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
On August 02 2019 05:26 Simberto wrote: Yeah, but now we are talking about a completely different problem. Previously we were talking about bad decisions which are directly bad for the individual, like going into massive debt to buy stuff you don't really need. Now we are talking about bad decisions which are collectively bad for everyone in the long term if a lot of people make them, but not really bad for the individual making them in the next few years, like buying stuff that you want and that you can afford, but without pricing in the climate effects. Those problems aren't completely different though, which is what KwarK was getting at when he described this as a macro issue more than a micro one. The conditions that lead to the making of "poor financial choices" are where the rubber hits the road, and to prove that, one need look no further than how schools in the US continually run into a wall when trying to educate folks who live in poverty. No matter how great the method or profound the reasoning, a child will not learn how to read if he is unable to have his or her basic needs met while being educated. That's why schools have seen such good results from free lunch and breakfast programs, they are seeing obvious results from adding in that extra ostensibly non-educational element to the days of their students because it takes meeting the basic need of hunger out of the equation that feeds into daily student success. The same principle applies in the context of financial decisions. For many people, the concept of living within their means is not only materially unachievable, especially with children in tow, the concept itself is foreign to them as a result of their having learned about the world while having basic needs go unmet. So, while it is correct to state that, on an individual level, folks should learn how money works, it is also correct to state that telling people to learn how money works (or any of the term financial literacy's iterations) will not do anything if a significant number of people are otherwise unable to have their basic needs met. Further, it is also correct to state that we have stumbled upon a variety of ways to address those "basic needs" macro issues through government programs and regulations, and while the devil is in the details on implementation and all that jazz, it is immoral to leave all that good on the table, for whatever the reason. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On August 02 2019 05:22 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm not saying they would cease to exist altogether without capitalism, but their owners would... (be their consumers rather than a billionaires with bunkers and spaceships). They would also be less "efficient" because the exploitation described as efficiency is less sustainable without a subset of desperate workers willing to piss in gatorade bottles to keep their jobs so they can order more useless shit from Amazon to fill the void/mitigate the sad rage of failing at being a successful capitalist. There's also the small town Walmart effect thing where they come in and sell goods at or near cost undercutting local retailers. In the short term it makes financial sense to shop there, but then when all the local shops have gone out of business you're now at the mercy of a superstore that could buy your entire town's council with couch change and turn them into puppets. how did you go from “walmart needs financial idiots” to “walmart needs capitalism”? i’m not really sure what it even means to talk about walmart without capitalism. but i strongly object to the idea that walmart’s employees are only working there in order to “order more useless shit from Amazon.” if anything, it’s the reverse. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
On August 02 2019 05:40 IgnE wrote: USA is the major source of excess demand in the world. we buy the world’s shit, lifting them out of poverty. but for median economic illiteracy the world economy would go through a serious depression and possible collapse This is a new take on American exceptionalism | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22724 Posts
On August 02 2019 05:36 IgnE wrote: how did you go from “walmart needs financial idiots” to “walmart needs capitalism”? i’m not really sure what it even means to talk about walmart without capitalism. but i strongly object to the idea that walmart’s employees are only working there in order to “order more useless shit from Amazon.” if anything, it’s the reverse. Capitalism needs financial idiots (granting I'm not strictly talking about "affordability" in the strictest and short term sense), Walmart as it exists needs capitalism. "Walmart" has billionaire owners and exploitative business practices that (in addition to the most effective [along with Amazon] supply chain sans exploitation) drive down prices making strictly short term, price central, purchasing decisions sensible or necessary when other options are unavailable (seemingly or literally). Walmart without capitalism is, like Amazon, about distribution of goods. They are just less impressive when you take away their ability to exploit their workers. That said, they have made technological and experience based improvements to supply chain issues that would outlive the capitalists profiting off it all. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41991 Posts
On August 02 2019 05:12 farvacola wrote: Yeah, if I were to build retailer criticism into a critique of US consumer finance, I'd focus on dollar stores especially. Edit: And household good rental outlets. Those fuckers and their blanket loan arrangements are truly sinister. Dollar stores at least have the decency to give some of their customer base jobs. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11338 Posts
On August 02 2019 05:36 farvacola wrote: Those problems aren't completely different though, which is what KwarK was getting at when he described this as a macro issue more than a micro one. The conditions that lead to the making of "poor financial choices" are where the rubber hits the road, and to prove that, one need look no further than how schools in the US continually run into a wall when trying to educate folks who live in poverty. No matter how great the method or profound the reasoning, a child will not learn how to read if he is unable to have his or her basic needs met while being educated. That's why schools have seen such good results from free lunch and breakfast programs, they are seeing obvious results from adding in that extra ostensibly non-educational element to the days of their students because it takes meeting the basic need of hunger out of the equation that feeds into daily student success. The same principle applies in the context of financial decisions. For many people, the concept of living within their means is not only materially unachievable, especially with children in tow, the concept itself is foreign to them as a result of their having learned about the world while having basic needs go unmet. So, while it is correct to state that, on an individual level, folks should learn how money works, it is also correct to state that telling people to learn how money works (or any of the term financial literacy's iterations) will not do anything if a significant number of people are otherwise unable to have their basic needs met. Further, it is also correct to state that we have stumbled upon a variety of ways to address those "basic needs" macro issues through government programs and regulations, and while the devil is in the details on implementation and all that jazz, it is immoral to leave all that good on the table, for whatever the reason. Oh, i totally agree that this is not a problem that we should "solve" by claiming that people who get into debt are stupid, but rather by figuring out why that happens, and how to change this situation on a macro level. I just didn't want to compound this problem with the mostly unrelated problem of "We are consuming too much and don't care about the climate effects of the stuff we consume enough, and thus heading towards a climate catastrophe". While both are true, and both are problems, I still don't think that it is a good idea to simply throw all problems together into a pile to create one gigantic megaproblem, and then try to solve this. I would say that the debt problem is a lot simpler to solve (not simple, just simpler than climate change), since it appears to be a problem that does not exist to this level in other countries which are not the US. So to fix this short-term problem, one could try to look at countries which have less of this problem, and try to figure out why that is the case to maybe improve the macro systems in place to make it less likely that individuals run into that debt trap. Meanwhile, we don't seem to have a single country that has solved climate change, or even it's own part in climate change. It is still a problem we need to figure out, but we don't gain anything by delaying the other problem by attaching it to the climate change problem and only accepting a solution which solves both. | ||
| ||
