|
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 |
On April 28 2020 16:01 GreenHorizons wrote:In political headlines: Corroborating evidence continues to pile up supporting Tara Reade's allegations of Joe Biden sexually assaulting her. Most recently, a former neighbor as well as a staffer for another senator (at the time) have confirmed she told them about it around the time it occurred. That is in addition to the recent discovery that Reade's mother had called in to Larry Kings show vaguely referencing the allegations around the same time. Show nested quote +In March, when a former aide to Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden accused the candidate of sexually assaulting her in 1993, two people came forward to say that the woman, Tara Reade, had told them of the incident shortly after it allegedly occurred — her brother, Collin Moulton, and a friend who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retribution.
Now two more sources have come forward to corroborate certain details about Reade's claims. One of them — a former neighbor of Reade's — has told Insider for the first time, on the record, that Reade disclosed details about the alleged assault to her in the mid-1990s.
"This happened, and I know it did because I remember talking about it," Lynda LaCasse, who lived next door to Reade in the mid-'90s, told Insider.
The other source, Lorraine Sanchez, who worked with Reade in the office of a California state senator in the mid-'90s, told Insider that she recalls Reade complaining at the time that her former boss in Washington, DC, had sexually harassed her, and that she had been fired after raising concerns.
After seeing how political operatives and news organizations responded to the claim — the Biden camp denied it outright, and critics scoured Reade's social-media accounts for evidence of a purported affinity for Russian President Vladimir Putin — LaCasse said she decided to come forward.
"She didn't ask me to," LaCasse said. "I volunteered to do that just recently. If this was me, I would want somebody to stand up for me. It takes a lot of guts to do what she's doing." www.businessinsider.com
This article makes the case that Biden should make an attempt to unseal his senatorial documents because there's an exit strategy in dealing with the Reade allegations now instead of later. If the documents aid in her case, Biden's campaign can have time to respond over months rather than weeks, or it will cushion the blow when people are fixated on other matters than the election circus. If the documents end up proving that Reade's allegations are not as compelling or poke more holes, then they get a win.
Who knows, the cynic in me says the Biden and Democrat campaigners believe that the Reade allegations will only stick with people who were not going to vote Biden anyways or that voters will consider the case relatively minor compared to what Trump has done with the pandemic response.
|
On April 29 2020 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2020 04:54 IgnE wrote:On April 28 2020 06:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2020 04:34 Nyxisto wrote:On April 28 2020 04:25 Uldridge wrote:
Yes, Nyxisto, let those Amazon employees get by on minimum wage jobs and stressing out making the cut of the day while he builds his empire further, for a brighter tomorrow! Amazon employees are well compensated in general, it's the work conditions rather the pay that tends to be the issue in some regions. For unqualified warehouse work, the salaries you get at Amazon are really decent, much better than anything most companies offer for people with similar skills. (As a side note I did work at an amazon warehouse when I went to uni for a summer break, it wasn't bad really). As to 'his empire'. Amazon creates value. The long term growth of Amazon is beneficial not just to Bezos but the people who buy on Amazon due to its innovation, the pension funds who are invested in amazon, and society in general. There's a very obvious tension between redistribution in the present and long term wealth in the future. things like the personal computer have created much more value for everyone than Bill Gates has captured. Take the entire economy that runs on windows or Azure, or Office say, and compare it to how much money those products made. Microsoft maybe captures 1% of the total economic activity their products generate. Long term growth compounds. If your economy grows at 1% for 50 years it'll grow by 60% total. If your economy grows 2% annually over 50 years total output will almost triple. Even If those gains aren't evenly distributed, your children and their children will almost certainly be better off if policy favours long-term growth. This is the same argument Republicans have made (and progressives used to reject) for decades Amazon employees are only "well compensated" compared to the poverty wages available elsewhere. Working conditions are atrocious (except if you compare them to places like prison labor or these covid infested meat packing plants). The moderately improved wages came recently after a campaign by Bernie Sanders and others shaming and threatening work stoppages if they didn't improve wages. Since, they've fired people for trying to organize for a safe working environment amid a pandemic. People like Bezos and Gates aren't benevolent or even decent in my eyes. They are among the most horrific people on the planet to me. Part of the reason I have been less vocal in this thread recently about (anti-)capitalism is because people like Gates and Bezos present real problems for the possibilities of human life and politics that demand answers to fundamental questions about the finitude of human life and its value. Under what assumptions are Nyx's comments about exponential growth well-founded? What obligation do we have to the past? and to the future? There are assumptions about the present-value of human lives that call into question uncritical assumptions about the value of new human life by those on both the right and the left. Those assumptions feed back into evaluation of Marxism. Stalinism has been such a disaster that it threatens the referential value of Marxist discourse in general, as is demonstrated by your and JimmiC's ongoing feud, as well as all the repetitive back and forth between Neb and others. This demand a rethinking of politics. On the other hand, we have entered an era of ecological crisis. This seemingly present an immediate demand for action that would seem to threaten the possibility of taking time for thinking and reflection. The crisis in Marxist thought blocks the efficacy of Marxist action in both rhetorical and real terms. Is Amazon the enemy? In what way? If so, doesn't it also represent an advance in the appropriation of "man's inorganic body" consonant with the writings of early Marx? In a way, isn't your ethical judgment of Bezos and Gates at odds with a Marxist history that saw bourgeois capitalism as a necessary stage that must be traversed before socialism? (See Plekhanov or Bernstein, and those Marxists who opposed a too-early socialism in Russia as threatening the whole socialist project) One doesn't condemn Moses for not being Jesus. How does the full development of one individual's free unfolding impinge on others? Both those that exist and those that might? Fitting you would mention Moses (not sure if it was intentional), but Moses is a product of Pharaoh, doesn't mean Pharaoh wasn't a jerk. Capitalism was/is already the mode of operation, so it being necessary to traverse is a given. As such, I can appreciate the necessity of Pharaoh to Moses's/Christian stories, and recognize him as a jerk the same as I can recognize the necessity of Bezos or Gates (according to Marx) and that they are responsible for incalculable amounts of horrific human suffering.
I think you are missing my point somewhat. Putting aside the question of profit and ownership for a second, is an Amazon-like entity with robot-staffed warehouses a good thing or a bad thing? Or, if you object to the question, can such a thing be good?
|
On April 29 2020 07:19 PhoenixVoid wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2020 16:01 GreenHorizons wrote:In political headlines: Corroborating evidence continues to pile up supporting Tara Reade's allegations of Joe Biden sexually assaulting her. Most recently, a former neighbor as well as a staffer for another senator (at the time) have confirmed she told them about it around the time it occurred. That is in addition to the recent discovery that Reade's mother had called in to Larry Kings show vaguely referencing the allegations around the same time. In March, when a former aide to Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden accused the candidate of sexually assaulting her in 1993, two people came forward to say that the woman, Tara Reade, had told them of the incident shortly after it allegedly occurred — her brother, Collin Moulton, and a friend who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retribution.
Now two more sources have come forward to corroborate certain details about Reade's claims. One of them — a former neighbor of Reade's — has told Insider for the first time, on the record, that Reade disclosed details about the alleged assault to her in the mid-1990s.
"This happened, and I know it did because I remember talking about it," Lynda LaCasse, who lived next door to Reade in the mid-'90s, told Insider.
The other source, Lorraine Sanchez, who worked with Reade in the office of a California state senator in the mid-'90s, told Insider that she recalls Reade complaining at the time that her former boss in Washington, DC, had sexually harassed her, and that she had been fired after raising concerns.
After seeing how political operatives and news organizations responded to the claim — the Biden camp denied it outright, and critics scoured Reade's social-media accounts for evidence of a purported affinity for Russian President Vladimir Putin — LaCasse said she decided to come forward.
"She didn't ask me to," LaCasse said. "I volunteered to do that just recently. If this was me, I would want somebody to stand up for me. It takes a lot of guts to do what she's doing." www.businessinsider.com This article makes the case that Biden should make an attempt to unseal his senatorial documents because there's an exit strategy in dealing with the Reade allegations now instead of later. If the documents aid in her case, Biden's campaign can have time to respond over months rather than weeks, or it will cushion the blow when people are fixated on other matters than the election circus. If the documents end up proving that Reade's allegations are not as compelling or poke more holes, then they get a win. Who knows, the cynic in me says the Biden and Democrat campaigners believe that the Reade allegations will only stick with people who were not going to vote Biden anyways or that voters will consider the case relatively minor compared to what Trump has done with the pandemic response.
I think it's most effective aspect is that it gives people that want to vote Trump (but feel conflicted) an excuse. "Well I have to vote for a rapist anyway, might as well be one who X"
Democrats thought they could say "I refuse to vote for rapists" (some did say it in 2016), now they realize that being a Democrat doesn't mean you wouldn't support rapists for president.
On April 29 2020 07:34 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2020 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2020 04:54 IgnE wrote:On April 28 2020 06:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2020 04:34 Nyxisto wrote:On April 28 2020 04:25 Uldridge wrote:
Yes, Nyxisto, let those Amazon employees get by on minimum wage jobs and stressing out making the cut of the day while he builds his empire further, for a brighter tomorrow! Amazon employees are well compensated in general, it's the work conditions rather the pay that tends to be the issue in some regions. For unqualified warehouse work, the salaries you get at Amazon are really decent, much better than anything most companies offer for people with similar skills. (As a side note I did work at an amazon warehouse when I went to uni for a summer break, it wasn't bad really). As to 'his empire'. Amazon creates value. The long term growth of Amazon is beneficial not just to Bezos but the people who buy on Amazon due to its innovation, the pension funds who are invested in amazon, and society in general. There's a very obvious tension between redistribution in the present and long term wealth in the future. things like the personal computer have created much more value for everyone than Bill Gates has captured. Take the entire economy that runs on windows or Azure, or Office say, and compare it to how much money those products made. Microsoft maybe captures 1% of the total economic activity their products generate. Long term growth compounds. If your economy grows at 1% for 50 years it'll grow by 60% total. If your economy grows 2% annually over 50 years total output will almost triple. Even If those gains aren't evenly distributed, your children and their children will almost certainly be better off if policy favours long-term growth. This is the same argument Republicans have made (and progressives used to reject) for decades Amazon employees are only "well compensated" compared to the poverty wages available elsewhere. Working conditions are atrocious (except if you compare them to places like prison labor or these covid infested meat packing plants). The moderately improved wages came recently after a campaign by Bernie Sanders and others shaming and threatening work stoppages if they didn't improve wages. Since, they've fired people for trying to organize for a safe working environment amid a pandemic. People like Bezos and Gates aren't benevolent or even decent in my eyes. They are among the most horrific people on the planet to me. Part of the reason I have been less vocal in this thread recently about (anti-)capitalism is because people like Gates and Bezos present real problems for the possibilities of human life and politics that demand answers to fundamental questions about the finitude of human life and its value. Under what assumptions are Nyx's comments about exponential growth well-founded? What obligation do we have to the past? and to the future? There are assumptions about the present-value of human lives that call into question uncritical assumptions about the value of new human life by those on both the right and the left. Those assumptions feed back into evaluation of Marxism. Stalinism has been such a disaster that it threatens the referential value of Marxist discourse in general, as is demonstrated by your and JimmiC's ongoing feud, as well as all the repetitive back and forth between Neb and others. This demand a rethinking of politics. On the other hand, we have entered an era of ecological crisis. This seemingly present an immediate demand for action that would seem to threaten the possibility of taking time for thinking and reflection. The crisis in Marxist thought blocks the efficacy of Marxist action in both rhetorical and real terms. Is Amazon the enemy? In what way? If so, doesn't it also represent an advance in the appropriation of "man's inorganic body" consonant with the writings of early Marx? In a way, isn't your ethical judgment of Bezos and Gates at odds with a Marxist history that saw bourgeois capitalism as a necessary stage that must be traversed before socialism? (See Plekhanov or Bernstein, and those Marxists who opposed a too-early socialism in Russia as threatening the whole socialist project) One doesn't condemn Moses for not being Jesus. How does the full development of one individual's free unfolding impinge on others? Both those that exist and those that might? Fitting you would mention Moses (not sure if it was intentional), but Moses is a product of Pharaoh, doesn't mean Pharaoh wasn't a jerk. Capitalism was/is already the mode of operation, so it being necessary to traverse is a given. As such, I can appreciate the necessity of Pharaoh to Moses's/Christian stories, and recognize him as a jerk the same as I can recognize the necessity of Bezos or Gates (according to Marx) and that they are responsible for incalculable amounts of horrific human suffering. I think you are missing my point somewhat. Putting aside the question of profit and ownership for a second, is an Amazon-like entity with robot-staffed warehouses a good thing or a bad thing? Or, if you object to the question, can such a thing be good?
Depends on a host of factors and really gets at what we want from life and the world. I'd say it could be though. Something like that seems practical in service of distributing goods in a post-scarcity society.
|
|
|
On April 29 2020 04:54 IgnE wrote:
Is Amazon the enemy? In what way? If so, doesn't it also represent an advance in the appropriation of "man's inorganic body" consonant with the writings of early Marx? In a way, isn't your ethical judgment of Bezos and Gates at odds with a Marxist history that saw bourgeois capitalism as a necessary stage that must be traversed before socialism?
This is a kind of funny thing with the left-wing critiques nowadays of growth and ceilings on billionaires and whatnot. Where is the good old "all that is solid melts into air"? It used to be that Marxists actually welcomed economic growth because it's nothing else but carrying the logic of capitalism forward and they at least recognised the positive potential of disruption and technological change.
The Economist had a funny piece about Marx and how the British royalty sort of turning into American celebrities is just finally the logic of the market even tearing the British monarchy down, so what's it with this weird moralizing on the left about whether Bezos is a good guy or a bad guy
|
On April 29 2020 08:34 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2020 04:54 IgnE wrote:
Is Amazon the enemy? In what way? If so, doesn't it also represent an advance in the appropriation of "man's inorganic body" consonant with the writings of early Marx? In a way, isn't your ethical judgment of Bezos and Gates at odds with a Marxist history that saw bourgeois capitalism as a necessary stage that must be traversed before socialism? This is a kind of funny thing with the left-wing critiques nowadays of growth and ceilings on billionaires and whatnot. Where is the good old "all that is solid melts into air"? It used to be that Marxists actually welcomed economic growth because it's nothing else but carrying the logic of capitalism forward and they at least recognised the positive potential of disruption and technological change. The Economist had a funny piece about Marx and how the British royalty sort of turning into American celebrities is just finally the logic of the market even tearing the British monarchy down, so what's it with this weird moralizing on the left about whether Bezos is a good guy or a bad guy
For the record I agree with Neb on the "good guy, bad guy" stuff being unclear as to it's value. I also think the lionizing of billionaires makes people look silly. I don't think that an addict that does horrible things for a fix is "evil". But addicts do horrific things to get their fix and that includes people like Bezos. He just operates on a relatively unparalleled scale.
|
On April 29 2020 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2020 08:34 Nyxisto wrote:On April 29 2020 04:54 IgnE wrote:
Is Amazon the enemy? In what way? If so, doesn't it also represent an advance in the appropriation of "man's inorganic body" consonant with the writings of early Marx? In a way, isn't your ethical judgment of Bezos and Gates at odds with a Marxist history that saw bourgeois capitalism as a necessary stage that must be traversed before socialism? This is a kind of funny thing with the left-wing critiques nowadays of growth and ceilings on billionaires and whatnot. Where is the good old "all that is solid melts into air"? It used to be that Marxists actually welcomed economic growth because it's nothing else but carrying the logic of capitalism forward and they at least recognised the positive potential of disruption and technological change. The Economist had a funny piece about Marx and how the British royalty sort of turning into American celebrities is just finally the logic of the market even tearing the British monarchy down, so what's it with this weird moralizing on the left about whether Bezos is a good guy or a bad guy For the record I agree with Neb on the "good guy, bad guy" stuff being unclear as to it's value. I also think the lionizing of billionaires makes people look silly. I don't think that an addict that does horrible things for a fix is "evil". But addicts do horrific things to get their fix and that includes people like Bezos. He just operates on a relatively unparalleled scale.
Citation needed.
|
On April 29 2020 09:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2020 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2020 08:34 Nyxisto wrote:On April 29 2020 04:54 IgnE wrote:
Is Amazon the enemy? In what way? If so, doesn't it also represent an advance in the appropriation of "man's inorganic body" consonant with the writings of early Marx? In a way, isn't your ethical judgment of Bezos and Gates at odds with a Marxist history that saw bourgeois capitalism as a necessary stage that must be traversed before socialism? This is a kind of funny thing with the left-wing critiques nowadays of growth and ceilings on billionaires and whatnot. Where is the good old "all that is solid melts into air"? It used to be that Marxists actually welcomed economic growth because it's nothing else but carrying the logic of capitalism forward and they at least recognised the positive potential of disruption and technological change. The Economist had a funny piece about Marx and how the British royalty sort of turning into American celebrities is just finally the logic of the market even tearing the British monarchy down, so what's it with this weird moralizing on the left about whether Bezos is a good guy or a bad guy For the record I agree with Neb on the "good guy, bad guy" stuff being unclear as to it's value. I also think the lionizing of billionaires makes people look silly. I don't think that an addict that does horrible things for a fix is "evil". But addicts do horrific things to get their fix and that includes people like Bezos. He just operates on a relatively unparalleled scale. Citation needed.
For his relatively unparalleled personal wealth? Forbes?
|
On April 29 2020 10:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2020 09:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2020 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2020 08:34 Nyxisto wrote:On April 29 2020 04:54 IgnE wrote:
Is Amazon the enemy? In what way? If so, doesn't it also represent an advance in the appropriation of "man's inorganic body" consonant with the writings of early Marx? In a way, isn't your ethical judgment of Bezos and Gates at odds with a Marxist history that saw bourgeois capitalism as a necessary stage that must be traversed before socialism? This is a kind of funny thing with the left-wing critiques nowadays of growth and ceilings on billionaires and whatnot. Where is the good old "all that is solid melts into air"? It used to be that Marxists actually welcomed economic growth because it's nothing else but carrying the logic of capitalism forward and they at least recognised the positive potential of disruption and technological change. The Economist had a funny piece about Marx and how the British royalty sort of turning into American celebrities is just finally the logic of the market even tearing the British monarchy down, so what's it with this weird moralizing on the left about whether Bezos is a good guy or a bad guy For the record I agree with Neb on the "good guy, bad guy" stuff being unclear as to it's value. I also think the lionizing of billionaires makes people look silly. I don't think that an addict that does horrible things for a fix is "evil". But addicts do horrific things to get their fix and that includes people like Bezos. He just operates on a relatively unparalleled scale. Citation needed. For his relatively unparalleled personal wealth? Forbes?
He's obscenely rich. What horrible things has he done with that obscene wealth? If just having money is bad, then I don't wanna be right (when I get there).
|
On April 29 2020 10:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2020 10:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2020 09:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2020 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2020 08:34 Nyxisto wrote:On April 29 2020 04:54 IgnE wrote:
Is Amazon the enemy? In what way? If so, doesn't it also represent an advance in the appropriation of "man's inorganic body" consonant with the writings of early Marx? In a way, isn't your ethical judgment of Bezos and Gates at odds with a Marxist history that saw bourgeois capitalism as a necessary stage that must be traversed before socialism? This is a kind of funny thing with the left-wing critiques nowadays of growth and ceilings on billionaires and whatnot. Where is the good old "all that is solid melts into air"? It used to be that Marxists actually welcomed economic growth because it's nothing else but carrying the logic of capitalism forward and they at least recognised the positive potential of disruption and technological change. The Economist had a funny piece about Marx and how the British royalty sort of turning into American celebrities is just finally the logic of the market even tearing the British monarchy down, so what's it with this weird moralizing on the left about whether Bezos is a good guy or a bad guy For the record I agree with Neb on the "good guy, bad guy" stuff being unclear as to it's value. I also think the lionizing of billionaires makes people look silly. I don't think that an addict that does horrible things for a fix is "evil". But addicts do horrific things to get their fix and that includes people like Bezos. He just operates on a relatively unparalleled scale. Citation needed. For his relatively unparalleled personal wealth? Forbes? He's obscenely rich. What horrible things has he done with that obscene wealth? Getting/maintaining the wealth is the horrific part. Deplorable working conditions and exploitative business practices are elements most are familiar with though.
If just having money is bad, then I don't wanna be right (when I get there).
Sounds like satire of a temporarily embarrassed millionaire.
|
On April 29 2020 10:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2020 10:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2020 10:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2020 09:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2020 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2020 08:34 Nyxisto wrote:On April 29 2020 04:54 IgnE wrote:
Is Amazon the enemy? In what way? If so, doesn't it also represent an advance in the appropriation of "man's inorganic body" consonant with the writings of early Marx? In a way, isn't your ethical judgment of Bezos and Gates at odds with a Marxist history that saw bourgeois capitalism as a necessary stage that must be traversed before socialism? This is a kind of funny thing with the left-wing critiques nowadays of growth and ceilings on billionaires and whatnot. Where is the good old "all that is solid melts into air"? It used to be that Marxists actually welcomed economic growth because it's nothing else but carrying the logic of capitalism forward and they at least recognised the positive potential of disruption and technological change. The Economist had a funny piece about Marx and how the British royalty sort of turning into American celebrities is just finally the logic of the market even tearing the British monarchy down, so what's it with this weird moralizing on the left about whether Bezos is a good guy or a bad guy For the record I agree with Neb on the "good guy, bad guy" stuff being unclear as to it's value. I also think the lionizing of billionaires makes people look silly. I don't think that an addict that does horrible things for a fix is "evil". But addicts do horrific things to get their fix and that includes people like Bezos. He just operates on a relatively unparalleled scale. Citation needed. For his relatively unparalleled personal wealth? Forbes? He's obscenely rich. What horrible things has he done with that obscene wealth? Getting/maintaining the wealth is the horrific part. Deplorable working conditions and exploitative business practices are elements most are familiar with though. Show nested quote + If just having money is bad, then I don't wanna be right (when I get there). Sounds like satire of a temporarily embarrassed millionaire.
You're not making a convincing case. And are you also condemning all of the people below him that are actually coming up with/implementing said working conditions/business practices? are you saying that people who make money are only allowed to make it to a certain point and then they fall into evil ne'er do-wells? What's the limit?
One last part, what horrible things, in some kind of report, has he personally done, with his money?
It seems you're really mad he has more than you and you don't think it's fair.
|
On April 29 2020 10:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2020 10:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2020 09:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2020 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2020 08:34 Nyxisto wrote:On April 29 2020 04:54 IgnE wrote:
Is Amazon the enemy? In what way? If so, doesn't it also represent an advance in the appropriation of "man's inorganic body" consonant with the writings of early Marx? In a way, isn't your ethical judgment of Bezos and Gates at odds with a Marxist history that saw bourgeois capitalism as a necessary stage that must be traversed before socialism? This is a kind of funny thing with the left-wing critiques nowadays of growth and ceilings on billionaires and whatnot. Where is the good old "all that is solid melts into air"? It used to be that Marxists actually welcomed economic growth because it's nothing else but carrying the logic of capitalism forward and they at least recognised the positive potential of disruption and technological change. The Economist had a funny piece about Marx and how the British royalty sort of turning into American celebrities is just finally the logic of the market even tearing the British monarchy down, so what's it with this weird moralizing on the left about whether Bezos is a good guy or a bad guy For the record I agree with Neb on the "good guy, bad guy" stuff being unclear as to it's value. I also think the lionizing of billionaires makes people look silly. I don't think that an addict that does horrible things for a fix is "evil". But addicts do horrific things to get their fix and that includes people like Bezos. He just operates on a relatively unparalleled scale. Citation needed. For his relatively unparalleled personal wealth? Forbes? He's obscenely rich. What horrible things has he done with that obscene wealth? If just having money is bad, then I don't wanna be right (when I get there).
All billionaires should be charged with exteme depraved indifference.
As an example, look at Bloomberg spending hundreds of millions on a campaign. He chose not to save thousands of lives (build medical centers, free healthcare, tons of ways to directly, knowingly save lives in his position) and instead spent it on a campaign. That is EXTREME depraved indifference.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murder
I am saying bezoz should be charged because he could save thousands of lives by giving up 0.1% of his wealth but chooses not to.
It's an entirely different realm from the edge lords saying "if you don't donate your paycheck to Africa, aren't you selfish?"
It's not that he could do something, help someone, but suffer. He could save thousands of lives, not suffer from it, but doesn't. He should be charged and imprisoned.
|
On April 29 2020 10:47 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2020 10:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2020 10:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2020 09:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2020 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2020 08:34 Nyxisto wrote:On April 29 2020 04:54 IgnE wrote:
Is Amazon the enemy? In what way? If so, doesn't it also represent an advance in the appropriation of "man's inorganic body" consonant with the writings of early Marx? In a way, isn't your ethical judgment of Bezos and Gates at odds with a Marxist history that saw bourgeois capitalism as a necessary stage that must be traversed before socialism? This is a kind of funny thing with the left-wing critiques nowadays of growth and ceilings on billionaires and whatnot. Where is the good old "all that is solid melts into air"? It used to be that Marxists actually welcomed economic growth because it's nothing else but carrying the logic of capitalism forward and they at least recognised the positive potential of disruption and technological change. The Economist had a funny piece about Marx and how the British royalty sort of turning into American celebrities is just finally the logic of the market even tearing the British monarchy down, so what's it with this weird moralizing on the left about whether Bezos is a good guy or a bad guy For the record I agree with Neb on the "good guy, bad guy" stuff being unclear as to it's value. I also think the lionizing of billionaires makes people look silly. I don't think that an addict that does horrible things for a fix is "evil". But addicts do horrific things to get their fix and that includes people like Bezos. He just operates on a relatively unparalleled scale. Citation needed. For his relatively unparalleled personal wealth? Forbes? He's obscenely rich. What horrible things has he done with that obscene wealth? If just having money is bad, then I don't wanna be right (when I get there). All billionaires should be charged with exteme depraved indifference. As an example, look at Bloomberg spending hundreds of millions on a campaign. He chose not to save thousands of lives (build medical centers, free healthcare, tons of ways to directly, knowingly save lives in his position) and instead spent it on a campaign. That is EXTREME depraved indifference. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murderI am saying bezoz should be charged because he could save thousands of lives by giving up 0.1% of his wealth but chooses not to. It's an entirely different realm from the edge lords saying "if you don't donate your paycheck to Africa, aren't you selfish?" It's not that he could do something, help someone, but suffer. He could save thousands of lives, not suffer from it, but doesn't. He should be charged and imprisoned.
There's no social contract that forces him to do so. And there's nothing that stops you from doing so as well. I'm not trying to defend him, but when you say he's one of the worst humans on the face of the earth because he has more wealth than half the world combined, it doesn't sway me.
List what he has done, with his own money, that makes him a horrible person, besides not giving it to you. I'm just reading people online mad at rich people because they didn't use their incredible money for the projects/causes they hold dear.
Bezos could build a major hospital in every city on the US. Then he has to pay every single employee (if there are enough to fill them) a living wage. Then he has to answer for any mistakes made because it's his hospital. But then, you'd be screaming that he's cornering the healthcare market with his hospitals or putting universities or whatever out of business.
It's a no win situation for people in his position. He could give you the cure for cancer and you'd scream that he didn't do it soon enough or that he charged too much for it. Or that working conditions on developing/distributing said cure are terrible.
For every good that he could do, people would find 100 ways he was wrong in doing it. So why the fixation? I don't get it.
|
On April 29 2020 10:47 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2020 10:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2020 10:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2020 09:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2020 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2020 08:34 Nyxisto wrote:On April 29 2020 04:54 IgnE wrote:
Is Amazon the enemy? In what way? If so, doesn't it also represent an advance in the appropriation of "man's inorganic body" consonant with the writings of early Marx? In a way, isn't your ethical judgment of Bezos and Gates at odds with a Marxist history that saw bourgeois capitalism as a necessary stage that must be traversed before socialism? This is a kind of funny thing with the left-wing critiques nowadays of growth and ceilings on billionaires and whatnot. Where is the good old "all that is solid melts into air"? It used to be that Marxists actually welcomed economic growth because it's nothing else but carrying the logic of capitalism forward and they at least recognised the positive potential of disruption and technological change. The Economist had a funny piece about Marx and how the British royalty sort of turning into American celebrities is just finally the logic of the market even tearing the British monarchy down, so what's it with this weird moralizing on the left about whether Bezos is a good guy or a bad guy For the record I agree with Neb on the "good guy, bad guy" stuff being unclear as to it's value. I also think the lionizing of billionaires makes people look silly. I don't think that an addict that does horrible things for a fix is "evil". But addicts do horrific things to get their fix and that includes people like Bezos. He just operates on a relatively unparalleled scale. Citation needed. For his relatively unparalleled personal wealth? Forbes? He's obscenely rich. What horrible things has he done with that obscene wealth? If just having money is bad, then I don't wanna be right (when I get there). All billionaires should be charged with exteme depraved indifference. As an example, look at Bloomberg spending hundreds of millions on a campaign. He chose not to save thousands of lives (build medical centers, free healthcare, tons of ways to directly, knowingly save lives in his position) and instead spent it on a campaign. That is EXTREME depraved indifference. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murderI am saying bezoz should be charged because he could save thousands of lives by giving up 0.1% of his wealth but chooses not to. It's an entirely different realm from the edge lords saying "if you don't donate your paycheck to Africa, aren't you selfish?" It's not that he could do something, help someone, but suffer. He could save thousands of lives, not suffer from it, but doesn't. He should be charged and imprisoned.
By this logic any campaign is depraved . . .
|
On April 29 2020 10:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2020 09:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2020 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2020 08:34 Nyxisto wrote:On April 29 2020 04:54 IgnE wrote:
Is Amazon the enemy? In what way? If so, doesn't it also represent an advance in the appropriation of "man's inorganic body" consonant with the writings of early Marx? In a way, isn't your ethical judgment of Bezos and Gates at odds with a Marxist history that saw bourgeois capitalism as a necessary stage that must be traversed before socialism? This is a kind of funny thing with the left-wing critiques nowadays of growth and ceilings on billionaires and whatnot. Where is the good old "all that is solid melts into air"? It used to be that Marxists actually welcomed economic growth because it's nothing else but carrying the logic of capitalism forward and they at least recognised the positive potential of disruption and technological change. The Economist had a funny piece about Marx and how the British royalty sort of turning into American celebrities is just finally the logic of the market even tearing the British monarchy down, so what's it with this weird moralizing on the left about whether Bezos is a good guy or a bad guy For the record I agree with Neb on the "good guy, bad guy" stuff being unclear as to it's value. I also think the lionizing of billionaires makes people look silly. I don't think that an addict that does horrible things for a fix is "evil". But addicts do horrific things to get their fix and that includes people like Bezos. He just operates on a relatively unparalleled scale. Citation needed. For his relatively unparalleled personal wealth? Forbes?
In today's dollars, Andrew Carnegie would be worth about 400 billion. I think it's very hard to argue that there's any single individual around whose wealth or power approaches earlier historical eras. The great American industrialists at their height were almost certainly significantly more wealthy and much more powerful than Bezos is today.
Not too long ago wealthy industrialists and families were running states and universities and more or less running politics. The very wealthiest today have some influence on politics of course, but honestly much less than anyone would think. In a wider historical context, we're almost certainly living in a fairly egalitarian environment.
|
On April 29 2020 10:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2020 10:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2020 09:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2020 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2020 08:34 Nyxisto wrote:On April 29 2020 04:54 IgnE wrote:
Is Amazon the enemy? In what way? If so, doesn't it also represent an advance in the appropriation of "man's inorganic body" consonant with the writings of early Marx? In a way, isn't your ethical judgment of Bezos and Gates at odds with a Marxist history that saw bourgeois capitalism as a necessary stage that must be traversed before socialism? This is a kind of funny thing with the left-wing critiques nowadays of growth and ceilings on billionaires and whatnot. Where is the good old "all that is solid melts into air"? It used to be that Marxists actually welcomed economic growth because it's nothing else but carrying the logic of capitalism forward and they at least recognised the positive potential of disruption and technological change. The Economist had a funny piece about Marx and how the British royalty sort of turning into American celebrities is just finally the logic of the market even tearing the British monarchy down, so what's it with this weird moralizing on the left about whether Bezos is a good guy or a bad guy For the record I agree with Neb on the "good guy, bad guy" stuff being unclear as to it's value. I also think the lionizing of billionaires makes people look silly. I don't think that an addict that does horrible things for a fix is "evil". But addicts do horrific things to get their fix and that includes people like Bezos. He just operates on a relatively unparalleled scale. Citation needed. For his relatively unparalleled personal wealth? Forbes? He's obscenely rich. What horrible things has he done with that obscene wealth? If just having money is bad, then I don't wanna be right (when I get there).
Mostly just garden variety poor working conditions for his workers (especially in warehouses). It's apparently improved some, but if people feel pressured into wearing catheters and you're one of the wealthiest people on earth then you could take a (large) paycut so they can make enough money to offset it. The way our market is setup is pretty perverse though, so giving a raise to his employees can lower the stock price considerably (quarterly reports are stupid).
Some of this is also the weird way we setup our stock - if Bezos believes the company does better under his control, then the only way he INSURE that he remains in charge is to hold a majority of the stock (yes, you can have agreements etc. but those are frequently overturned after a couple of quarters of bad performance). Just sitting on that stock is going to skyrocket his net worth if he does perform well.
The things that caused CEO pay to skyrocket were a combination of the low tax rate, making pay of CEOs public, and using stock as incentives for CEOs - the last is what cuased it to skyrocket so fast. It was effectively free money for the company in the short term, but wound up being a ridiculous amount (though hard to liquidate).
|
The GH thing is just him spouting off about how the accumulation of wealth is an addiction. Like he almost doesn't understand how wealth generates wealth and you pretty much don't have to do anything to continue to generate wealth at a certain point. Generating wealth is the path of least resistance when you're that rich or found a company that ends up being wildly successful. Giving away the money to worthy causes is in some ways harder. Bill Gates (and his wife) have had to work quite hard to set up the foundation to do good.
So he sees these people as addicts, but really, they're just lazy in many cases. In the case of Gates, his company generated significantly more value for the world than he personally obtained. He pretty much started an industry and advanced the world. Perhaps someone else would have if not him, but we don't have that person. We have Gates, someone that should generally be looked at positively as to how someone should act.
Granted, we should have a more progressive income tax and capital gains should be taxed heavier than they currently are (probably thrown onto the regular income tax scale), so that obtaining as much as he did should be harder. However, I see no addiction in Gates. I don't really see malice (unless you were an early competitor) either. Instead, I see a guy who founded a very important company, paid his employees well, is doing good things with the money he obtained, and plans to do even more good when he dies.
On the Mohdoo thing, read your own wiki article. "defendants commit an act even though they know their act runs an unusually high risk of causing death or serious bodily harm to a person". It's hard to call obtaining wealth an act that they know causes death or serious bodily harm. It's nonsense and if you want to apply it to billionaires, why would you not apply it to everyone over the poverty line? I don't need this computer. I could live in a Kommunalki rather than a house. I don't need to eat a nice steak or fish, I could live on gruel and borscht. That difference in money could go to saving a small number of people. Should I be charged with Depraved Indifference? The only difference between me and a billionaire is the scale, not the act, and I bet you'd deserve to be charged with Depraved Indifference too. Your argument is ridiculous.
|
On April 29 2020 11:20 RenSC2 wrote:
The GH thing is just him spouting off about how the accumulation of wealth is an addiction. Like he almost doesn't understand how wealth generates wealth and you pretty much don't have to do anything to continue to generate wealth at a certain point. Generating wealth is the path of least resistance when you're that rich or found a company that ends up being wildly successful. Giving away the money to worthy causes is in some ways harder. Bill Gates (and his wife) have had to work quite hard to set up the foundation to do good.
So he sees these people as addicts, but really, they're just lazy in many cases. In the case of Gates, his company generated significantly more value for the world than he personally obtained. He pretty much started an industry and advanced the world. Perhaps someone else would have if not him, but we don't have that person. We have Gates, someone that should generally be looked at positively as to how someone should act.
Granted, we should have a more progressive income tax and capital gains should be taxed heavier than they currently are (probably thrown onto the regular income tax scale), so that obtaining as much as he did should be harder. However, I see no addiction in Gates. I don't really see malice (unless you were an early competitor) either. Instead, I see a guy who founded a very important company, paid his employees well, is doing good things with the money he obtained, and plans to do even more good when he dies.
On the Mohdoo thing, read your own wiki article. "defendants commit an act even though they know their act runs an unusually high risk of causing death or serious bodily harm to a person". It's hard to call obtaining wealth an act that they know causes death or serious bodily harm. It's nonsense and if you want to apply it to billionaires, why would you not apply it to everyone over the poverty line? I don't need this computer. I could live in a Kommunalki rather than a house. I don't need to eat a nice steak or fish, I could live on gruel and borscht. That difference in money could go to saving a small number of people. Should I be charged with Depraved Indifference? The only difference between me and a billionaire is the scale, not the act, and I bet you'd deserve to be charged with Depraved Indifference too. Your argument is ridiculous.
The only difference is the scale but the scale is a massive difference. You would have to give up a bunch of things so that people get saved as you point out. They could provide a ridiculous amount of times what we can without giving up anything. That difference was mentioned in the presentation: "It's not that he could do something, help someone, but suffer. He could save thousands of lives, not suffer from it, but doesn't".
Intuitively I doubt Mohdoo's thing works, it seems too simple and I expect there are holes to poke in it. But neither attempt so far is very good. You can't say that all campaigns are depraved in the same way when in most cases the campaign money was sent to you specifically so that you campaign, that's quite different from what Bloomberg did.
|
If you look at the horrors around the world and our seeming indifference despite knowing it feeds our comforts perhaps we should. Perhaps what is ridiculous is the horrific society that normalized it. So much so it elected Trump to lead it.
That said, I'd agree with Neb that there are deficiencies in Mohdoo's articulation, for me as an abolitionist, imprisoning people isn't really a desirable solution for example.
|
On April 29 2020 11:01 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2020 10:47 Mohdoo wrote:On April 29 2020 10:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2020 10:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2020 09:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2020 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2020 08:34 Nyxisto wrote:On April 29 2020 04:54 IgnE wrote:
Is Amazon the enemy? In what way? If so, doesn't it also represent an advance in the appropriation of "man's inorganic body" consonant with the writings of early Marx? In a way, isn't your ethical judgment of Bezos and Gates at odds with a Marxist history that saw bourgeois capitalism as a necessary stage that must be traversed before socialism? This is a kind of funny thing with the left-wing critiques nowadays of growth and ceilings on billionaires and whatnot. Where is the good old "all that is solid melts into air"? It used to be that Marxists actually welcomed economic growth because it's nothing else but carrying the logic of capitalism forward and they at least recognised the positive potential of disruption and technological change. The Economist had a funny piece about Marx and how the British royalty sort of turning into American celebrities is just finally the logic of the market even tearing the British monarchy down, so what's it with this weird moralizing on the left about whether Bezos is a good guy or a bad guy For the record I agree with Neb on the "good guy, bad guy" stuff being unclear as to it's value. I also think the lionizing of billionaires makes people look silly. I don't think that an addict that does horrible things for a fix is "evil". But addicts do horrific things to get their fix and that includes people like Bezos. He just operates on a relatively unparalleled scale. Citation needed. For his relatively unparalleled personal wealth? Forbes? He's obscenely rich. What horrible things has he done with that obscene wealth? If just having money is bad, then I don't wanna be right (when I get there). All billionaires should be charged with exteme depraved indifference. As an example, look at Bloomberg spending hundreds of millions on a campaign. He chose not to save thousands of lives (build medical centers, free healthcare, tons of ways to directly, knowingly save lives in his position) and instead spent it on a campaign. That is EXTREME depraved indifference. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murderI am saying bezoz should be charged because he could save thousands of lives by giving up 0.1% of his wealth but chooses not to. It's an entirely different realm from the edge lords saying "if you don't donate your paycheck to Africa, aren't you selfish?" It's not that he could do something, help someone, but suffer. He could save thousands of lives, not suffer from it, but doesn't. He should be charged and imprisoned. There's no social contract that forces him to do so. And there's nothing that stops you from doing so as well. I'm not trying to defend him, but when you say he's one of the worst humans on the face of the earth because he has more wealth than half the world combined, it doesn't sway me. List what he has done, with his own money, that makes him a horrible person, besides not giving it to you. I'm just reading people online mad at rich people because they didn't use their incredible money for the projects/causes they hold dear. Bezos could build a major hospital in every city on the US. Then he has to pay every single employee (if there are enough to fill them) a living wage. Then he has to answer for any mistakes made because it's his hospital. But then, you'd be screaming that he's cornering the healthcare market with his hospitals or putting universities or whatever out of business. It's a no win situation for people in his position. He could give you the cure for cancer and you'd scream that he didn't do it soon enough or that he charged too much for it. Or that working conditions on developing/distributing said cure are terrible. For every good that he could do, people would find 100 ways he was wrong in doing it. So why the fixation? I don't get it.
Contracts aren't needed for ethics. Ethics does not rely on law, though law ought to obey ethics.
You are presupposing requirements for ethical arguments that don't exist. From an ethical perspective, bezoz choosing not to save lives is absolutely grotesque. It takes a truly horrible person to live the life he does.
Why are you talking about weird hypotheticals? What we know is that we generally consider hospitals a good thing and bezoz could build very many. You can think of a bad outcome for any scenario, but the ethical thing to do is to try. In the world we live in, a bunch of free clinics would save an incredible amount of lives. He chooses not to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
