The question in this thread, which the author so in-eloquently phrased, should be:
In a world where not everyone can have everything, who should get what and why?
Forum Index > General Forum |
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
The question in this thread, which the author so in-eloquently phrased, should be: In a world where not everyone can have everything, who should get what and why? | ||
SixStrings
Germany2046 Posts
The Germany military has a subcontractor that does their IT work. The IT firm has subcontractor that does their logistics. The logistics firm has a subcontractor that does their personell management and I work for that company. Let's say soldier A moves to an office two rooms further down the hall. Instead of just carrying his computer over there, he has to fill out a form. The IT subcontractor will get the form, people will read it and approve it and forward it to the logistics firm. The logistics firm will then have to approve the moving down the hall and will request personell from us. The office people in my company will then do whatever they do and now I come in. I get an email, be at barracks B at time C. Usually these barracks are 100 to 500 kilometres away from my home, so I will get a rental car. I take the rental car, drive to the barracks, let dispatch know that I arrived, fill out a form, unhook the computer, will load the computer into a box, seal the box, have a guy from the logistics firm carry the box to the next room, where I unseal the box, fill out another form, hook up the computer, call dispatch to tell them how long I took, get a couple of signatures, take my rental car back home, send dispatch a letter with all of the paperwork and then get payed. So instead of the soldier carrying his computer for five meters, two people drive for a combined 6-10 hours, fill out around 15 pages of paperwork and waste good 400 € of taxpayers' money. | ||
raynpelikoneet
Finland42139 Posts
If even... let's say 20% of the possible situations are where the "chain of command" is needed it's probably more efficent. | ||
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
And presumably the german military uses such a subcontractor because it is easier for them to offload such work. Well governments tend to be inefficient. But the important thing is that they function. For the most part. Also the irony of an anthropoligist talking about lawyering as worthless job lol. And apparently the near worthless teachers that are in USA are the epitimone of efficency, and tube workers in London aren't the overpaid, union protected, family referential people living off government taxes. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On June 29 2014 00:14 urboss wrote: from the interview: "When I talk about bullshit jobs, I mean, the kind of jobs that even those who work them feel do not really need to exist. A lot of them are made-up middle management, you know, I’m the “East Coast strategic vision coordinator” for some big firm, which basically means you spend all your time at meetings or forming teams that then send reports to one another. Or someone who works in an industry that they feel doesn’t need to exist, like most of the corporate lawyers I know, or telemarketers, or lobbyists…. Just think of when you walk into a hospital, how half the employees never seem to do anything for sick people, but are just filling out insurance forms and sending information to each other. Some of that work obviously does need to be done, but for the most part, everyone working there knows what really needs to get done and that the remaining 90 percent of what they do is bullshit. And then think about the ancillary workers that support people doing the bullshit jobs: here’s an office where people basically translate German formatted paperwork into British formatted paperwork or some such, and there has to be a whole infrastructure of receptionists, janitors, security guards, computer maintenance people, which are kind of second-order bullshit jobs, they’re actually doing something, but they’re doing it to support people who are doing nothing." well if this is what 'bullshit' means here then it's rather flimsy. the 'actually important people' may be fulfilling the function of the organization but the surrounding people are also necessary to save time for these people. there are exceptions of organizational inertia etc but largely that's the rationale for creation of these bullshit jobs, to save cognitive resources | ||
BirdKiller
United States428 Posts
On June 29 2014 01:28 SixStrings wrote: Here's some insight into one of these bullshit jobs, the one I'm doing right now to pay for uni, two days a week. The Germany military has a subcontractor that does their IT work. The IT firm has subcontractor that does their logistics. The logistics firm has a subcontractor that does their personell management and I work for that company. Let's say soldier A moves to an office two rooms further down the hall. Instead of just carrying his computer over there, he has to fill out a form. The IT subcontractor will get the form, people will read it and approve it and forward it to the logistics firm. The logistics firm will then have to approve the moving down the hall and will request personell from us. The office people in my company will then do whatever they do and now I come in. I get an email, be at barracks B at time C. Usually these barracks are 100 to 500 kilometres away from my home, so I will get a rental car. I take the rental car, drive to the barracks, let dispatch know that I arrived, fill out a form, unhook the computer, will load the computer into a box, seal the box, have a guy from the logistics firm carry the box to the next room, where I unseal the box, fill out another form, hook up the computer, call dispatch to tell them how long I took, get a couple of signatures, take my rental car back home, send dispatch a letter with all of the paperwork and then get payed. So instead of the soldier carrying his computer for five meters, two people drive for a combined 6-10 hours, fill out around 15 pages of paperwork and waste good 400 € of taxpayers' money. While that's a case of the worst of contract/subcontract system, it allows the military to enable wide deployment and modifications to their computer systems without having to take up military's time, set under the same standard, and troubleshooting headaches. Not to insult the German military, but what would happen if the order came down for 300 Soldiers to both upgrade their systems and move them to conform to another network on their own? I can see a massive clusterfuck happening. It makes little things god damn annoying and complicated, but it simplifies and streamlines the big things. That said, such system can do better by giving some leeway to the end user. At least that's how it's down in the U.S. military. | ||
urboss
Austria1223 Posts
On June 29 2014 01:59 oneofthem wrote: Show nested quote + On June 29 2014 00:14 urboss wrote: from the interview: "When I talk about bullshit jobs, I mean, the kind of jobs that even those who work them feel do not really need to exist. A lot of them are made-up middle management, you know, I’m the “East Coast strategic vision coordinator” for some big firm, which basically means you spend all your time at meetings or forming teams that then send reports to one another. Or someone who works in an industry that they feel doesn’t need to exist, like most of the corporate lawyers I know, or telemarketers, or lobbyists…. Just think of when you walk into a hospital, how half the employees never seem to do anything for sick people, but are just filling out insurance forms and sending information to each other. Some of that work obviously does need to be done, but for the most part, everyone working there knows what really needs to get done and that the remaining 90 percent of what they do is bullshit. And then think about the ancillary workers that support people doing the bullshit jobs: here’s an office where people basically translate German formatted paperwork into British formatted paperwork or some such, and there has to be a whole infrastructure of receptionists, janitors, security guards, computer maintenance people, which are kind of second-order bullshit jobs, they’re actually doing something, but they’re doing it to support people who are doing nothing." well if this is what 'bullshit' means here then it's rather flimsy. the 'actually important people' may be fulfilling the function of the organization but the surrounding people are also necessary to save time for these people. there are exceptions of organizational inertia etc but largely that's the rationale for creation of these bullshit jobs, to save cognitive resources I guess you misunderstood the point. Let's say that there are 10 actuaries who do - in the grand scheme of things - useless work. These 10 actuaries need a whole support system to keep them going. They need administrators, receptionists, janitors, security guards, computer maintenance people etc.. All those people do is to support the people that do useless work. That means, those people's work also becomes useless. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On June 29 2014 00:26 itsjustatank wrote: How exactly are you going to 'change' the system. I will posit that this article is bullshit worthless ivory tower elitism unless you can articulate a world beyond capitalism and a way to attain it that isn't simply 'rethink the world' or 'change.' Honestly, I can probably replace the essay with random gibberish generated by the Dada engine and attain the same result. it's not very productive to engage the issue on such a coarse grain level, as if the choices are simply status quo vs everyone has everything yay. graeber does write in this crusading voice and that may rankle some people and provoke a reaction in the other extreme, but it is quite clear that automation and greater pursuit of rationality in the management of capital is producing profound changes, and most of this stuff can't be controlled or directed. it's just something to think about at this stage. | ||
phil.ipp
Austria1067 Posts
On June 29 2014 01:09 itsjustatank wrote: When alternatives to capital are framed as just thinking about a world to be, nothing ever happens. There is, however, a cruel sense of pleasure gained by verbally or textually chipping away at this big 'system,' which is why threads like this exist and why people like the professor in the essay do as well (and he gets paid to experience it). Each person involved in it thinks things are changing incrementally, but like others have said in this thread, the 'system' remains as it was a hundred years later. This is the circularity of academic discourse surrounding capitalism and quote-unquote solving it. haha, you sit at home watching all these sad people running in their circle, calling themself "academics", when they are in fact just talking gibberish, as we all know it hasnt changed anything in the last hundred years (whaaat!?!?) BUT you on the other hand ... you see through all these illusions. we are not in battlestar galactica, it did not happen all before and will happen again, so thinking, talking, doing something will change nothing - what seems to be your motto luckily things change ALL the time, even the "system" changes all the time, at least here in europe, dont know where you coming from. if it changes for the good or the worse, is on us, electing the right people to do the things we wish. and to make a good decision on who to elect, guess what, talking about the things happening around us, and the things we wish to happen, is really important. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On June 29 2014 02:06 urboss wrote: Show nested quote + On June 29 2014 01:59 oneofthem wrote: On June 29 2014 00:14 urboss wrote: from the interview: "When I talk about bullshit jobs, I mean, the kind of jobs that even those who work them feel do not really need to exist. A lot of them are made-up middle management, you know, I’m the “East Coast strategic vision coordinator” for some big firm, which basically means you spend all your time at meetings or forming teams that then send reports to one another. Or someone who works in an industry that they feel doesn’t need to exist, like most of the corporate lawyers I know, or telemarketers, or lobbyists…. Just think of when you walk into a hospital, how half the employees never seem to do anything for sick people, but are just filling out insurance forms and sending information to each other. Some of that work obviously does need to be done, but for the most part, everyone working there knows what really needs to get done and that the remaining 90 percent of what they do is bullshit. And then think about the ancillary workers that support people doing the bullshit jobs: here’s an office where people basically translate German formatted paperwork into British formatted paperwork or some such, and there has to be a whole infrastructure of receptionists, janitors, security guards, computer maintenance people, which are kind of second-order bullshit jobs, they’re actually doing something, but they’re doing it to support people who are doing nothing." well if this is what 'bullshit' means here then it's rather flimsy. the 'actually important people' may be fulfilling the function of the organization but the surrounding people are also necessary to save time for these people. there are exceptions of organizational inertia etc but largely that's the rationale for creation of these bullshit jobs, to save cognitive resources I guess you misunderstood the point. Let's say that there are 10 actuaries who do - in the grand scheme of things - useless work. These 10 actuaries need a whole support system to keep them going. They need administrators, receptionists, janitors, security guards, computer maintenance people etc.. All those people do is to support the people that do useless work. That means, those people's work also becomes useless. the quoted paragraph tagged certain tasks as actually important. then with that, i assume 'useless' is defined as anything that is not actually important, whatever actually important may be doesn't really matter. i'm just addressing the structural abstraction as it was set up by graeber, that the guys supporting the actually important guys are there to act as extended automated minds. | ||
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9136 Posts
On June 29 2014 02:09 phil.ipp wrote: Show nested quote + On June 29 2014 01:09 itsjustatank wrote: When alternatives to capital are framed as just thinking about a world to be, nothing ever happens. There is, however, a cruel sense of pleasure gained by verbally or textually chipping away at this big 'system,' which is why threads like this exist and why people like the professor in the essay do as well (and he gets paid to experience it). Each person involved in it thinks things are changing incrementally, but like others have said in this thread, the 'system' remains as it was a hundred years later. This is the circularity of academic discourse surrounding capitalism and quote-unquote solving it. haha, you sit at home watching all these sad people running in their circle, calling themself "academics", when they are in fact just talking gibberish, as we all know it hasnt changed anything in the last hundred years (whaaat!?!?) BUT you on the other hand ... you see through all these illusions. we are not in battlestar galactica, it did not happen all before and will happen again, so thinking, talking, doing something will change nothing - what seems to be your motto luckily things change ALL the time, even the "system" changes all the time, at least here in europe, dont know where you coming from. if it changes for the good or the worse, is on us, electing the right people to do the things we wish. and to make a good decision on who to elect, guess what, talking about the things happening around us, and the things we wish to happen, is really important. The last seventy years of liberal democracy and social democratic rule in Europe has seen the bolstering of capital, the appearance of the same economic crises, and no solvency of the fundamental inequalities that exist in the 'system.' Piecemeal action termed as reform simply doesn't work on an overall basis, but, sure, it is cognitively a step beyond dreaming a world to be. It's functionally just as bad, assuming you think the status quo is bad. On June 29 2014 02:08 oneofthem wrote: Show nested quote + On June 29 2014 00:26 itsjustatank wrote: How exactly are you going to 'change' the system. I will posit that this article is bullshit worthless ivory tower elitism unless you can articulate a world beyond capitalism and a way to attain it that isn't simply 'rethink the world' or 'change.' Honestly, I can probably replace the essay with random gibberish generated by the Dada engine and attain the same result. it's not very productive to engage the issue on such a coarse grain level, as if the choices are simply status quo vs everyone has everything yay. graeber does write in this crusading voice and that may rankle some people and provoke a reaction in the other extreme, but it is quite clear that automation and greater pursuit of rationality in the management of capital is producing profound changes, and most of this stuff can't be controlled or directed. it's just something to think about at this stage. What I am getting at is that if you think the current economic arrangements are unacceptable, creating scapegoats out of people with 'bullshit jobs' and saying something needs to be done about it (and them) will only regenerate the underlying problem. | ||
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On June 29 2014 02:06 urboss wrote: Show nested quote + On June 29 2014 01:59 oneofthem wrote: On June 29 2014 00:14 urboss wrote: from the interview: "When I talk about bullshit jobs, I mean, the kind of jobs that even those who work them feel do not really need to exist. A lot of them are made-up middle management, you know, I’m the “East Coast strategic vision coordinator” for some big firm, which basically means you spend all your time at meetings or forming teams that then send reports to one another. Or someone who works in an industry that they feel doesn’t need to exist, like most of the corporate lawyers I know, or telemarketers, or lobbyists…. Just think of when you walk into a hospital, how half the employees never seem to do anything for sick people, but are just filling out insurance forms and sending information to each other. Some of that work obviously does need to be done, but for the most part, everyone working there knows what really needs to get done and that the remaining 90 percent of what they do is bullshit. And then think about the ancillary workers that support people doing the bullshit jobs: here’s an office where people basically translate German formatted paperwork into British formatted paperwork or some such, and there has to be a whole infrastructure of receptionists, janitors, security guards, computer maintenance people, which are kind of second-order bullshit jobs, they’re actually doing something, but they’re doing it to support people who are doing nothing." well if this is what 'bullshit' means here then it's rather flimsy. the 'actually important people' may be fulfilling the function of the organization but the surrounding people are also necessary to save time for these people. there are exceptions of organizational inertia etc but largely that's the rationale for creation of these bullshit jobs, to save cognitive resources I guess you misunderstood the point. Let's say that there are 10 actuaries who do - in the grand scheme of things - useless work. These 10 actuaries need a whole support system to keep them going. They need administrators, receptionists, janitors, security guards, computer maintenance people etc.. All those people do is to support the people that do useless work. That means, those people's work also becomes useless. Actuaries are useless work? Wow who knew that the underscoring of risk in modern insurance which enable the British Empire, the Dutch Empire and other great Trade Empires which exploded into the world in the mid 18th century were totally bullshit jobs! But seriously, how is actuary useless? It is a service in great demand by business, by consumers, by almost everyone who wants to share risk taking. The fact you think actuary is pointless speak volumes. | ||
xM(Z
Romania5257 Posts
he is not anti-what.ever.this.is, he is to pro-what.ever.this.is On June 29 2014 00:59 urboss wrote: Show nested quote + On June 28 2014 22:44 xM(Z wrote: so you'd rather have billions of people left to their pleasures and ideas?. i don't know man, right now, i'd fear that. Yes, that thought also worries me. I guess the answer would be 24/7 state-controlled entertainment. Sounds familiar? if by entertainment you mean drugs/drugged out, then ye, it sounds familiar ... | ||
GreenHorizons
United States21791 Posts
Whether it's 'Marriage has always been between one woman and one man' ignoring millions of marriages over hundreds of years that don't fit that descriptions, or 'I'm not a scientist but I have no problem ignoring them', or as in this case 'capitalism is the best system possible and all you ivory tower academics (as if being academic is a bad thing) don't have any better ideas'. Including the inexplicable disdain for education, it's nothing new. You can look at certain groups objections throughout history and see time and time again the prediction for doom, gloom, and the impossibility of change, *spoiler* are almost always wrong. Acid rain, Smoking, Desegregation, Solar Power, Labeling GMO's, the list goes on... One would think after a group has been so willfully wrong so many times, either people would stop listening, or they would slink away in shame. But certainly not in the US, those voices are getting louder and more attention no matter how completely insane they are. Just look at what they want to put into science classrooms... For some of us who have been exposed to alternatives to capitalism it isn't so hard to imagine a different world. We didn't shift to modern capitalism over night and we won't shift away overnight. Incremental steps leading to larger ones is the natural progression, not some bug. You can call people who suggest in a world where simutaniously we have an obesity epidemic and millions of children starving to death whatever names you want and deride the fact that they chose to get degrees, but to suggest we couldn't do better if we just tried (instead of scrooging every alternative idea/perspective) is just typical close-minded hog waller (opposite of Ivory tower?) talk. Don't worry tank the change will come or we'll blow ourselves up to prevent it. But just like slavery, segregation, acid rain, gay marriage, etc... the people who think changing our views on it will ruin the country/world will eventually just be relics of a somewhat shameful past. | ||
phil.ipp
Austria1067 Posts
On June 29 2014 02:20 itsjustatank wrote: The last seventy years of liberal democracy and social democratic rule in Europe has seen the bolstering of capital, the appearance of the same economic crises, and no solvency of the fundamental inequalities that exist in the 'system.' Piecemeal action termed as reform simply doesn't work on an overall basis, but, sure, it is cognitively a step beyond dreaming a world to be. It's functionally just as bad, assuming you think the status quo is bad. i see nothing bad in the history of the last 70 years after WWII there was nothing, millions had nothing. i dont condem capitalism, it worked great the last 70 years, people had work, things needed to be build. economy was on the rise. worked like a charm. but now, for the next 70 years its not suited anymore. i hope i dont have to explain why. so it has to be adapted, we dont need to tear all down, but slowly build towards a system that is made so we can achieve the goals we set ourselfs for the next 70 years. and this goal is not, like it was the last 70 years, economic growth. we can already supply the whole world with all the things people need to lead a decent life. there is no need for even more production. the goal for the next 70 years has to be, that everyone is getting the stuff he needs to lead that decent life. | ||
Cynry
810 Posts
| ||
urboss
Austria1223 Posts
On June 29 2014 02:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Show nested quote + On June 29 2014 02:06 urboss wrote: On June 29 2014 01:59 oneofthem wrote: On June 29 2014 00:14 urboss wrote: from the interview: "When I talk about bullshit jobs, I mean, the kind of jobs that even those who work them feel do not really need to exist. A lot of them are made-up middle management, you know, I’m the “East Coast strategic vision coordinator” for some big firm, which basically means you spend all your time at meetings or forming teams that then send reports to one another. Or someone who works in an industry that they feel doesn’t need to exist, like most of the corporate lawyers I know, or telemarketers, or lobbyists…. Just think of when you walk into a hospital, how half the employees never seem to do anything for sick people, but are just filling out insurance forms and sending information to each other. Some of that work obviously does need to be done, but for the most part, everyone working there knows what really needs to get done and that the remaining 90 percent of what they do is bullshit. And then think about the ancillary workers that support people doing the bullshit jobs: here’s an office where people basically translate German formatted paperwork into British formatted paperwork or some such, and there has to be a whole infrastructure of receptionists, janitors, security guards, computer maintenance people, which are kind of second-order bullshit jobs, they’re actually doing something, but they’re doing it to support people who are doing nothing." well if this is what 'bullshit' means here then it's rather flimsy. the 'actually important people' may be fulfilling the function of the organization but the surrounding people are also necessary to save time for these people. there are exceptions of organizational inertia etc but largely that's the rationale for creation of these bullshit jobs, to save cognitive resources I guess you misunderstood the point. Let's say that there are 10 actuaries who do - in the grand scheme of things - useless work. These 10 actuaries need a whole support system to keep them going. They need administrators, receptionists, janitors, security guards, computer maintenance people etc.. All those people do is to support the people that do useless work. That means, those people's work also becomes useless. Actuaries are useless work? Wow who knew that the underscoring of risk in modern insurance which enable the British Empire, the Dutch Empire and other great Trade Empires which exploded into the world in the mid 18th century were totally bullshit jobs! But seriously, how is actuary useless? It is a service in great demand by business, by consumers, by almost everyone who wants to share risk taking. The fact you think actuary is pointless speak volumes. Nowhere did I say that all actuaries do useless work, far from that. In gave an example of 10 actuaries who do useless work. You could imagine 10 actuaries that formulate the corporate risk policy for an investment firm. Or in other words, they are pushing papers for a company that pushes papers. All they ever produce is steam. None of what these people do has any tangible value in the grand scheme of things. These jobs only exist because someone else places value on it. Why does someone place value on it when in fact they produce nothing but steam? Because our economic system nurtures this kind of stuff. | ||
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On June 29 2014 03:06 urboss wrote: Show nested quote + On June 29 2014 02:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote: On June 29 2014 02:06 urboss wrote: On June 29 2014 01:59 oneofthem wrote: On June 29 2014 00:14 urboss wrote: from the interview: "When I talk about bullshit jobs, I mean, the kind of jobs that even those who work them feel do not really need to exist. A lot of them are made-up middle management, you know, I’m the “East Coast strategic vision coordinator” for some big firm, which basically means you spend all your time at meetings or forming teams that then send reports to one another. Or someone who works in an industry that they feel doesn’t need to exist, like most of the corporate lawyers I know, or telemarketers, or lobbyists…. Just think of when you walk into a hospital, how half the employees never seem to do anything for sick people, but are just filling out insurance forms and sending information to each other. Some of that work obviously does need to be done, but for the most part, everyone working there knows what really needs to get done and that the remaining 90 percent of what they do is bullshit. And then think about the ancillary workers that support people doing the bullshit jobs: here’s an office where people basically translate German formatted paperwork into British formatted paperwork or some such, and there has to be a whole infrastructure of receptionists, janitors, security guards, computer maintenance people, which are kind of second-order bullshit jobs, they’re actually doing something, but they’re doing it to support people who are doing nothing." well if this is what 'bullshit' means here then it's rather flimsy. the 'actually important people' may be fulfilling the function of the organization but the surrounding people are also necessary to save time for these people. there are exceptions of organizational inertia etc but largely that's the rationale for creation of these bullshit jobs, to save cognitive resources I guess you misunderstood the point. Let's say that there are 10 actuaries who do - in the grand scheme of things - useless work. These 10 actuaries need a whole support system to keep them going. They need administrators, receptionists, janitors, security guards, computer maintenance people etc.. All those people do is to support the people that do useless work. That means, those people's work also becomes useless. Actuaries are useless work? Wow who knew that the underscoring of risk in modern insurance which enable the British Empire, the Dutch Empire and other great Trade Empires which exploded into the world in the mid 18th century were totally bullshit jobs! But seriously, how is actuary useless? It is a service in great demand by business, by consumers, by almost everyone who wants to share risk taking. The fact you think actuary is pointless speak volumes. Nowhere did I say that all actuaries do useless work, far from that. In gave an example of 10 actuaries who do useless work. You could imagine 10 actuaries that formulate the corporate risk policy for an investment firm. Or in other words, they are pushing papers for a company that pushes papers. All they ever produce is steam. None of what these people do has any tangible value in the grand scheme of things. These jobs only exist because someone else places value on it. Why does someone place value on it when in fact they produce nothing but steam? Because our economic system nurtures this kind of stuff. Or because it has value...? I mean what is the value of a merchant who sells the farmer's wares in the city square? The farmer could do that himself. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States21791 Posts
On June 29 2014 03:03 Cynry wrote: Maybe I misunderstood, but isn't what tank is saying is that we lack proper alternative to capitalism ? And disregarding if that's what he thinks or not, isn't that true so far ? One of the issues I think that arises out of discussions like this is the importance of separating Capitalism as a philosophy from capitalism as it describes (semi-)natural phenomena. When designing alternatives to our current Capitalism it's often thought that the new version can't have any remnants or patterns we see in Capitalism, that's just false. For instance supply and demand describes a phenomena that isn't exclusive to capitalism. It's the philosophical part of capitalism that comes in and tells us more about why and what we should do about it and that's the part that needs retooling. So in a non-capitalist/alternative form supply and demand as a phenomena doesn't go away we just interpret, act on, and potentially calculate that information differently. The same applies to most of the aspects that people who cling to capitalism show the most concern about. | ||
phil.ipp
Austria1067 Posts
On June 29 2014 03:03 Cynry wrote: Maybe I misunderstood, but isn't what tank is saying is that we lack proper alternative to capitalism ? And disregarding if that's what he thinks or not, isn't that true so far ? no i dont think he means that he does a meta-discussion he thinks the people who write these articles only talk and make money from it, and feel good about talking about the big system, but not really changing anything. there are enough "alternatives". only its easier for our politians to hold on to the status quo. the system of the last 70 years was influenced by economic "knowledge" that you can make as much debt as you want, you just have to invest it into education, and technological progress, then you get enough economic growth rendering your debts insignificant. sadly now america and europe have over 30 trillions debt, and we are not anywhere near the economic growth in the foreseeable future that we need to get rid of the debt. it was and never will be the "only" system that works, it just was one of many ideas, and we choose this one. it was not super bad, but it needs adjusting now | ||
| ||
ESL Pro Tour
Spring 2024 - Asia Playoffs D1
[ Submit Event ] |
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney 49245 Dota 2Hyuk 3068 EffOrt 489 ggaemo 424 BeSt 296 Snow 279 Last 207 Light 144 Zeus 142 Stork 139 [ Show more ] Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games Organizations StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War
StarCraft 2 • intothetv StarCraft: Brood War• IndyKCrew • Poblha • Migwel • aXEnki • Laughngamez YouTube • LaughNgamez Trovo • Gussbus • Kozan League of Legends |
ESL Pro Tour
Wayne vs Harstem
ShoWTimE vs goblin
HeRoMaRinE vs Lambo
Clem vs Bly
PassionCraft
ESL Pro Tour
World Team League
ESL Pro Tour
Reynor vs MaNa
GunGFuBanDa vs Spirit
Elazer vs Krystianer
SKillous vs MaxPax
Korean StarCraft League
Afreeca Starleague
hero vs Soulkey
AfreecaTV Pro Series
Reynor vs Cure
ESL Pro Tour
World Team League
[ Show More ] ESL Pro Tour
BSL
Zhanhun vs DragOn
Dewalt vs Sziky
CSO Cup
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
ESL Pro Tour
World Team League
ESL Pro Tour
BSL
Gypsy vs Bonyth
Mihu vs XiaoShuai
ESL Open Cup
ESL Open Cup
ESL Open Cup
|
|