Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lord Dullard]

There is indeed a 'system', yes. It's not just organizational, either. It's also a system of economic assumptions that really make no sense from a realist's perspective, but are very effective at maintaining the status quo.

Example: You have a sub sandwich which is worth $5 in America. Fly it overseas to Zimbabwe (or insert any other Third World country here) and your sandwich is now magically worth only 10 cents. Why? Because of the way we evaluate currencies. Capitalism itself, as practiced in the First World, effectively exploits differences in currency values in order to propagate the economic status quo. It doesn't matter if Wherever, Africa is exporting craptons of raw goods to us, because we're only paying them a fraction of the retail cost once they get to the First World. Aside from reasons of dodging taxes, this is also the big reason a lot of megacorps like to locate their production facilities overseas: the raw goods are phenomenally cheap, and the cost of labor is proportionally cheap as well. In this way the system avoids ever paying the Third World enough for its resources for it to achieve economic success while retaining enough of its own magically preserved and completely meaningless (again, from a realist's POV) monetary superiority continue to do the same thing over and over and over...

Relatively speaking, the effect is to create a super-surplus of everything in the First World. While one would think this would result in 'cheaper everything', it doesn't work that way when you tie it in with the way we attempt to artificially impose a 40-hour 'necessary' work week on our entire labor base, when no such thing is needed, of course.

[mainiac]

Example: You have a sub sandwich which is worth $5 in America. Fly it overseas to Zimbabwe (or insert any other Third World country here) and your sandwich is now magically worth only 10 cents. Why? Because of the way we evaluate currencies.

Exchange rates do not work the way you think they do.

And usually fast food isn't vastly cheaper in developing countries. http://kivafellows.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/bigmacindex_mashup2.png?w=455&h=819

It's cheaper due to low labor costs and lower consumer purchasing power.  In other words, supply and demand.

Fast food in the 3rd world is an interesting question because fast food companies tend not to set up shop where no one will buy their product.  I suppose you can argue that the market price would be low (though certainly above $.10) but only because there isn't any demand for expensive food.  But a quick looksy at the internet says that Zimbabwe used to have a fast food chain called Chicken Inn that went under during the hyper-inflation.  It's hard to tell their prices because of the hyperinflation but near as I can tell, they were selling food for about $6-$10 a meal, i.e. slightly more expensive then in affluent countries.

Despite you thinking they are a bogeyman, exchange rates are pretty much the best thing about capitalism from a humanitarian perspective.  If thing are cheap in the 3rd world, it gives an incentive to invest there, moving people from crappy sustenance farming to slightly less crappy export industries.  Outside of a few defacto slave economies like north korea and vietnam, nobody forces the farmers to move into these export industries.  They do so willingly because a wage that an american wouldn't think to take is a big step up in the world for them.  And after a few decades there will be labor shortages leading to the workers being able to demand higher wages, like Korea in 1970 or China right now.

[lemon10]

And usually fast food isn't vastly cheaper in developing countries. http://kivafellows.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/bigmacindex_mashup2.png?w=455&h=819

I have to disagree with that.
I agree that food at macdonalds is on average near the same price everywhere, but if you live in africa, you aren't going to be able to pay $2 for every mean for every person, especially when you only make a dollar a day for your whole family.
During my time that I lived in Indonesia, prices of pretty much everything but electronics were FAR cheaper (including and especially food).

[Lord Dullard]

Yeah, that was also a bad example on my part, specifically because food prices in Africa (and Zimbabwe in particular) have been skyrocketing lately due to famine, so food prices are completely out of whack there.

Let's try the Philippines instead, where you can get a meal at a restaurant in the mall for $2, and anywhere else for around sixty cents (I also didn't say anything about 'fast food', just food).

[mainiac]

Well obviously people don't eat an american diet in places where they can't afford an american diet.  If you eat fewer calories and less meat then food is cheaper, even eating out.

[DJ]

In Bosnia fast food is much cheaper, but the raw ingredients are actually more expensive. They simply pay the workers a lot less and have much smaller profit margins.

For example, a burger would cost like 1.25€, while the bun and the patty combined cost ~.75€ in a supermarket.

[ChairmanPoo]

That doesn't mean fast food chains pay 0.75  for the bun and patty.

[Buttery_Mess]

It is true that any group of interacting parts can be considered a 'system'. In this sense, human society is a system; however, like any system, the whole cannot be changed without changing the individual parts, and changing the individual parts changes the system as a whole.

They system is only conceptually real; the actual components are individual people. In this case, the individual components that have conception of a system behave differently because of that conception.

The point is that the system isn't fixed; it is the product of whatever the individuals are doing. The system can't be changed without affecting individuals. The problem isn't a bad system; it's problem individuals, shielded by popular conception of systems. For example, where a problem individual is defend by the legal system, they can be defeated by convincing the populace to ignore the law. This is an example of civil disobedience, which can be made manifest, for example, in the instance of a popular revolution.

[SalmonGod]

It is true that any group of interacting parts can be considered a 'system'. In this sense, human society is a system; however, like any system, the whole cannot be changed without changing the individual parts, and changing the individual parts changes the system as a whole.

They system is only conceptually real; the actual components are individual people. In this case, the individual components that have conception of a system behave differently because of that conception.

The point is that the system isn't fixed; it is the product of whatever the individuals are doing. The system can't be changed without affecting individuals. The problem isn't a bad system; it's problem individuals, shielded by popular conception of systems. For example, where a problem individual is defend by the legal system, they can be defeated by convincing the populace to ignore the law. This is an example of civil disobedience, which can be made manifest, for example, in the instance of a popular revolution.

What I refer to as "the system" is the self-perpetuating feedback mechanisms between individuals that reinforce certain behaviors.  Even when a majority of individuals are aware of the situation and desire to change it, that change needs to be made with a united effort.  This is very difficult to pull off.  The biggest problem is that being the one to initiate such united action involves a huge amount of risk.  The amount of risk is directly proportional to the ratio of the community that agrees with you, but simply attempting to gauge popular opinion can invite risk.  A majority can agree but behave as if they don't agree because they don't believe that the majority agrees, if that makes sense.

Just look at the behavior of corporations.  There are no individuals within a corporation that can be held responsible for the behavior of the whole entity.  There are major decision makers, but they are duty bound to make profit for shareholders.  They cannot pass up an opportunity to do this, even if it means unethical behavior.  That would be neglecting their duties, and could be grounds for some sort of punishment.  Shareholders aren't much responsible for the behavior of a corporation, because they're usually not decision makers.  They just expect corporate executives to make profit for them.  They have nothing to do with how that task is carried out.  So corporate executives pass orders on to their subordinates that often involve unethical behaviors, but each employee usually doesn't do anything as an individual that's horribly unethical.  It's the sum of their behaviors that results in horribly unethical things happening.  They're each sheltered from any personal responsibility or blame for the ultimate consequences of the actions of the corporation as a whole.  Still, they are often aware that they are participating in something unethical, but your average corporate employee has very little individual influence on the behavior of the corporation as a whole.  An organized action can have amazing influence, but the problem is spreading subversive sentiments among co-workers is a great way to get fired, which is a consequence that most people cannot take lightly.  So most people that agree with you will pretend that they don't, distorting perceptions among the group and preventing anything from gaining momentum, while the person who stuck their neck out in the first place gets the chop.

So yeah, it's all a bunch of mind games.  It is absurd.  Doesn't make it any less challenging.

[Lagslayer]

OK, recap. Society grows out of individuals' interactions. The individuals must, themselves, change or the society will never truly change.

And now I draw parallel to the Occupy Wallstreet thread.

[ChairmanPoo]

  There are no individuals within a corporation that can be held responsible for the behavior of the whole entity.  There are major decision makers, but they are duty bound to make profit for shareholders.  They cannot pass up an opportunity to do this, even if it means unethical behavior.  That would be neglecting their duties, and could be grounds for some sort of punishment.  Shareholders aren't much responsible for the behavior of a corporation, because they're usually not decision makers.  They just expect corporate executives to make profit for them.  They have nothing to do with how that task is carried out.  So corporate executives pass orders on to their subordinates that often involve unethical behaviors, but each employee usually doesn't do anything as an individual that's horribly unethical.  It's the sum of their behaviors that results in horribly unethical things happening.  They're each sheltered from any personal responsibility or blame for the ultimate consequences of the actions of the corporation as a whole.

You'd be surprised with how corrupt and inefficient sufficiently large corporations are, at all levels.

[Lord Dullard]

Well, they're essentially economic governments, so it's not surprising at all.

[SalmonGod]

You'd be surprised with how corrupt and inefficient sufficiently large corporations are, at all levels.

No, I really wouldn't

[DJ]

That doesn't mean fast food chains pay 0.75  for the bun and patty.

We don't actually have fast food chains. Or Starbucks. And I really hope it stays that way.

[Gantolandon]

It is true that any group of interacting parts can be considered a 'system'. In this sense, human society is a system; however, like any system, the whole cannot be changed without changing the individual parts, and changing the individual parts changes the system as a whole.

They system is only conceptually real; the actual components are individual people. In this case, the individual components that have conception of a system behave differently because of that conception.

The point is that the system isn't fixed; it is the product of whatever the individuals are doing. The system can't be changed without affecting individuals. The problem isn't a bad system; it's problem individuals, shielded by popular conception of systems. For example, where a problem individual is defend by the legal system, they can be defeated by convincing the populace to ignore the law. This is an example of civil disobedience, which can be made manifest, for example, in the instance of a popular revolution.

Actually changing individuals, even those on top, doesn't tend to do much. They are pressured by the rest of the system (peers, internal and external laws, logistics, economy, etc.) to behave accordingly, or be expelled. A good, honest cop can't do much, for example, if the rest of the force is corrupt and the laws shield them from repercussions - he will soon become an outcast, unless he shows some solidarity with his peers. Even changing people on the top more often than not fails - history knows many potential great reformers, who had to combat their upper classes to make any kind of change.

Convincing people is much better idea, but still it's impossible if you treat them as individual people, detached from the system. The reason is simple - the ideas spread inside the system are usually those most favorable to its stability. Mass media, for example, tend to marginalize parties and ideologies which are not the part of the mainstream, because their owners want to be taken seriously by their readers and (more importantly) advertisers. This, of course, makes contacting the society even more difficult for these groups, which isolates them even more. Soon you can't even identify with these ideologies without being labeled as a ridiculous utopist or dangerous madman, even before you manage to say anything. That's why, for example, anarchist demonstrations doesn't tend to change much - these people has been already labeled by most of the society as wackos who can't and shouldn't be treated seriously. Even if they are mentioned anywhere in media, it's usually with contempt or amusement.

If you want to convince anyone, you need to know how to do this effectively. Which ideas actually help you and which actually hurt your cause and should be avoided. Which parts of the society really are necessary and which kinda emerged because of some strange assumptions which have little basis in reality. You can't do that only by looking at the individual parts.