Print

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

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Zangi]

So we wind up in situations where "organizing meetings between party leaders on yachts" is the sort of thing we're supposed to sympathize with lobbyists for having to put up with, and the whole cycle of "Work for the government, then companies that you were regulating" is presented as ethically ambiguous instead of textbook cronyism. It's a blatant sort of "Teach the controversy" thing, and I really expected better at this level of education.

Do they add in something about: 'if one side doesn't do it, some other side will?'

[Baffler]

Yeah, the merits of capitalism are probably not kosher for a long discussion, but perhaps a discussion of the corruption lobbying industry is more on-target.

Fun story - I'm actually in a Business and Government grad course right now. The textbooks' bias is showing pretty hard - in the name of "fairness", they're basically trying to play up the dilemmas lobbyists face between corrupt and legitimate activities. So we wind up in situations where "organizing meetings between party leaders on yachts" is the sort of thing we're supposed to sympathize with lobbyists for having to put up with, and the whole cycle of "Work for the government, then companies that you were regulating" is presented as ethically ambiguous instead of textbook cronyism. It's a blatant sort of "Teach the controversy" thing, and I really expected better at this level of education.

How else are they going to put bodies in suits? If they were honest about it only a small number of people who are completely (and obviously) amoral would actually sign up.

[LordSlowpoke]

post-scarcity is impossible because capitalism actively prevents it

give it 50 years of heavy development in asteroid mining and fusion and you're more or less set

m8

[LordSlowpoke]

which parts of the manufacturing process are we unable to totally automate, again...?

i mean, given long-term initial investments (replacing walmarts with amazon-style autowarehouses instead of paying people slave wages) i can hardly think of anything other than maintenance

[Sheb]

Ok, while I don't think thise discussion about "capitalism" is productive or well-informed, I'd like to point out that Zanzkutzen's argument is utter BS.

A) Just about every study I've ever read shows that boosting the minimum wage to a reasonable level (I'm not saying "Let's give everyone 5-figures salaries here) boost employment. Simply put, the people that will earn more due to a minimum wage increase will spend that cash, boosting the overall economy. It's especially important in a situation like now, where US corporation are sitting on huge pile of cash: they clearly can afford to hire more workers, they just don't because there is no extra demand for their products.

B) The simple way to make sure a minimum wage is not eroded over time is to have it indexed to inflation. It's frankly ridiculous that this isn't already the case in the US.

P.S. LSP: You know Amazon's warehouse are filled with wage-slaves that are even worse off than Walmart's? At least Walmart has to keep up apparences for its customers.

[LordSlowpoke]

pretty sure i saw a video stating otherwise, sheb

that or my memory's pretty fucked

but i do remember autowarehouses being a thing, where every item had a barcode and you just pushed a button or typed the barcode in and it got moved through a system of hanging rails to your general location

[Sheb]

They're still far from fully automated, although I guess the level of automation is increasing, at least in the West.

[Sergarr]

People keep using the word "capitalism" as a substitute for the words "free market".

This is however wrong. The word capitalism defines a system, where the capitalists, who own the means of production are letting other people (workers and such) work on them. Because the workers do not own the means of production and cannot survive without working, the capitalists end up in power.

The key parts here are"people who work do not actually own the instruments which they need for work", and "people have to work to live".

[Criptfeind]

That is not at all what capitalism is. It might be the opposite of the definition of communism (maybe, I don't know), but it's not capitalism.

[Sergarr]

That is not at all what capitalism is. It might be the opposite of the definition of communism (maybe, I don't know), but it's not capitalism.

This definition allows to separate the feudalism and capitalism better than a wikipedia definition.

"Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit"

Under this definition, the Middle Ages Europe has a capitalistic system!

Hell, you can even substitute the word "capitalism" with the words "free market" in that definition, and it wouldn't be completely wrong.

No wonder people cannot imagine a post-capitalism society that is not communist (which is also wrongly associated with the "state controlled market").

Obviously you cannot imagine the market which is simultaneously not privately owned and not owned by the state.

[RedKing]

So all this economic talk, but no discussion of Bostic v. Schaeffer?

To wit: 4th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Virginia's same-sex marriage ban as un-Constitutional. The Supreme Court this week declined to hear any appeals from states in the case, meaning that the issue is settled as far as they're concerned. The 4th Circuit covers not only Virginia but NC, SC, Maryland and West Virginia as well.

To hear the Republicans in NC, this is activist judges thwarting the will of the people and subjecting us all to Sodom-and-Gomorrah style retribution from the LORD Almighty. The decision is expected to take effect in NC and SC within the next week or so. SC is already issuing marriage licenses in some jurisdictions, while NC is not. It's an embarassing as hell day when you're less progressive than South Carolina (with apologies to kaijyuu/Doctus).

Side note: The addition of NC, SC and WV to the list of states where same-sex marriage is legal (or at least not explicitly forbidden) brings the total to 30, or 60% of the United States. We're at a tipping point. Once Texas and Florida flip, the momentum will probably increase for Federal legislation to make it legal nationally.

[Sergarr]

Economy is more important in the long-term, though...

[LordSlowpoke]

texas and florida flipping

redking dear, how do you envision this

waiting until the demographic shift kicks in?

Economy is more important in the long-term, though...

corporations don't care about the long term, the ceo needs profits now

politicians don't care about the long term, they need to get reelected

vOv

[scriver]

That is not at all what capitalism is. It might be the opposite of the definition of communism (maybe, I don't know), but it's not capitalism.

This definition allows to separate the feudalism and capitalism better than a wikipedia definition.

"Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit"

Under this definition, the Middle Ages Europe has a capitalistic system!

Hell, you can even substitute the word "capitalism" with the words "free market" in that definition, and it wouldn't be completely wrong.

No wonder people cannot imagine a post-capitalism society that is not communist (which is also wrongly associated with the "state controlled market").

Obviously you cannot imagine the market which is simultaneously not privately owned and not owned by the state.

You could call medieval Europe as "capitalist" by your definition as well. Maybe we shouldn't try to force definitions onto eras they don't apply to, regardless of how well they fit when viewing it as a superficial one-liner system?

[Sergarr]

That is not at all what capitalism is. It might be the opposite of the definition of communism (maybe, I don't know), but it's not capitalism.

This definition allows to separate the feudalism and capitalism better than a wikipedia definition.

"Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit"

Under this definition, the Middle Ages Europe has a capitalistic system!

Hell, you can even substitute the word "capitalism" with the words "free market" in that definition, and it wouldn't be completely wrong.

No wonder people cannot imagine a post-capitalism society that is not communist (which is also wrongly associated with the "state controlled market").

Obviously you cannot imagine the market which is simultaneously not privately owned and not owned by the state.

You could call medieval Europe as "capitalist" by your definition as well. Maybe we shouldn't try to force definitions onto eras they don't apply to, regardless of how well they fit when viewing it as a superficial one-liner system?

Nope.

In medieval Europe the craftmen usuallly owned their means of production.
The peasants owned their plows.
The knights owned their horses.

See? Not capitalistic.

EDIT: The good modern example of a post-capitalist system struggling against capitalism would be the Internet.

You ever thought why professional pirates keep hacking software, even though they get zero profit out of it? Because they're fighting for the post-capitalist society of the future, that's why.