Print

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

[McTraveller]

I'm curious - what do folks think actually happens when a company (or even entire industry) is nationalized?  Do you really think the US government would use Amazon's (for example) revenue better than Amazon does?  It would definitely go to different people, but which different people?

[Reelya]

In the case of something like Amazon, it clearly couldn't remain as anything remotely resembling the Amazon company if nationalized. Pretty much every single choice that Amazon has made isn't something they'd be allowed to do if they were nationalized. They'd still be a book website and wouldn't have Amazon Web Services or Amazon Prime or pretty much any of the other things they're known for now.

They'd have to split it up, for example, AWS would turn into a service run by a government department and all innovation in the platform would basically cease and they'd lock what they have in stone for all time, because they have to adhere to regulations.

[SalmonGod]

The executives don't have to be thinking that for it to be true.

If something uses less resources it'll generally be cheaper, and people will switch to dong that. It means they wanted to save money, but saving resources is the by-product.

EDIT: but the point stands, you made the point that shipping back and forth used more carbon, I made the counter-point that the people working on the other end actually use less carbon, so in effect one offsets the other, and that's not actually evidence of your original point: that the capitalist system caused resources to be wasted unnecessarily.

"Cheaper way to do it" pretty much always means that less total resources were inputted into the system, and if it seems that it's caused them to spend more on resources then you probably haven't looked at the process holistically (end to end) enough.

Ok.  Let's grant that in this one instance the abstraction of resource expenditure into market calculus leads executives to unwittingly make a decision that causes their supply chain to have a lower carbon footprint by favoring workers who have a lower carbon footprint.  If you reeeeaaalllly want to keep digging so very hard at this tangent.  Except now your argument is hinging directly on pulling the floor out from under the higher carbon footprint workers because their survival within the system is less preferable.  And the system itself is responsible for making their existence less preferable by pushing a consumerist lifestyle onto them that made their carbon footprint so high in the first place.  Which presumably is the same thing that will happen to the Chinese workers over time, unless their wages are kept suppressed so that they're kept perpetually in a position of putting in the work to prop up consumerism while receiving non of the benefits.  Things like... being able to live outside of dorms owned and managed by the companies they work for.

And it's all still an incredibly forced straw-grasping tangent from the original topic of wasting food while people go hungry.

Is this the time to bring up that New York City has a program offering free meals to everyone during this crisis? Probably serves double duty since they are in essence school lunches, and I note from the writing on the packages that the stuff is produced upstate (probably why so much milk and applesauce is in it). My family has been getting them for about a month. Lot of milk in our fridge.

That is very cool and as far as I can tell very much outside the norm for most of the rest of the country.

[Reelya]

Ok.  Let's grant that in this one instance the abstraction of resource expenditure into market calculus leads executives to unwittingly make a decision that causes their supply chain to have a lower carbon footprint by favoring workers who have a lower carbon footprint.  If you reeeeaaalllly want to keep digging so very hard at this tangent. 

You made the tangent, and that wasn't "digging very hard" it was extremely obvious and easy to find the numbers for (just good carbon footprint American vs Chinese per capita). if you say there was a process change and that caused it to use more carbon then it's really not "digging very hard" to look at the rest of the process and note the carbon use there.

Except now your argument is hinging directly on pulling the floor out from under the higher carbon footprint workers because their survival within the system is less preferable.

I'm not changing the argument at all. You wanted to discuss carbon footprints. Now you're shifting the goalposts to another topic altogether that's entirely unrelated to your main point. It is you who is digging. you can't just keep changing the topic and say you're arguing in good faith and that you're somehow winning.

The supply chain did in fact shift to a location with a much lower carbon footprint. You can't say now that it's unfair because the people in the area with the high-carbon-footprint are now out of a job. Your original point was about whether capitalism goes in the direction of reducing resource requirements or not, so it's kind of contradictory to now complain that people in a resource-inefficient area lost out because of capitalism.

[Frumple]

That is very cool and as far as I can tell very much outside the norm for most of the rest of the country.

By leaps and fucking bounds, yes.

[SalmonGod]

Ok.  Let's grant that in this one instance the abstraction of resource expenditure into market calculus leads executives to unwittingly make a decision that causes their supply chain to have a lower carbon footprint by favoring workers who have a lower carbon footprint.  If you reeeeaaalllly want to keep digging so very hard at this tangent. 

You made the tangent, and that wasn't "digging very hard" it was extremely obvious and easy to find the numbers for. if you say there was a process change and that caused it to use more carbon then it's really not "digging very hard" to look at the rest of the process and note the carbon use there.

Except now your argument is hinging directly on pulling the floor out from under the higher carbon footprint workers because their survival within the system is less preferable.

I'm not changing the argument at all. You wanted to discuss carbon footprints. Now you're shifting the goalposts to another topic altogether that's entirely unrelated to your main point. It is you who is digging.

Concerns about mass hunger as food goes to waste because of demand shifts and unemployment.

Well actually if there's no demand for milk, it's inefficient to waste resources on storing and transporting it.  You don't want to just waste carbon footprint on stuff that nobody needs.

Repeat x20

Ok if you really want to keep going on about transportation and carbon footprints, here's a half-ass counterpoint.  Have fun with it.

You're the one who brought up this tangent.

I'm done.  This is just unreal.

[McTraveller]

Many school districts here in southeast Michigan are doing the "come get food supplies" once a week thing.  The only eligibility requirements is that you have an enrolled student, which is cool.

What's really sad is that there are people complaining because some people who "don't need" the handout are taking advantage 

[Frumple]

I mean, yeah, there's some limited stuff like that, mostly for kids/students going on where I'm at, and some (non-profit/etc.) food bank junk that's been on-going since Michael fucked up the region, but nothing like apparently regular free meals to folks in general coming from anything governmental. Nothing even close. Florida's just pretty fucked up on the assistance front, from what I understand.

[misko27]

Well there's info on it here: https://www.schools.nyc.gov/school-life/food/free-meals

The New York City Department of Education is committed to making free meals available daily for any New Yorker. Any New Yorker who wants one can get free meals at more than 400 Meal Hubs across the city.

No registration required, no ID, no one is turned away; can't eat it there but anyone can come. Only downside is the hours are a bit tight, 7:30-1:30, but one person can pick up multiple meals for others which helps balance that out. Gotta, say, it's been a huge help here. We probably would have been ok for a while without it (although probably would be in a really tough spot by now), but the supplement to what we already had on hand was greatly appreciated, huge financial relief, as well as the diversity provided and the tendency towards healthier food. It helps. It helps a lot. One of the few issues on which the Mayor has not been a raving dickwaffle.

[Devastator]

The antagonisms of the neoliberal agenda is what feeds into the desperate angry confused reactionary populism that manifests in figures like Trump.

I'd like to see someone explain what 'neoliberal' actually means, in a way where someone or something can be proven not to be it.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism[1] is the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism and free market capitalism.[2]:7[3] It is generally associated with policies of economic liberalization including privatization, deregulation, globalization, free trade, austerity, and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society;[4][12] however, the defining features of neoliberalism in both thought and practice have been the subject of substantial scholarly debate.[13][14] Neoliberalism constituted a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which had lasted from 1945 to 1980.[15][16]

[Devastator]

Yeah, that's kinda what I mean.

"post-war Keynesian consensus which had lasted from 1945 to 1980.[15][16]"

Isn't that the period most linked with laissez-faire economic liberalism?  Saying that it's the anthethesis of that is saying that black is white.

That looks like saying "neoliberalism is the same as free-market capitalism, except it doesn't apply to the period where free-market capitalism was used as a force for progress."

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Not even remotely. Keynesian theory may not be as good as glorious MMT or actual Marxism, but it is far superior to neoliberalism's Market Whisperer tendencies. Even the US employed structures of public ownership and the government buying things society needs, most notably through the New Deal and Great Society programs. And the periods previous to it were far more malignant, hence the ultimate outcome of the World Wars and Great Depression.

Capitalism is, of course, a living nightmare no matter what, but the difference between Keynesian economics and neoliberalism is the difference between a jaded indifferent prison guard and an actively sadistic one who carries around an open rulebook and beats you whenever he sees you violating Rule 17, Clause 5, Subsection C (Blinking while eating).

[Devastator]

The world wars seem to be a 1-1 deal, though.  The first one was following a period of unbridled capitalism.  The second one was following a period of heavy governmental intervention.

Maybe that simply wasn't a factor?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Government intervention isn't not capitalism. The reasons for the world wars are complex and varied, but overall the preconditions to fight them are those of capitalism. The first due to the colonial adventurism of decades past crashing into the era of the machine gun and the mustard gas canister, the second due to the disintegration of capital's functionality and purpose which gave birth to fascism.