Print

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

[Aqizzar]

You could just Google "Standard Oil".  What they're referring to is the propensity of full on capitalism to generate monopolies, where one organization can shut out competition, regardless of the qualities of their competitors just by size.  Or for a lack of government regulation to see deprivation by a company running roughshod over other people's property, again irrespective of their good qualities.  The big point being, nothing about capitalism guarantees that being better at something than someone else will net you market success.  The only real guarantee of making money is to already have more money than anyone else.

Not that I'm one to draw up quotes to make a point, but it is perfectly applicable here.  Barbara Ehrenreich - That's free enterprise, friends: freedom to gamble, freedom to lose. And the great thing -- the truly democratic thing about it -- is that you don't even have to be a player to lose.

[ChairmanPoo]

"Fairness" is a term relative to the observer.

[Nikov]

You could just Google "Standard Oil".  What they're referring to is the propensity of full on capitalism to generate monopolies, where one organization can shut out competition, regardless of the qualities of their competitors just by size.

Standard Oil's market position was initially established through an emphasis on efficiency and responsibility. While most companies dumped gasoline in rivers (this was before the automobile was popular), Standard used it to fuel its machines. While other companies' refineries piled mountains of heavy waste, Rockefeller found ways to sell it. For example, Standard created the first synthetic competitor for beeswax and bought the company that invented and produced Vaseline, the Chesebrough Manufacturing Company, which was a Standard company only from 1908 until 1911. -- Wiki

[Renault]

I think the ultimate point is a little simpler than all this. First, you'd be hard-pressed to find a serious economist who doesn't believe a market economy typically produces the greatest allocative efficiency and reaches Pareto optimality--the point where the current allocation of resources makes makes the most individuals better off without worsening any. Thats not really negotiable in modern economics. The problems stem from here, though. Socialists typically believe that created wealth is unfairly distributed--Pareto optimality has nothing to do "fairness," environmentalists tend to bemoan that markets promote a full employment of resources--including land, and even market supporters are aware that market failures can and do appear.
So in other words, they just think that the wealth of the G20 isn't fairly distributed. And, since theres really no objective measure of "fairness," you can't really argue with them.

[ChairmanPoo]

That may well be, but then again, you'd be hard pressed to find a sociologist that doesn't think the  system will eventually implode. The system cannot find new markets indefinitedly, after all, and capital accumulation means limiting the acquisitive capability of the existing ones.

[Renault]

If your opinions on economics come from sociologists, sure. But if you read economists, you know, the ones who study economics, you'll find that opinion to be a little outdated. By which I mean, centuries outdated. Hell, Marx and Engels wrote about it. So we're talking old.
It makes the mistake of assuming you need a constant expansion of markets, which isn't true. Read David Ricardo, his stuff is also pretty old, but all the current work on comparative advantage is probably too dense for the layman. While expanding markets are certainly ideal in terms of comparative advantage, by no means are they necessary. And also, you forget that markets are not a zero-sum game, they constantly expand under their own power. For example, even if the US was the only country in the world, you'd find that the number of markets has increased exponentially since a century ago. For example, there was no market for computers in 1910, but nowadays there are hundreds of corporations tailoring to thousands of products and services in that area.
No, market economics is as viable as it has always been. You can call it unfair or unstable or whatever, but the present accumulation of work in the field precludes an "implosion."

[Zangi]

LARP gear displayed as weapons by Toronto police.

Capitalism, someone always ends up on top.  People always end up with the short end of the stick.   ... Is my generic opinion of this.

[Grakelin]

Let's go back to discussing the G20, and carry debate over capitalism to another thread.

A reporter from my University's newspaper just published an article. Here's the online version:

http://imprint.uwaterloo.ca/2010/jul/2/features/trenches/

With his recollection of what happened, it really does start to sound more and more like the police force's fault.

EDIT: If you happen to browse through that site for some reason, ignore most of the comments. Some people take the old rivalry between the official newspaper and the math student newspaper far too seriously (including people who are on the staff of both, sadly), and like to get militant about it.

[Nikov]

LARP gear displayed as weapons by Toronto police.

Capitalism, someone always ends up on top.  People always end up with the short end of the stick.   ... Is my generic opinion of this.

Throwing a penny on the tracks here, but man. Canadian weapons paranoia must suck. They probably don't let you open carry rifles at the mall.

[Phmcw]

Throwing a penny on the tracks here, but man. Canadian weapons paranoia must suck. They probably don't let you open carry rifles at the mall.

That's weapon paranoia?

Also Larp gear cannot be mistaken for weapon . They must really be desperate and have nothing to show to end up resorting to such crude manipulation : Larp weapon are completely cushioned so that you can hit someone full force without hurting him, and larp chainmail is very light and nothing like a true armor.

[Zangi]

"Fire arrows!"  "Dangerous stuff!"  "He is geared to do battle with the police!"

[Kogan Loloklam]

Throwing a penny on the tracks here, but man. Canadian weapons paranoia must suck. They probably don't let you open carry rifles at the mall.

That's weapon paranoia?

Also Larp gear cannot be mistaken for weapon . They must really be desperate and have nothing to show to end up resorting to such crude manipulation : Larp weapon are completely cushioned so that you can hit someone full force without hurting him, and larp chainmail is very light and nothing like a true armor.

83 Lbs is light? How much did they weigh for real then?

Edit: My bad. 85 Lbs.

Mr. Barrett said he was “appalled” at the placement of his chain-mail beneath a machete. He regularly takes public transit from his Whitby, Ont., home to Centennial Park to play the game, called Amtgard, while wearing the 85-pound armour and is worried people will think: “Oh my God, that’s one of the terrorists from G20.”

[Phmcw]

My bad, that's one HARDCORE larper. The part about the weapon stay true though.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

Isn't that heavier than "actual" full plate was?

[Dwarf]

My, that's not armour, it's some kind of masochistic vest one uses for training so you get exhausted super-fast.