Quite ironic when you're not making any attempt to critique me. I'm still waiting for that workable alternative I asked you to describe last time we got into an argument about this.>> ^rougy:

>> ^RedSky:
I did. Did you?>> ^rougy:
Maybe someone should take Econ 201 and stop repeating the horseshit you swallowed in Econ 101.


You've learned nothing more critical than to repeat what you've been told.

>> ^RedSky:

I did. Did you?>> ^rougy:
Maybe someone should take Econ 201 and stop repeating the horseshit you swallowed in Econ 101.



You've learned nothing more critical than to repeat what you've been told.

I did. Did you?>> ^rougy:

Maybe someone should take Econ 201 and stop repeating the horseshit you swallowed in Econ 101.

Well, at this point you're simply arguing against free trade.

Would I be infuriated to lose a job because a firm has chosen to use cheaper labour from overseas? Sure. I go about preventing this from happening by studying about and working in an area that requires technical knowledge that cannot be easily substituted. As a comparison, would you be for sticking to old technologies purely because there are workers only trained in them? Should be have avoided embracing computation simply because previous generations were unfamiliar with them and stuck to letters and typewriters? Obviously given that these factors are mostly out of people's control, specific and unemployment assistance should be and is provided in most highly developed countries. The countries which don't have generous unemployment benefits are usually the ones that simply can't afford them. Typically though, they're the biggest relative beneficiaries of free trade though.

The better question should be, are willing up to give up the drastically lower prices, product variety and willing to scare of businesses who bring employment? Because you can bet that if you restrict companies from laying off workers in favor of cheaper employment overseas, they'll move overseas in droves to countries which do not and you'll have created a self fulfilling prophecy.

Free trade works two ways as well, which people seem to blissfully forget. Where do you think developing countries go to get their technical expertise?

Free trade leads to lower prices not higher profits. When all firms lower their wage costs, this creates the incentive to lower prices and capture more market share. Once one company in an industry does that, everyone follows suit. If that doesn't happen, it's a failure of competition policy and anti-trust and has nothing to do with free trade.

No offence, but I honestly think you should take Economics 101, or at least Wikipedia the basic concepts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microeconomics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade_debate>> ^Asmo:

Of course not but outsourcing to foreign countries means someone local loses their job, right? What's the difference in service apart from the language barrier? Would you take a massive paycut to ensure your job didn't go overseas? I think you'd be rather up in arms about it.
In your attempts to simplify it down to "oh well, they need jobs too" you've ignored the core root of capitalism. The only thing that changes for the company is they get greater profits while they exploit people (and perhaps a few complaints about language barriers). The workers are doing the same job but getting paid far less. Working longer, harder for less money in, for the most part, worse conditions. And local workers are now unemployed (which for the most part ain't the cushy dole train available in Aus).
Where's the regulatory oversight now?

Perhaps you would prefer these workers in India to have no jobs at all? We both know why they're being paid less, and why if they weren't able to be paid less, there wouldn't be a fraction of the economic and employment opportunities in India. Over time, these workers are able to send their children to get an education that earns them higher paying jobs, and so on, raising their incomes over time. The reason we don't see a Marxist alternative that lifts people out of poverty faster is because there isn't one.

http://blog.euromonitor.com/2010/03/emerging-focus-rising-middle-class-in-emerging-markets.html

I'm not talking about some kind of extreme application of capitalism, I'm talking about the one applied by countries around the world. Even then, capitalism does not imply no regulation or oversight, read the bit that's labelled "Role of government", note the bit on competition laws, and standards of service in industries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

I would argue there were two reasons Australia got through the GFC mostly unscathed. Firstly, our Four Pillars policy which stopped the big 4 banks from merging and prevented the kind of excessive competitive pressure that arguably forced many banks in the US into risky securitised mortgages in the US in the first place. Secondly, because of a surplus of investment opportunities and a deficit of savings domestically, banks weren't put into a position where they had to invest funds abroad, such as disastrously how Iceland's banks did. The second was arguably luck, but the first is the kind of policy that fits squarely under the government's role in even a literal interpretation of capitalism.
>> ^Asmo:

>> ^RedSky:
You're confusing capitalism with a failure of regulation and general bad policy.
Yes, a large number of developed countries have seen middle class income stagnate, but many emerging economies with balanced policies have seen millions of people rise out of poverty into the middle class.
Capitalism doesn't force anyone to spend beyond beyond their means, bad policy which encourages easy credit and an overconsumption culture does. An imbalance in wage growth between the middle and upper class obviously also plays into this and can be addressed with effective policy changes.
I'm not going to even get into how hawkish foreign policy is far removed from anything we're talking about here.
I did look at the GFC, and I addressed it as a failure of regulation. Again, as I said to TheFreak, if you want to dispute that, instead of asking rhetorical questions, argue against my view that effectively regulation could have prevented the GFC.

re: emerging economies, which ones? India where US companies send US jobs that only cost them cents on the dollar?
You blame a culture of over consumption but that is exactly what capitalism creates and encourages. More consumption = more profits. You blame lack of oversight, but oversight is a socialist notion. Regulation is an inherently socialist policy. You regulate to protect those that cannot protect themselves, for the greater good. A failure of regulation is a capitalist victory.
edit: that is not to say that socialism is superior but there needs to be a tempered road between economic ideologies. Australia has a stronger regulation system on it's banking sector and we managed to ride out the GFC significantly better because we didn't have to bail our banks out (rather, our 'bailouts' were economic stimulus directly back to the people in the form of a one of cash payment and a number of infrastructure projects). Banks still make money, investors still get returns, far less average joes get screwed over.

>> ^RedSky:

You're confusing capitalism with a failure of regulation and general bad policy.
Yes, a large number of developed countries have seen middle class income stagnate, but many emerging economies with balanced policies have seen millions of people rise out of poverty into the middle class.
Capitalism doesn't force anyone to spend beyond beyond their means, bad policy which encourages easy credit and an overconsumption culture does. An imbalance in wage growth between the middle and upper class obviously also plays into this and can be addressed with effective policy changes.
I'm not going to even get into how hawkish foreign policy is far removed from anything we're talking about here.
I did look at the GFC, and I addressed it as a failure of regulation. Again, as I said to TheFreak, if you want to dispute that, instead of asking rhetorical questions, argue against my view that effectively regulation could have prevented the GFC.


re: emerging economies, which ones? India where US companies send US jobs that only cost them cents on the dollar?

You blame a culture of over consumption but that is exactly what capitalism creates and encourages. More consumption = more profits. You blame lack of oversight, but oversight is a socialist notion. Regulation is an inherently socialist policy. You regulate to protect those that cannot protect themselves, for the greater good. A failure of regulation is a capitalist victory.

edit: that is not to say that socialism is superior but there needs to be a tempered road between economic ideologies. Australia has a stronger regulation system on it's banking sector and we managed to ride out the GFC significantly better because we didn't have to bail our banks out (rather, our 'bailouts' were economic stimulus directly back to the people in the form of a one of cash payment and a number of infrastructure projects). Banks still make money, investors still get returns, far less average joes get screwed over.

You're confusing capitalism with a failure of regulation and general bad policy.

Yes, a large number of developed countries have seen middle class income stagnate, but many emerging economies with balanced policies have seen millions of people rise out of poverty into the middle class.

Capitalism doesn't force anyone to spend beyond beyond their means, bad policy which encourages easy credit and an overconsumption culture does. An imbalance in wage growth between the middle and upper class obviously also plays into this and can be addressed with effective policy changes.

I'm not going to even get into how hawkish foreign policy is far removed from anything we're talking about here.

I did look at the GFC, and I addressed it as a failure of regulation. Again, as I said to TheFreak, if you want to dispute that, instead of asking rhetorical questions, argue against my view that effectively regulation could have prevented the GFC.>> ^Asmo:

He's saying what everyone, even if they won't admit it to themselves, knows to be true.
Go around the US atm and ask factory workers what they think of Wall St and big business. Or disposessed house owners. Or the waitress that has been getting the same level of pay for the last 10 years.
Capitalism creates a product for the masses to consume. When there is no more money left in the masses pockets, there is no consumption ergo capitalism falls in a screaming heap.
Look at the trends of our disposable lifestyle. It is unsustainable and yet business understands that if their product only lasts half as long, they'll sell twice as much. Look at the US wars in the Middle East where the cost in resources and US soldiers far outweighs the negligible returns in a secure source of oil (so a few cents can be saved at the bowsers) and apparent safety from terrorists. Look at the Gulf where corner cutting to save what probably amounts to tens of thousands of dollars is costing a corporation billions (and they don't seem to be that fazed) and a country potentially far more. Look at the GFC and ask yourself "Who was responsible and were they punished?"
In the mad dash to make a buck, how many disasters have occurred? Not having a clear solution is not a good reason not to go looking for one.

Your video, RSA Animate: Crises of Capitalism, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

That's kind of ironic because at the end I said "Pity, I thought the first half of the talk was altogether well done," but you must not have read through what I said.

I don't think I'm any more prejudiced than anyone else with their preconceived points of view on the subject. If you disagree on any of the points I've made, feel free to address them. If you do not, or cannot, then what is the purpose of your post?

Look, this guy clearly makes no apologies for the fact he's coming from a Marxist point of view, but what exactly is his conclusion or solution? That we should all be joining anti-capitalist organisations is all that I heard. Then what? He even admits he has no solution, but what is his point? To express populist outrage? How does that add anything valuable or new to the discussion?>> ^TheFreak:

>> ^RedSky:
I lose interest the moment someone says greedy bankers. .

It's a shame that your pre-conceived prejudices lead you to so readily dismiss this person's thoughts. Because if you hadn't been so easily put off by the term "greedy banker" you might have found the real substance of his points somewhat interesting.
You see, you don't have to agree with someone's philosophy or conclusions to appreciate their ideas. In fact, if you only listen to people you agree with or people who succeed in not offending you with their words then you lack a strong basis for your own opinions.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

Faeces? Feces? What the fuck?


The next character he draws says, "I said 'Thesis'!"

Thank you for the little kick.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
*quality

Nope, only thing it needed was a little kick.

In reply to this comment by dotdude:
Any channels or tags I need to add to this animated lecture?

http://videosift.com/video/RSA-Animate-Crises-of-Capitalism

Any channels or tags I need to add to this animated lecture?

http://videosift.com/video/RSA-Animate-Crises-of-Capitalism

Tags for this video have been changed from 'motivation, animation, rsa' to 'motivation, animation, rsa, wierd' - edited by therealblankman

Wepwawet, you are scarily wrong. You always have the right to record a public official. (Except if you posed a threat, block traffic, do not follow orders, or interfere)
-----------
"When a public employer is involved, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and its state equivalents are implicated. (A few states apply their Fourth Amendment equivalent to private parties as well. These states include Massachusetts, California and Florida. All employers in those states must comply with the constitutional tests, in addition to the statutory and common law tests.) The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by state action. Actions by a public entity employer may qualify as "state actions."

Generally, there are two components to a Fourth Amendment analysis, under the public employer test: (I) is there a subjective (actual) expectation of privacy and (ii) is this expectation of privacy reasonable. If the surveillance is of an area open to public view, surveillance is generally permissible, since there can be no expectation of privacy in an area open to public view. The issue of whether other less obvious examples invoke a reasonable expectation of privacy is less settled.
---------
More examples of police getting in a huff about videotapes. But I think in the case of a police officer, the public interest outweighs the wiretap laws. (as it pertains to audio) Not sure what the FL law is. http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060629/NEWS01/106290121 http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060805/NEWS01/108050086

NH law: "It is a crime under state law (RSA 570-A:2) to use any sort of electronic device to eavesdrop or record conversations without the consent of everyone involved. It’s a felony to record other people’s conversations, and a misdemeanor to record one’s own conversations without the other person’s consent."

There is also the ruling of a man videotaping Truck inspections, that was arrested multiple times by police. PA courts upheld his right to videotape. http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D0847P.pdf
----
The activities of the police, like those of other public officials, are subject to public scrutiny. Indeed, "the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers." City of Houston, Tex. v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 461 (1987).
Videotaping is a legitimate means of gathering information for public dissemination and can often provide cogent evidence, as it did in this case. In sum, there can be no doubt that the free speech clause of the Constitution protected Robinson as he videotaped the defendants on October 23, 2002. See Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000); see also Stanley, 394 U.S. at 564 (1969); Whiteland Woods, L.P. v. Township of West Whiteland, 193 F.3d 177, 180 (3d Cir. 1999).