Faeces? Feces? What the fuck?

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

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by NetRunner.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

Faeces? Feces? What the fuck?


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

Spot on.

I lose interest the moment someone says greedy bankers. Bankers are no more greedy than any corporate entity. Like any element of a capitalist economy they provide a benefit for someone and derive a benefit themselves. The term greedy gets lumped on them for two main reasons:

1: Because their benefit is hard to concteputalise: that they're effectively redistributing capital into lucrative investments and taking a slither out of the borrowing and lending rate spread, thereby creating jobs and growing the economy. Everyone is impacted by this, but indirectly enough that they don't realise it. As far as investment banking goes, and the argument that they're gambling, again it's unwarranted. In every derivative transaction that involves say a farm producer wanting to transfer their risk away, there has to be a speculative counterparty to take this on. The risk doesn't disappear after all. Without speculators, this would be impossible. As far as endangering the entire economy, see point 2.

2: They make arguably excessive profits and have grown to a tremendous size relative to other aspects of the economy. You could make various arguments for why this is case. For one, you can say they have been exploiting moral hazard, the expectation by themselves and their investors that they will be bailed out if they were to collapse en-masse, thus allowing them more favourable borrowing rates and to take larger risks than otherwise and thereby earn higher returns as a result. The finance reform bill in the US and revisions to the Basel standards are expected to considerably address this and demonstrate that is a failure of regulation and not some inherent and idiosyncratic greediness. Any industry or firm given potential loopholes, or monopolistic market power exploits it, it has and always will be the job of regulators to prevent this just as with bank moral hazard.

Not to mention he completely goes off the rails when he starts contrasting rising finance with falling manufacturing. Two entirely different industries, where the latter was heavily impacted by free trade and automation advances and the prior wasn't. Pity, I thought the first half of the talk was altogether well done.

>> ^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.

I wonder what this guys' lecture notes used to look like.

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.

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.

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.

I tend to figure that Capitalism works on a presumption of universal greed / motivation to obtain assets (liquid assets, property, etc.). It has some failings, particularly when it fails to account for other human motivations, but the reality is that it works quite well (witness its history, including the low points) even though or perhaps because it is focused on that single premise.

Marxism tempered into communism or held in a more "utopian" unaltered state seems to me to suggest that it would work on a presumption of a benevolent, fair guiding entity/group/motivator that keeps society moving forward to universal benefit. Its failing, by my estimation, is that it doesn't account for the corruption that such power will inevitably create when left in the hands of one or few.

Capitalism takes a dark, selfish element of human nature (but one that is definitely there) and attempts to turn it in a positive direction. Marxism seems to postulate on how great things would be if we didn't have those selfish elements in our nature, at the expense of acknowledging real human nature.

Then again, I'm by no means an expert or even particularly well informed -- perhaps I am merely falling prey to the American culture of pro-Capitalist propaganda. In any case, I thought the video was very interesting and informative, but not in a way that persuaded me to doubt Capitalism as our correct path moving forward -- particularly not enough to replace it with any variant of Marxism.

>> ^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.

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.

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?

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?

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

I did. Did you?>> ^rougy:

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

>> ^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.

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:

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



None taken, but you've become so impressed with your own rhetoric (and wandered off in to free trade) that you've ignored the key element...

Exploitation. Foreign outsourcing was an example of 'free' trade (rather than 'fair' trade). But exploitation wears many coats. Usury rates on credit cards combined with stagnant wages, for example. Or sub prime mortgages for another. Destroying the environment to squeeze the last few drops of resources out.

And this is the core of the penultimate capitalist ideal (as opposed to individual flavours). Accumulate wealth. The more corners you cut, the faster you can accumulate wealth. Then you die and someone else get's it. Yay, you win.

Regulation, fair trade, competition laws etc are all ideals forced upon capitalists because people generally recognise that capitalism without checks = a disaster (BP + gulf, Union Carbide/Bhopal disaster etc). There is nothing wrong with working and expecting fair recompense for your labours but too often these labours aren't honest. They game the system and exploit (there's that word again) not only the workers but the customers as well so the man in the middle can make as much cash as possible.

ps. For the record, I don't have an issue with fair trade and the commensurate rise in prices if quality rises with it. That's the whole point of fair trade, not increasing wages for sweatshop quality.

I think it's difficult to dispute that you weren't arguing against free trade in your previous post even if that wasn't your intention. The first paragraph seems clearly about it when you talk about being up in arms about your job going overseas, and I think in the second you misunderstand how capitalism works. But anyway, I don't think that we disagree on a great deal then. Like I stated in my original post, I believe in necessary government regulation and oversight in a capitalist economy, preventing deterimental effects like market failure, and financial, environmental or other crises.
>> ^Asmo:

>> ^RedSky:
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


None taken, but you've become so impressed with your own rhetoric (and wandered off in to free trade) that you've ignored the key element...
Exploitation. Foreign outsourcing was an example of 'free' trade (rather than 'fair' trade). But exploitation wears many coats. Usury rates on credit cards combined with stagnant wages, for example. Or sub prime mortgages for another. Destroying the environment to squeeze the last few drops of resources out.
And this is the core of the penultimate capitalist ideal (as opposed to individual flavours). Accumulate wealth. The more corners you cut, the faster you can accumulate wealth. Then you die and someone else get's it. Yay, you win.
Regulation, fair trade, competition laws etc are all ideals forced upon capitalists because people generally recognise that capitalism without checks = a disaster (BP + gulf, Union Carbide/Bhopal disaster etc). There is nothing wrong with working and expecting fair recompense for your labours but too often these labours aren't honest. They game the system and exploit (there's that word again) not only the workers but the customers as well so the man in the middle can make as much cash as possible.
ps. For the record, I don't have an issue with fair trade and the commensurate rise in prices if quality rises with it. That's the whole point of fair trade, not increasing wages for sweatshop quality.

>> ^RedSky:

I think it's difficult to dispute that you weren't arguing against free trade in your previous post even if that wasn't your intention. The first paragraph seems clearly about it when you talk about being up in arms about your job going overseas, and I think in the second you misunderstand how capitalism works. But anyway, I don't think that we disagree on a great deal then. Like I stated in my original post, I believe in necessary government regulation and oversight in a capitalist economy, preventing deterimental effects like market failure, and financial, environmental or other crises.



Yeah, I guess it wasn't that clear (not unusual for me).

I think our major disagreement isn't the need for oversight, but whether oversight is implicit in capitalism or required because of capitalism, so it's more of a semantic debate at this point. ; )

Not sure how I missed this *quality lecture.

This video has already declared quality - ignoring quality request by dystopianfuturetoday.