Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Via: http://boingboing.net/2014/01/31/the-wire-creator-david-simon-o.html

this was fantastic.
you beat @radx to the punch @dag,pretty sure he was gonna post this.

Excellent shit.

I also recommend his related talk: Some People are More Equal than Others.

And, of course, the first part of their discussion on Moyers: America as a Horror Show

How much would you say this David Simon (The Wire creator) is worth?
The Corner, The Wire, Treme, his books, his talks (to say nothing of his previous career as a journalist).. I wonder if he runs any drug rehabs in Baltimore.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Yeah - I like his anger.

No idea how much he is worth. But The Wire in general, and David Simon in particular, were involved in the financing of food banks and rehab centers in Balitimore. They couldn't skim it off their budget, unlike other individuals do for personal purposes, but they continuously ran charity after charity, on top of the money the production poured into the local economy.

If I remember correctly, they also left sizable accounts and donations during and after their runs, so I'd be willing to give him a pass where hypocrisy is concerned.

His point about a lack of guilt, the shamelessness on part of two mentioned individuals, still stands though.

During the first part, Simon specifically mentions that any additional income of his, particularly in form of tax brakes, does the economy no good. "You can only have so many yachts" is a rather fitting hyperbole in this case. So if a privileged individual actively weakens society to further increase his own wealth -- which is already at harmful levels, economically speaking --, the lack of guilt and shame becomes incomprehensible to many people, myself included.

And if a privileged individual then tops it off by likening his treatment to that of Jews in '30s/'40s Germany... well, sociopathic is one way to describe it. We all live in our own bubbles, but their perception of reality truly is disconnected to such a degree that almost makes me pity them. Almost.

In part, they're hitting on it. It's a heart problem. But taken to it's logical conclusion what they are also saying is that people won't have the avenues any longer to manufacture nice things. The artisans, who with their stellar abilities, craft expensive watches or world class automobiles or majestic architecture will have those abilities sublimated in a very literal sense.

How much of a watch is a 'too expensive' watch? Who decides that you can't make a watch that expensive? Who decides that someone shouldn't be able to own a watch that expensive? Who are we going to trust to draw where those lines ought to be; the lines that take away someone's ability to buy a "too expensive" watch and another's ability to produce that same watch?

Never has a law been written that will change the human heart. That is where the real battle lines are drawn. We can write all the laws we want and will still end up with the rich and the poor. Someone has got to get at those hard hearts.

Do you think The Wire paid for their production assistants' healthcare? Did they make more than the $50/day for their 12 hour days (if they weren't working for free as "interns" for the 'privilege' of 'paying their dues' in 'the industry')?

Haha, of course, "liberals" get a pass from other "liberals", but no pass for the Kochtopus (even though the Kochs give way more money to charities than The Wire would even be able to). Plus, The Wire gets a PR benefit that they need in order to film in Baltimore in the first place so I assure you that their reasons aren't purely altruistic.

"but they continuously ran charity after charity, on top of the money the production poured into the local economy."

How does this top Koch? Or the Waltons? Or, the other David Simon? Or Perkins. Are you keeping track of who contributes to what or not and how much?

How is one David Simon "contributing" more than the other one?
And why should he get a hypocrisy "free pass?" (Especially when this hypocrisy amounts to just another PR stunt.)

"His point about a lack of guilt, the shamelessness on part of two mentioned individuals, still stands though."

Yeah? Like you know (the other) David Simon and can vouch for his "lack of guilt?" And "guilt" about what? Having money? Being successful?

"So if a privileged individual actively weakens society to further increase his own wealth"

Does he? Really? How? And how are you doing more for "society" than that? Who are you and what exactly is your great "contribution" to society?

Since the 'inequality' hobgoblin keeps making appearances, this article may help put that to rest.

Two main causes of inequality: profit (good) and central bank currency inflation (bad). When you (or anyone else) profit, you increase income 'inequality', in a good way. When central banks inflate currency, they create income 'inequality,' in a bad way. Let's not conflate one with the other. And anyone so misinformed as to ignore central banks as the overwhelming source of undesirable income inequality cannot really contribute much to the debate or to providing solutions. All other remedial measures that ignore the main cause will not only fail but create countless new problems.

It wasn't me who first pointed out Simon as a hypocritical "liberal bully."

"Here’s why I assert Simon is a bully. His own words reveal him to be a petty, nasty, mean-spirited guy. “…anything I've ever accomplished as a writer, as somebody doing TV, anything I've ever done in life, down to, like, cleaning up my room, has been accomplished because I was going to show people that they were [bleeped] up, wrong, and that I was the [bleeping] center of the universe and the sooner they got hip to that, the happier they would all be.""

Statist narcissism.

There's as much as you'd like on this. How about...?

"David Simon, a multi-millionaire writer for Time-Warner, one of the largest corporations in the world and a cultural leader, jetted across the globe to speak in front an audience of people with both the financial means and free time about the horrors of “unchecked” capitalism and the tragic loss of the social compact."

"It is rich that a leading light of Hollywood, that of unpaid interns, unmatched inequality of pay, tax-avoidance schemes, exploitation of public subsidies, industry scheming, etc., would criticize a “broken social compact.”"

"Meanwhile, in the real world of unchecked, no-social-compact capitalism, the WSJ is reporting that the “Burger Wars” are expanding to Africa. The heartless capitalist system is stepping in where communism, socialism and other authoritarian systems have failed, bringing with it the digging of new wells, food production systems, jobs, etc. All that awful stuff that comfortable capitalists take for granted."

EDIT: To be clear, I have no specific interest in advocating for Koch, or Simon, or whomever, or in prosecuting them or @radx or anyone else. But I do think this kind of pernicious thinking/bullying can and does spread and causes much harm, even to those engaging in the thinking/bullying, it distorts them in an undesirable way, so I point it out.

*dead Won't load "operation timed out"

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by eric3579.

First things first: I read the article you linked as well as three others by the same author, given that he's teaching at a nearby facility. His article "The Three Types of Austerity" was quite enough to know that I'll never see eye-to-eye with him, or anyone of the same views.

"[Austerity] frees up resources for private investment" is a statement that does not match my perception of reality, given the absolute abundance of (financial) resources within the eurozone. It's a lack of demand for investments that's the problem, not supply. Savings are at record highs, investment is at an all-time low.

So, demand vs supply... we all know that discussion won't be resolved here, ever. It's utterly pointless. Same for the gold standard vs fiat, inflation good or bad, or any related discussion, really.

Instead, I'll try to reply to unrelated statements.

------------

"Do you think The Wire paid for their production assistants' healthcare? Did they make more than the $50/day for their 12 hour days (if they weren't working for free as "interns" for the 'privilege' of 'paying their dues' in 'the industry')?"

I know nothing about the situation on set of The Wire. My assumption is that it involved the regular amount of abuse of labour, including unpaid interns.

------------

"Haha, of course, "liberals" get a pass from other "liberals", but no pass for the Kochtopus (even though the Kochs give way more money to charities than The Wire would even be able to)."

Well, good for them. But I don't see why you drag them in here. You made a set of rhetoric questions aimed at hypocrisy by David Simon. I pointed out my view that any possible hypocrisy is dwarfed by the point he made vis-a-vis guilt/Perkins/watch/whatever.

------------

"Yeah? Like you know (the other) David Simon and can vouch for his "lack of guilt?" And "guilt" about what? Having money? Being successful?"

Feeling guilty about the discussion amongst the establishment regarding, for instance, the minimum wage. He finds it questionable how one can argue against giving a fella at Burger King 10-12 bucks an hour without feeling guilty for it. That's the disconnect we're talking about. When extremely wealthy individuals deny even the crumbs to the folks at the bottom.

Shamelessness was my addition, my interpretation. It was aimed at the demand for tax breaks and subsidies for extremely profitable corporations or extremely wealthy individuals. I would feel ashamed for any demands to my benefit if a) I didn't objectively need them and b) they would come at a detriment to others in worse situations than me.

Since I'm arguing from a different economic perspective than you, a shortfall in tax income (aka tax breaks) to me means either more taxes at another place, probably from weaker entitities who can't afford to buy their own representative, or a cut in essential services. I operate under a very broad definition of human dignity and see it as the first and foremost objective. Food, shelter, health, etc for all -- which might just be a reason why some people refer to me as a "pinko commie".

------------

"Does he? Really? How? And how are you doing more for "society" than that? Who are you and what exactly is your great "contribution" to society?"

He "weakens" society, economically, by suppressing aggregate demand. The more wealth you accumulate, the less of it, as a percentage, translates into demand. For an economy that depends on the circulation of goods and services, a massive and non-temporary accumulation of debt or savings (same coin, different sides) in the hands of single players (be it state, corporation or individual) chokes up the system. Less demand, less investment, less growth.
Accumulation is all fine and dandy if it translates into economic activity, but given the pathetic % of GDP that is being invested, despite mountains of unused cash that are forced into financial shenanigans looking for profit, I'd say it is dead weight and a drag.

But since you apparently share the views of Hollenbeck, all of that was probably hogwash to you.

------------

To answer your question: a human being and my great contribution to society is my charming personality, of course.

And with that, I bid you adieu. I've had long-ass discussions about Snowden/surveillance and other topics that led nowhere and I'm not interested in having one about economic theory, especially not in a second language. The floor is all yours, including the last word.

*notdead, by the way. Vimeo had some hickups, but seems fine again.

This dead video has been deemed functional; it must have been accidentally declared dead - declared notdead by radx.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

Giving to drug rehab centers is like the war on poverty. You'll spend a trillion dollars and you'll still have druggies, and you'll still have poverty.

But if you have the money and inclination...whatever floats your boat.

I hate this ugly non-logic that anyone who has a job or any level of wealth immediately forgoes any right to an opinion on how an economy should function. What fucking rubbish.

I know, they seem to have a decent knowledge of the economy to get to their place, don't they?

Holy crap. This guy GETS it.

> "[Austerity] frees up resources for private investment" is a statement that
> does not match my perception of reality"

Well, far be it from me to try to introduce you to some basic epistemologies to which you may not be familiar: like rationalism, deduction, etc, in order to move you away from "authority" as the only path to knowledge you seem to use. Unfortunately, however, this "authority" method is inappropriate to the study of economics.

> "So, demand vs supply... we all know that discussion won't be resolved here,
> ever."

Keynes and Hayek were at it for a while. It's all in the two hip-hop videos.

> "It's utterly pointless."

Yes. There is nothing new not covered by Keynes vs. Hayek.

> "Shamelessness was my addition, my interpretation. "

Bad thymology (my interpretation).

> "He "weakens" society, economically, by suppressing aggregate demand.
> The more wealth you accumulate, the less of it, as a percentage, translates
> into demand."

I see. So, by this logic, any making of money is, in itself, a "weakening" of society. Unless I'm a socialist, like David Simon, then I cannot make money without also "weakening" society.

> "But since you apparently share the views of Hollenbeck, all of that was
> probably hogwash to you."

Yes, at best hogwash. Alas, I've no interest in going into this with you, especially since you've no have interest in actually looking at it. Had you any interest at all -- or studied the subject beyond deferring to the "authority" method of epistemology -- you could at least provide me with a concise explanation as to why you think the Austrian/Misean economic position falters. Rather than thinking for yourself, however, you dismiss it as "wrong," "right-wing," or "pointless" to debate or go into. "Here Be Monsters, period."

The Keynes/Hayek debates have the similar tones, with Keynes simply ignoring all of Hayek's points, evasions, and going off into something else. You clearly agree with the Keynesian approach/theory, which likely means you cannot really explain anything except through unfounded claims, that are "pointless" to argue, debate, or rationally defend.

As I have said before, one cannot have this sort of intellectual relationship with those either unwilling or unable to grasp basic economic principles, like for example those clearly explained by Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson." There's simply no common language through which to communicate. Confronted with these kinds of beliefs, one can either try to educate (but only those who ask for it, since attempting to educate those who do not want to be educated will likely fail, as any public school teacher can tell you) or one can pull out the snake oil and the cash register. The third option involves ignoring such ignorance altogether, and use what one knows for one's own financial and life benefit in ways that don't involve such people in the first place.

There are so many errors in the Keynesian 'demand' theory of economics (you can find much on that if you want to read up on it), but Keynesians tend to avoid any real debates. You're coming from the Keynesian fallacy of saving money as being bad for the economy (because spending it all/consumerism is supposedly what gets the economy going). And the even more absurd fallacy which presupposes (with no proof of it at all) that rich people keep most of their wealth stored somewhere outside of circulation. When in reality, rich people only save some and the richer they are the more they spend/invest. Of course, when the economy seem fragile, due to central banks meddling, bubbles, etc., investors get nervous and don't invest as much a they otherwise would. When they don't invest, it shrinks supply of things people would want to spend on. Demand does nothing, it doesn't exist, if there is nothing to supply that people want to buy.

In fact, I am starting to think that central bankers are not really Keynesian at all, in the sense that they don't really believe their own bullshit. They know better but also know how to exploit their positions as central bankers, making folks like @radx buy into it, the snake oil. For example, he may not care for gold, but bankers do. Whatever they say against it, folks will still buy it, both for themselves and the banks they run. And as @radx rightly says, he's a human. And apparently he can sell his 'charm' if push comes to shove.

What is a $300,000 wristwatch? It's a $5 wristwatch mechanism with a bunch of diamonds or whatever hammered into it. And what are diamonds? Shiny pebbles. So what you have is something that cost all this labour to create but is actually worthless. What you have, actually, is $300,000 worth of value torn out of the world by criminals.

What I want to know is, what's the person who buys the wristwatch from Tom Perkins supposed to do with it? Shouldn't they also sell the watch to fund drug treatment centres?

I like the idea of this hallowed watch-totem perpetually moving hand-to-hand around the world shaming rich people into philanthropy. Then it could actually have been worth making.

*length=2:33

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 2:33 - length declared by bareboards2.

Trancecoach you're on the same side as Lantern...you really sure you've got this one right?

Yeah because we really tried to fight that war on poverty didn't we. Also it's been conclusively proven that TREATMENT helps drug addicts and not prison. So we should spend some of the enormous amount of money that we spend on prisons on treatment instead. That's the smart and moral thing to do.

I'd wager you missed the memo that austerity collapses governments and societies. . . every time it's been tried.

And secondly, @radx said the massive accumulation of wealth, not earning a buck or two. He made that point glaringly obvious. He's talking about people with more money than they can possibly spend looking for more tax breaks so they can accumulate even more wealth that they're never going to spend. That, in itself, is harmful to the economy. Someone earning a few bucks mowing a neighbors lawn is not. Money is actually transferring hands, unlike those billions sitting in off shore account.

There's no such memo.

"He's talking about people with more money than they can possibly spend looking for more tax breaks so they can accumulate even more wealth that they're never going to spend."

This is just stupid. Sorry to say. People don't just hoard billions of dollars under the mattress.They spend it. They buy bonds, stocks, assets, goods, services, investments, start businesses or expand existing ones, advertise, do all sorts of things with it.

"unlike those billions sitting in off shore account."

In the case of money sitting in off shore accounts, first, it is being spent by the banks that are storing it. Second, it is also invested in overseas businesses, like Apple stores in Ireland and elsewhere in Europe or paying dividends. And third, it would not be there moving so slowly if not for government taxation which incentivizes a lack of flow. To the extent that it does not circulate (and I contend it flows much more than you allege), the stagnation is the result of yet more government-caused distortions.


What specific corporation or individual do you claim does not invest its surplus money? Name one.

For starters, corporations need to either invest their profits or pay dividends.
So, again, who are you referring to specifically?

Even if they have some money in the bank, the banks are investing that money, lending it out, etc. So again, who specifically are you referring to?

As I've said before, ignorance may be bliss, but thankfully, we don't all have to be as ignorant as the least informed among us.