X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |
|
Recent Comments by Crake
 | comment listing type: Top Sift for Mar 20th, 2010Friends O' the Sift  Top New Parody Videos by Vote  Subscribe Top 15 Parody Sifters of All Time Top 15 Parody Sifters of the Past Week 4. snoozn
(58 votes) 5. mxxcon
(35 votes) 7. enemycombatant
(14 votes) 10. bleedmegood
(10 votes) 12. Leonards
(5 votes) 13. corybooker
(4 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments        |
60 Minutes: Inside the Collapse, Part 2
Then there is the other specific example of current corporate culture, which is arguable very different from theoretical Capitalism, and succeeds largely because of political cronyism and going beyond voluntary action into coercion by government proxy (lobbying for legislative influence, bailouts, exclusive contracts etc).
I'd say that as soon as you do that, we're no longer talking about capitalism, but something akin to fascism (i.e. heavy governmental-industrial integration and protection of mutual interests by any means necessary).
And how can you be tired of the coercion argument
^rougy, I did say that it's not a pretty thing.
And does your description of the evils of a market correction imply that you were for the bailout?
For he IS the Kwisatz Haderach!
How Lego is made. inside factory tour
Fmr. US General: Gays in Dutch Military Allowed Genocide
60 Minutes: Inside the Collapse, Part 2
You're right that it's not really a choice if there is only one choice.
I hope you'll agree though, that there is an aspect of voluntariness in Capitalism, in that the individuals choose between competing providers of goods & services, or even choose to set up shop themselves.
Of course, I'm not defending the actions of the wall street people who (among others) caused the crisis, in my opinion they should not have been bailed out... I can see the politicians' reluctance to do so though, since a big market correction is not a pretty thing. The crisis is being used to attack the foundations of Capitalism though, which I don't think were at fault.
Like Michael Lewis explains, they basically forgot that they cooked the books (and ratings agencies and so on), and fell for their own con. That's stupidity, which is a danger in any system.
And Netrunner: Capitalists can feel morally outraged about taxation, because no matter how little they worked for the money, taking it by coercion is more despicable still, and in addition leads to ill effects like corrupt politicians and counterproductive incentives.
Also, I may be over-analyzing here, but when you say: "...convincing them that they got something of equal value out of the transaction." i actually disagree slightly.
If i have $15 in my pocket, and the seller has a CD that i like, i make an exchange because, to me, the CD is worth MORE than $15. Otherwise I'd keep my money instead. The possibility of mutually benefiting from a transaction is something you don't often hear about from the liberal side of the debate, to put it mildly.
60 Minutes: Inside the Collapse, Part 2
I think I can see what you think should be rewarded: "hard work, intelligence, talent and perseverance". However, the only thing that Capitalism rewards is how useful or valued your product or service is to someone else.
This is judged entirely subjectively, thus allowing for weird examples like insanely expensive collectible comic books.
In my opinion, a system that rewards the values you mentioned (which are labour-focused), does not guarantee that any value is actually produced.
Take a hyperbolic example: Einstein might spend 100 hours working on making a single pizza, but all his talent, hard work, intelligence and perseverance won't change the fact that it ends up an inedible, simultaneously soggy and charred mess.
Should he be guaranteed pay for the pizza? No! He should look at this strengths and weaknesses, and figure out where he can be the most useful to the people around him (or, to put it a more critical way: how he can create the appearance of usefulness in their minds, so they'll give him money - either way, they'll be happy and he'll get paid).
Lorry doesn't see car stuck to bumper.
didtried60 Minutes: Inside the Collapse, Part 2
I agree that fairness it often an abused term when it comes to real-life issues (such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict).
I'm not sure that's the issue here, though. I think Lewis is working from the basic assumption of Capitalism everywhere: It's voluntary, therefore it is fair (this is where the pirate comparison becomes problematic).
If I win the lottery, I don't deserve the winnings. Same goes if I sell a mint condition comic book for tens of thousands of dollars. I don't have to worry about the buyer's reason for paying that price, it may be because he's a sucker, or because he really sees that much value in it (or because he knows he can resell it for even more later, which is probably the usual case).
So, there is a disconnect between buyer and seller, that allows for a lack of compassion for mistakes, I guess, but it's on a solid moral footing (voluntary, presumably rational actors) , so it's hard to change.
nor should it be changed, but that's just my own Capitalist opinion
60 Minutes: Inside the Collapse, Part 2
I think that endeavour would uncover some interesting assumptions about value.
I'm only being slightly cheeky, and mostly serious; I actually think it's an interesting question.
Unforgettable - They know everything about you
Deus Ex:Human Revolution Teaser
Design Outside the Box - life becomes a game?
Also, this will only work until people become immune to psychological hacking... By buying the Norton NLP package?
[edit] also, Videosift should be fine in the future then? lovingly crafted Pavlovian bondage engine that it is.
A typical day in the life of Throbbin
Händel: He was despised (Messiah, HWV 56)
Snail Opera