Brent <digital.brent@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jun 5, 12:54 am, Alexander Kalinowski
> <a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Brent <digital.br...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >>That needs to change.
>>
>> > Why?
>>
>> > Are you arguing against globalised football, or globalisation? Either
>> > way, I stand in favour of globalisation.
>>
>> Alex:
>> The question isn't one of being for or against globalization. The
question is one of whether
>> globalization needs to be managed by politics and it cannot be
questioned that it does.
>
> Yet question I will.
Alex:
Which is legitimate. :-) I am not against globalized football or against
globalization. I am against underregulated economies.
Check out this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism
>> 1. Countries are currently in competition for mobile global capital.
>
> I disagree. On a couple of points. Countries are in competition for
> much much more than mobile global capital.
Alex:
That is beyond question. They are, for example, competing for recognition.
The Iraq war for example has become an issue of who is being right,
therefore
more intelligent - which moves one up on the food chain of coolism. :-)
> Capital is good, but
> compared to demand, it is nothing. A better way of expressing the
> situation is "Countries are in competition to meet global market
> demands", compared to that, capital is just an afterthought.
Alex:
Yes and no. To the individual worker both are an afterthought. They crave
to
just have a hopefully secure and well-paying job. To politicians a good
gdp
and high employment rates will help with reelections. So in turn both are
indirectly interested in investors. Meeting global demand in itself is
then
a consideration of investors and ceos. But from the perspective of
governments
it wouldn't matter if one was to meet global demand or not - if one only
had
enough jobs and income.
As it stands I can't really disagree with you though. :-)
>> That means among other things that countries will dump taxes for the
rich in order to attract that capital.
>
> This is not why countries dump taxes for the rich. The first thing to
> understand is that capital is abundant, it can be created, grown, or
> taken very easily.
Alex:
You err. Capital is a trade unit and if there was nothing to trade it
against
it would be worthless, no? Bearing that in mind what creates capital in
the
end is the creation of demanded goods or services. About taking easily -
that
is not so easy on a globalized planet. World capital is highly mobile and
will
flow to where it is most profitable. If you take it away and reduce
profits
you can gain in the short run but will pay a terrible price in the long
run.
If the US doesn't lower taxes for the rich to say 10% and Germany does,
all
other things being equal, can you guess where the world's money will tend
to
flow?
> The second, the primary motive behind taxation
> (apart from corruption) in principle is price elasticity of demand.
> The more inelastic the demand is for a good, the higher the tax. Of
> course it goes deeper than this, but this is the key point (cut the
> rest short, governments being self-serving, self-imposed monopolies
> look after their long term interests by leaning toward whatever
> guarantees them the most power and security in the short and long
> term. Economic understanding has developed to show privatisation and
> lean governments serve both ends exceptionally better than
> nationalised industries and sprawling bureaucracies).
Alex:
I have no doubts about the more market-oriented forms of capitalism, the
more
laissez-faire-oriented ones eventually beating the hell out of more
moderate
forms of capitalism like the social market enterprises of Germany. They
will
do the same to them what western capitalism did to eastern socialism in
the
long run. It grants an advantage the same that doping does in s****ts.
The point is however that economic efficiency isn't everything except to
those
who can't think outside of all-out competition. The malady of cyberpunk
world
is one of capitalism byond what is healthy for societies as a whole,
after all. Therefore barrens/uncontrolled zones/combat
zones/slums/whatever-it-
is-called-in your-favorite-game, among other things.
What is driving this is an unhealthy competitive mindset. The point is not
to
be in service of society. The point is that in society there is a social
hierarchy that measures people's worth by their achievements in life and
their
coolness. And when I say measure I mean by that different treatment as if
one
was a "Herrenmensch" and the other an "Untermensch". The result? Virginia
Tech
shooting.
> Finally, the
> above considered, the reason the governments give tax cuts to the rich
> ironically comes back to your aforementioned demand for capital. Rich
> people by definition handle larger amounts of money than poor people
> per capita. What this means is that a percentage tax cut, per capita,
> equates to a larger lump sum, per capita, for a rich person than it
> does a poor person (i.e. if in an imaginary society there are 10 rich
> people, and 100 poor people, and each demographic had a net income of
> $10000, giving a 10% tax cut to the rich gives 10 individuals $100
> each. Giving the 10% tax cut to the poor gives 100 people $1 each.
> Whilst the poor people will reinject the money back into the economy,
> which is a good thing, it is better to give the tax cut to the rich
> people because not only will they reinject the cash into the economy,
> they have the capacity and tendency to provide capital with their much
> larger slices of cash). Giving tax cuts to the rich isn't about
> attracting other rich people to the country (perhaps on some minor
> level it is, but rich people generate themselves domestically quite
> easily anyhow), but rather, it is about encouraging investment in the
> economy.
Alex:
That is undubitably true but I think it is becoming less and less relevant
in the globalized world. If you are an investor or company owner in a
high price, overregulated market like Germany and you have low
price/low-tax
countries with liberal labour market laws next door in Eastern Germany,
then
moving assets to that neighboring country becomes a serious consideration
-
and now get this - even if only as leverage point to make the German
government
cut on social spending, so it can afford lowering taxes for the upper
incomes,
which is what has been happening here in Germany.
Don't understimate the mobility of capital and investors in the globalized
world.
>>In order to be afford those tax cuts, they push the philosophy of lean
government, which often comes in the form of >cutting on necessary
spending in order to be able to keep up with other nations.
>
> Firstly, the only reason the government pushes the philosophy of a
> 'lean government' is the same reason companies push the philosophy of
> a lean company. A government is, after all, simply a company with
> enforces a self-imposed monopoly over a market which is obliged to
> consume their goods and services.
Alex:
Lol, you understand surely economics but you do not understand politics.
If
being economically efficient was what is best for society as a whole
outside
of trying to keep up with other nation's economies, you might be right.
However what might be economically efficient might be not what would be
otherwise in the best interest of the citizens of a country. For example,
it
is nice that I can buy a DVD player for 40 euros. But if the price for
that is
that employees that produce that DVD player are subject to constant
competitive
pressure and that those who are not willing to subject themselves to the
same
competitive pressure because they don't feel that this what human life
should
be all about... then what you have is a price that is becoming too much to
pay
for some. And the higher the competitive pressures in general become the
more
people will decide that this is nuts. Because then what is de facto is
happening is that the more competitive people are de facto forcing their
lifestyle on those people who'd be content if they'd just do their job and
then walk home to friends and family. If that makes a DVD player cost 140
euros... so what?
Just one example of why economic efficiency might not be the most
efficient
path overall. In fact a litt bit of inefficiency can be very efficient.
:-)
And yes of course there are critical business areas where total efficiency
is
a must. Where people's lives are at stake, for example.
> That is to say, governments push the
> philosophy of 'lean governance' to serve their own interests in being
> more efficient, and thus more profitable in the long run.
Alex:
Yeah but why is that all that im****tant? The main driving factor is to
keep
up with the Joneses. That's the point. The world could stand a little more
inefficiency in some regards. But noone dares to go for it for fear of
being
outcompeted and becoming irrelevant. One wants to be able to look down on
others and one fears being looked down upon which is the conditioning of
the aforementioned social hierarchy and that is plain sickening.
>> 2. If cor****ations argue that implementing higher ecological standards
will bring them disadvantages against
>> their rivals overseas or in China or India, the right response to that
is *not* to forget about implementing
>> higher standards wrt protecting the environment. If global competition
is preventing the implementation
>> of such in the described manner, then the way global competition
currently works isn't part of the solution,
>> it is part ofd the *problem*.
>
> Global competition itself does not conflict with the protection of the
> environment inherently. Though you have cited a popular instance of
> market failure, embodied as a global tragedy of the commons (the
> environment being the commons). So what is the solution?
Alex:
Two words: global ordoliberalism. The national ordoliberalism is bound to
get
its guts kicked out by economically more efficient systems. But as people
are bound to discover that in mere economic efficiency there is no lasting
happiness and the ills of being blindly driven by competition, there is
going
to be a movement that is going to regard the purely economic approach as
legitimate as doping, that is as competitiveness being taken too far.
> The same
> solution to the tragedy of the commons; privatise the commons. That
> is, sell the environment. Have people who stand, as per level of
> destruction, according to the long term preservation of their asset.
> You will find that companies will quickly modify their business
> practices in favour of the environment to avoid the cost of not doing
> so.
Alex:
Are you referring something like the Kyoto protocol? Even so, what you
said
does amount to ordoliberalism in some way. Because the privatizaion is not
a natural one coming from the market - it is governments who enforce
certain
rules on the market. And there will be the need to do it globally fair,
especially since countries like India and China are going to object.
The point is: there is no way getting around a global economic framework
which makes sure that certain social and economic standards are being met.
And that allows 3rd world countries to catch up, even if only
farming-wise.
> It all comes back to simple microeconomics. There must be an
> increasing marginal loss per unit of marginal benefit, with the
> equilibrium keyed (in this case) towards the preservation of the
> environment.
Alex:
That is what Kyoto tried to implement, as I understand it.
>> 3. You can see clearly how crappy the very mechanisms in s****ts too,
especially currently in cycling - which has
>> a massive doping problem (but probably not more than many other
s****ts). Fearing to be left behind by competitors
>> *and* lusting for money, fame and recognition athletes resort to
chemistry to push their bodies limits. And from
>> this kind of fraud, it's not an all that big step to Tonya Harding.
>
> I see no problem. The cyclists face a choice, to dope, or not to dope.
> Of the marginal benefits you have increased performance and likely
> hood of greater success in competition. Of the maginal losses you have
> an increased risk of getting caught, banned, and disqualified, as well
> as harming your body- your greatest asset.
Alex:
Given that those who invent those drugs are always many years ahead of
those who
have to find workable tests, you have a massive fraud problem: people
cheating
on those who try to do it the honest way. The end result is predictable:
people are going to turn away from s****ts that aren't based predominantly
on
skill vs strength and endurance. People in the US don't realize it but
that
trend has already begun in Europe.
> Let them make their choice,
> according to the benefits an losses of said choice.
Alex:
You have forgotten the above mentioned factor in your calculation: the
destruction of s****ts as an ideal for kids altogether, people turning away
from professional s****ts requiring endurance and strength predominantly.
And you know what? It is bound to be just one example for the people who
greed
and being overly competitive is opposed to ethics by nature. With that
awareness growing, there is bound to be people who'll open hunting season
in
various ways on those who are overly competitive in their eyes.
> If they are
> choosing to dope too often, then the marginal losses need to be
> increased (namely, by increasing the likelyhood of detection, and
> consequences thereof).
Alex:
As if it was that easy to increase and to keep up with it. :-)
> It has nothing to do with globalisation, and
> everything to do with the simplest of economics.
Alex:
You err. It does have something to do with the ills of globalization -
namely
both resulting out of an excessive and downright unhealthy form of
competitiveness. I am not a communist. I do very much recognize the
benefits
of competition. But a rational analysis tells me that the returns of
excessive
competitiveness start to shrink to the point where they get outweighed by
the
ruins it brings to the world. :-) So much for a cost-benefit analysis. :-)
>> As a summary, all-out competition is f**ked up. It is a way of the
greedy to feel *superior* (as in Herrenmensch
>> vs Untermensch) in comparison to those who have no accomplishments to
bring forth, which is just part of the
>> global culture of *coolism*, a form of discrimination which is among
other things the driving force in creating
>> people who go on a shooting spree.
>
> All baseless value judgements. If you don't like it, and you expect
> this to be true of man others, perhaps there would be sufficient
> demand to fund a gated community behind an iron curtain, safe from the
> globalisation the rest of the world demands?
Alex:
No way. The reverse is true: the wheel of competition must be spun so fast
that sufficiently high numbers of people start to crack under it and
demand
some bounds to this insanity. My point isn't one of limiting competition
but
taking it to its absurds. That is the all-out capitalism killer.
As to what you said: you have been avoiding the issue, referring to
unsubstantiated judgements itself. What I am saying is that people like
the
Virginia Tech killer are the result of the social pressures of their
peers,
who have been treating him like a 3rd or 4th class person. There can be no
talk anymore of judging people by their character as MLK once put it.
People's
worth is de facto judged by their coolness and their achievements. And
system,
my dear, is starting to crumble. Including the American way of life as we
know
it. Oh I know the usual initial reaction to that is usually something like
"Yeah right, I believe it when I see it".
I know and understand the American mindset and the American way of life
more
than any communist ever did. Communism/socialism isn't the answer.
But all-out competition isn't either. Except in the eyes of those who
don't
understand ethics, only the game of competition itself. Well, the game is
on. :-)
>
>> And then you have the conspricacy theorists that think that Bush or the
megacorps are driving this game when they
>> are being driven themselves. The one who is in the driving seat is the
mechanism of all-out competition itself and
>> even presidents and CEOs cannot but dance to its tune.
>
> Correct. Bush and the megacorps are but slaves to global demand. Where
> there is demand, there will be supply. They are just the lucky (or
> unlucky) bastards who do the supplying. If you are looking for someone
> to blame for it all, you need look no further than the mirror.
Alex:
What do you know about my demands and supplies? Beyond that it can make
sense
to operate within the system to act against the system, no? Why shouldn't
it be possible to take doping yourself win the tour de france 9 times in a
row and then turn around and say to the other riders: "See, I told you
that
it is pointless - can we skip on this doping thing now altogether?"
Would probably not work right away because some people would continue to
rely
on drugs but the point should be clear: it's easier to stimulate change
from
on top of the game. :-)
>> That's not to say that I am against competition: I do recognize its
value. But I am against all-out competition,
>> competition having gone beyond healthy bounds.
>
> I do not believe there to be bounds to healthy competition.
Alex:
That's the problem: believing means not-knowing and that describes your
current depth of insight. Take a deeper look, my friend, discard what you
think you new and rebuilding from ground up. Competitive people are
motivated
to engage in that first and foremostly because they don't know anything
else.
All they have usually learnt is that people are being judged by their
achievement and/or their coolness.
What the inventors of the Cyberpunk did not foresee in their otherwise
marvelous predictions was the power of plain old pure awareness beyond all
science and fancy technology.
> When
> implemented across the board, it forms an unusual equilibrium with
> itself.
Alex:
Yeah, only that society doesn't care about any unusual equilibrium with
itself beyond what is healthy. :-)
> A benign equilibrium, which provides everything demanded, and
> protects everything demanded. Curious, fascinating, and spectacular.
Alex:
I suppose you have never heard of governments having to prevent m&as in
order
to prevent monopolies? :-) That too could be considered ordoliberalist.
:-)
> Capitalism is by far the most uniformly benevolent creation of the
> human race, and by far the most influential.
Alex:
Funnily enough, I recently read a poll where people in Nigeria where the
happiest people on the planet and their society isn't really the main
benefitor of the fruits of capitalism. Competition is good for momentarily
pacifying the disquieted minds of those who know nothing but competition.
Those who are in a life-long race away from life and who they really are.
They
can't stop for fear of having to think of life. But true inner peace they
do
not find.
Take a look at me. I have nothing, I am nothing, I haven't accomplished
anything in life and never will - yet I have never met a person in life
who
I'd rather be.
No money in the world can buy you that. :-)
> Thousands of years from
> now, I expect future civilisations to look back, and measure the years
> in terms of 'pre-capitalist globalisation' and 'post-capitalist
> globalistation' (as the single greatest defining factor of our
> civilisation as it stands).
Alex:
Thousands of years from now I expect civilization to look back and think
"Damn,
they had plenty of cheap energy available back then". :-)
--
Waiting for you to return.
--
To email me, please have 'alt.suicide.holiday' as the subject line.
|
