On Jun 9, 4:50 am, Alexander Kalinowski
<a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Brent <digital.br...@[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.
We should get along great. I am an anarcho-capitalist, endorsing the
privatisation of the government and all of it's functions altogether.
I see capitalism as a self-regulating system. Any regulations placed
upon echo to create more problems than they solve.
>
> 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. :-)
The Iraq war isn't about coolism or who is right. It is about the
benefits afforded to those deciding to invade. Whether or not those
benefits have unfolded as planned is another thing. Nevertheless, Iraq
was not about justice, WMDs, international altruism, liberation,
terrorism, Al Qaeda, Osama, Hussein, or any of that ****. It was
because somebody had a perceived marginal benefit greater than a
perceived marginal cost. Iraq was invaded to fulfill the desires of
those instigating the invasion.
>
> > 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.
However, this and all economics is based upon the balancing of demand
with supply. Security in one's job, rate of pay, GDP, employment rates
all come back to demand vs. supply. Doesn't matter specifically what.
It is the fundamental equation from which all economics stem.
>
> 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?
I see the direction you are trying to head, but there are a couple of
key misconceptions. First of all, capital by definition is simply the
'means to production', a very loose and dynamic definition. As such,
world capital is not a static commodities that flows, but rather a
chaotic phenomenon which is highly subjective in it's appraisal. That
being said, money itself is liquid capital, a reliable, static,
manifestation of capital, of subjective consensus value. However,
despite this, most of the worlds capital lies in completely
unrecorded, unrecognised, factors. This is, however, beside the point.
The deciding factor in international investment will be IRR (internal
rate of return- or profitablity, if you will). Understandably this
will be stacked against predicted tax expenses, however an investor
will choose an investment with a 500% IRR with 49% tax, over an
investment with an IRR of 120% and a tax of 10%. This IRR will
ultimately come down to competitiveness, as derived from comparative
advantage, which again centres upon demand and supply. That being
said, it may seem as though investment flows to areas of low upper-
bracket tax because (a) the low tax margin does indeed make
investments more attractive as you said, (b) Countries with lower tax
tend to have healthier economies, lending itself to a greater market
and potential of investments. Still, if there is profit to be found,
after taking tax into consideration, investors will come flocking.
>
> > 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.
Yes, except it isn't illegal. It makes one more efficient, and thus
more competitive.
>
> 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.
Ok, let us try to abstain referencing cyberpunk economies (which are
the result of corrupt governments and unequal applications of
competition, anyhow). Economic efficiency is everything. Not in terms
of self-relevance, or competition for its own sake. No it is
*everything* in maintaining the precarious balance of demand with
supply. **** with it and you have one of two things, dead-weight-loss,
or market-failure. Let it fly and you have complete equilibrium of
aggregate and marginal demand keyed to the concert long and short term
interests of every economic agent. It is spectacular. That is to say,
the point of efficiency is to better bring competition ever closer to
market equilibrium, with an effective goal of meeting all demand with
all supply. Perfect allocation of resources, if you will, based upon
who wants said resources more, and how abundant said resources are.
>
> 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.
>
Missed you completely. Anyhow, let me take a stab. The point of the
economy, and thus efficiency and competition, is the allocation of
resources. There are 3 broad ways to do so. A command economy seeks to
allocate according to it's own priorities as to who gets what. A
market economy self allocates based upon who wants what the most. A
lottery economy lands whoever with whatever regardless of what they
want. The first is unworkable, the second is currently flouri****ng,
and the third is untested and humourous.
>
>
> > 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.
Only certain Non-Current-Assets can really be outsourced without
refocussing the business altogether (always a serious consideration).
The point is that the company will operate in germany as long as it is
the most 'economically profitable' (different to 'accounting profit)
option for them in regards to their operations, and do so in the most
efficient way possible. If Germany makes it a better choice to
outsource to neighbours, or even leave the german market altogether,
then that is precisely what they will do. You can't regulate a
prevention to this, without also creating more problems. You can,
however, jump on the bandwagon for the good of germany, and land
everyone better off in doing so (by improving the economy in which
they participate).
>
> 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.
The government's interests =/= what is best for society or the
citizens thereof.
> 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?
Jesus. Where to start? Ok. Capitalism does not force such conditions
on anyone. Rather, the market does. That is, you demand DVD players as
cheap as is possible, and so companies push their bottom line down as
best they can (see, back to demand and supply again). If the market
demanded better working conditions for the workers of DVD player
factories, at the expense of a higher cost margin (and thus price),
the market would supply exactly that. However, the fact remains,
nobody cares for the plight of the DVD factory worker (well, nobody
cares 100 euro for the plight of the factory worker). If you think
otherwise, you should start a DVD player manufacturer, who sells DVD
players at 140 Euro, but provides very comfortable working terms for
staff. If people agree with you, there should be a demand for this
kind of thing. Next up, factory workers have the kind of job wherein a
happy worker is really material to their output. They have few, or
limited skills, and are paid for simple work. If a factory worker
wishes better conditions, they should aqcuire the skills for a much
more creative or responsibility driven career, or for a career in an
area in which there is a high, unsatiated demand (and thus most likely
more attractive terms). Also, competition isn't always bad for
employees. As noted, jobs in which there is limited supply, or which
involve high levels of responsibility or creativity (thus making
worker satisfaction critical to worker output) often offer spectacular
working conditions in the name of competition. For example, Lawyers,
executives, writers, remote miners, actors, specialist doctors,
stockbrokers, highly specialised technicians all have great working
conditions due to the limited supply and high demand for their skills.
Companies compete to gain there employment by offering better deals.
This also touches back to the factory workers, wherein their current
conditions are merely a product of market value. That is, the current
pay and conditions is what the employers and employees have agreed to
be a fair trade for the labour the employees provide.
>
> 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.
The governments don't compete just for international respect. The
governments compete to better enable their stranglehold on the
societies they have in their tentacles, and better serve the interests
of those directing them. It's not about keeping up with the Jones',
but rather a purely self-contained goal of greater economic benefit
and enabling to realise their selfish goals, whatever they may be.
>
> >> 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
> 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.
>
But by very definition there is lasting happiness in global
competition. In a market economy, resources are allocated as per who
wants them the most, and what is wanted. Competition only serves to
better realise this end. The end result being a global, decentralised,
network of allocation wherein the demands of each and every individual
are met in consideration and ratio to the supply and long term
security thereof. It is that simple, global competition means everyone
one gets what they demand. Anything else is what the people of the
world do not want. Political power is nothing if you are economically
domesticated. Give the reins of the economy to the *people* and let
them decide what they want. Anything else implies a disdain for the
rights of the common man.
> > 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.
No, I mean actually selling off the resources of this planet to the
good care of investors (those with more than political face to lose
should their asset be allowed to be destroyed).
> 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.
There is. You put *everything* under private owner****p, and let the
market decide what the standards are. Remember, the market is driven
by the demands of the people. What is wrong with letting the people
set their own standards? Do they not know what is good for themselves?
Do they not know what they want? Do they need to be herded and
shackled? If something is worthwhile (e.g. Saving the whales, the
atmosphere, the amazon, etc) there will be demand to enable it such.
If there is no demand to enable it such, then it is not worthwhile.
Call it global trial by dollar.
>
> > 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.
Kyoto tried to do many things, but in very essence it is a state based
protocol, and thus inherently flawed and prone to malfunction and
failure. Whatever the government does, it can be better done by a
competing market of private agents, totally loyal to the people who
drive the market. Seriously, just sell the atmosphere, preferably in
small chunks.
>
> >> 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.
Good for europe. Here we see the market in action, delivering what
people want. I don't see the problem here. Athletes often see the
benefit of drugs to be greater than the cost or risk of getting
caught. Logically, they take drugs. If the public cares, they can pay
for stricter policing. If that doesn't work, then they can either (a)
get used to the status quo, (b) learn to like drug-enhanced s****ts, or
(c) learn to like s****ts in which doping is not a practical problem.
It doesn't matter economic system the s****t is based in, the same
predicament will arise. It is not due to globalisation, but rather the
benefits and drawbacks facing athletes, and the public demand for
their performance. Globalisation is immaterial.
>
> > 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.
How? These are all just subjective value judgements. Maybe the kids
will like watching doped up athletes. Maybe some people disagree. So
what? Whatever is appropriate for kids (as deemed by their parents)
will most likely be the direction of their interest. If the public
interest turns away from athletic s****ts, so what? What does this
matter? If the public doesn't want to do this, then there will be
sufficient demand to stop them from doing so. However, if they do,
then it is because this is what they *want*. This is all the free will
of the public. Are you suggesting they should not be able to make this
choice?
>
> 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 that is what is demanded, then that is what will happen, and
capitalism will deliver it on a silver platter for you.
>
> > 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.
:-)
It's not the competition that pushes athletes to doping, but rather
the incredible demand for their high performance. They couldn't care
less about beating the other guy. Rather, they want the $5,000,000
contract with FILA. To get this contract, they need results. To get
these results, they may need drugs. This situation would occur in the
least competitive of s****ts if there was enough public demand to award
$5,000,000 endorsement contracts. If current doping drugs existed back
in the heyday of domestic s****ts, prior to globalisation, then
athletes would have used them. It stems not from globalism, but rather
from the athletes desire to realise the marginal benefit offered by
the public's demand for his high level performance. The *only* way to
stop this is to (a) destroy all performance-enhancing-drugs in the
worlds or (b) Make the public care less about s****t (and thus ending
the high rewards for undetected drug use), or (c) Legalise doping.
Killing globalisation would not stop doping in s****t.
>
> >> 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.
You missed my question. If you and enough people think that it is
absurd, then capitalism will use its engine of infinite competition to
serve whatever it is that you demand. The point is, your enemy isn't
insane competion, as it only serves the demands of the market. Rather,
your enemy is what the market demands. That, my friend is determined
by you and me, the people. So, if you don't like it, you need to start
convincing the public, the drivers of demand, to modify what they
demand. If nobody listens to you, maybe they know what they want
better than you.
You get my drift. If the market widely demanded social benefit, cushy
work conditions, sun****ne, and kitten farts, then competition in the
market capitalist economy would do the best job of bringing it to you.
Find enough demand for whatever it is that you want, and competition
will be your friend. Try to override what the public demands, and
hijack the government to enforce and regulate the special interests of
you and a chose few, and competition will be your enemy.
>
> 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".
Social pressures are a result of globalisation now? Jesus, people have
been bullied since human communication enabled harassment. This is
nothing new. This hierarchy of coolness and **** has a very long
history predating both capitalism and globalisation.
>
> 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. :-)
I'm not American, and the Americans have got is all wrong, for
different reasons. They have a social problem with competition, the
myth of the self-made man, blaming the poor, money-virtue, and a nuber
of other social maladies. However, all of their ****ed-uppedness is
completely separate from capitalism, competitive market models and
globalisation altogether (though they were born of them, this is
immaterial in the *****sment of their merit).>
> >
> >> 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. :-)
>
What? I was just saying that the force behind the mega-corps and
corrupt governments is public demand. As for s****t doping, we have
covered this already(in all it's irrelevance).
>
> >> 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.
I'd thank you not to condescend. I have systematically reasoned and
rationalised my position quite well. To equivocate as grossly on the
word 'believe' to imply some kind of lack of insight upon my behalf is
nothing other than a thinly veiled ad hominem and you know it. Attack
my arguements, not me.
>
> 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. :-)
And who defines what is 'healthy'? You? The government? Jesus? Any
option other than 'the people themselves' is a flagrant insult to
human rights and the value of the individual. If you truly believe
people should have the freedom to decide what is good for themselves,
and to set their own standards, then you will quickly understand that
any equilibrium formed around this is vastly preferable to a
government enfoced edict based upon the misguided and poorly conceived
interests of a select few.
>
> > 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.
:-)
The only monopolies that exist in the market are (a) Governments
themselves, and (b) those sup****ted, enforced, or enable by the
government (either directly or indirectly). Monopolies do not prop up
themselves, they must be held up by another.
>
> > 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. :-)
Complete red Herring. Capitalism isn't about buying you contentedness,
spiritual enlightenment, or self-esteem. Capitalism is about the
allocation of resources. My praise of capitalism is limited to its
spectacular function in this regard. Do not take my comments out of
context to imply that I espouse a shallow system of 'money virtue', or
'material enlightenment'. My self-worth is completely separate from my
material worth.
>
> > 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". :-)
By then I'd expect they'd have thought of the idea of getting
practically endless energy from space (where no environments and
ecologies are at risk).
>
>
> --
> Waiting for you to return.
> --
> To email me, please have 'alt.suicide.holiday' as the subject line.
|
