|
Capitalism's Annihilating Factors
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Tuesday, 09/Feb/10, 4:00 PM | Message # 31 |
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (I_Guy) I was just doing what you do: start whining about facts when the shit is common sense.
No, I only ask for facts when you make controversial statements that aren't even backed by any evidence.
Quote (I_Guy) That was not perpetuated by a private institution. That was a result of patriarchal hegemony.
That's my point, a private institution isn't directly responsible for giving the image of a beautiful woman. It's society that does this, media just gives what the people demand. That demand is for a certain image of women.
Quote (I_Guy) Instead we have different degrees of anorexia and bigorexia plaguing young people.
There have always been cases like this. It's about what society thinks is beautiful, society bases this on their environment and ideals. A private institution only reflects that. If private institutions are the one who create the idea of beauty in america then why don't they make obese women beautiful? Certainly that would encourage people to buy more unhealthy food if this was true. Since you also say industries all are connected by some sort of evil greed.
Quote (I_Guy) And we have plastic surgery in which people feel the need to change what they are.
That's silly. Plastic surgery is considered a luxury, not a necessity. The reason why it has gained in popularity is because it has quickly been becoming cheaper and safer thanks to the market.
Quote (I_Guy) I don't know why you would conclude that. The person simply stagnates physically and financially.
I disagree because Mcdonalds serve elastic products. How can we figure this out? Well, is mcdonalds a necessity? Hmm, we don't need it to live. I mean, there are definitely alternatives that just maybe aren't as favored as mcdonalds.. so it would be considered a luxury. Now can people afford this luxury? The price of the food is pretty cheap so at first we can. But then if we eat too much we become unhealthy. So we would have to pay for a gym membership, maybe have to see our doctor, and health insurance rates would increase. This can really affect a person's wallet. We had to take time (time is money) for all this and then we had to pay (money is money) for all this. We soon realize that if we are going to be able to live comfortably we're going to have to sacrifice buying mcdonalds because it's too expensive of a luxury. This causes demand to drop. Mcdonalds has responded to this by trying to gain a more healthy image and presenting healthier foods.
Quote (I_Guy) To an extent they respond to desires, but really they adjust to mass desires that they inspired. But in many cases, people don't desire something until it is created. And the various industries create shit for people to desire.
So what explains the many failed products that the industry has tried to put out?
Quote (I_Guy) Keep in mind, that nowadays fashion is confused with beauty. But if you want the full story,
Fashion is connected to beauty because it's used to emphasize a person's features that would be considered attractive.
Quote (I_Guy) But most of all, the Greeks truly appreciated inner beauty and love. And all of this was purely a cultural development. There were no private industries to poison, dilute, and derail interpersonal culture. The Greeks didn't have a world full of the millions of distractions that we have today. So as a culture and a social consciousness, they had time to find insight that tied them to the subjective meaning of their existence. They didn't only introspect as individuals, they introspected as a culture. That's why ancient Greece is a wonder. They reached an intellectual standard far more sophisticated and insightful then their science or technology.
What are you trying to say? That before private industry the idea of beauty was never attributed to physical qualities? What about the ancient egyptian women lengthening their necks? Or their depictions of attractive women being chubby?
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/beauty.htm
Or what about geisha women applying white makeup on their face and blackening their teeth? And asian women breaking their feet to stunt the growth. Or ancient indias sculptures depicting women with exaggerated physical features?
Quote (I_Guy) Private property helped create a pathway to the pollution problem that the government had to solve (or at least balance). If there was no private property, no one would feel comfortable polluting the land because all other eyes would be on them saying "this is my land too."
That's actually very damaging to the environment, there's a lot of evidence backing up the idea of "tragedy of the commons"
http://www.forbes.com/asap/2001/0910/061.html
Quote (I_Guy) If it was left up to the owners of corporations the land would go to shit.
Is this a joke? Did you even read what I wrote? "It wouldn't be left up to the corporations, it would be left up to the owners of the property that the corporations are affecting."
Quote (I_Guy) If people become accepting, it's because there is no other alternative. They have to accept what is forced upon them from the powers above. They are the underlings. If a campaign was started revealing that products are designed to wear out, I can guarantee that people would not be accepting.
It's because there isn't a demand for a higher quality product. People are satisfied with the quality they pay for.
Quote (I_Guy) True again, but the inability to continue education prevents them from realizing their puppet position and the harm they bring to others through their "business."
You can't make the assumption that there is a "puppet position" and that there is harm being done through their business.
Quote (I_Guy) It is an escalating issue and it grows worse by the conduct of self-interested industries.
It only becomes an issue when the government gives reasons for people to not work.
Quote (I_Guy) Ahaha. So the food industry doesn't intentionally include unneeded addictive ingredients in their food? "In “The End of Overeating,” Dr. Kessler finds some similarities in the food industry, which has combined and created foods in a way that taps into our brain circuitry and stimulates our desire for more." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/health/23well.html We all know the deal with smoking, alcohol, and medical drugs. They're all addictive. People don't get addicted to video games? Or watching TV? Research is done to figure out what it takes to keep people coming back. For instance, TV shows have realized not to hold a shot for more than 5 seconds, because if they do people will gradually lose interest. These industries are hijacking the nature of our biology and psychology. Plain and simple.
Quote (I_Guy)
They want what is pushed in their faces. That's what marketing campaigns are all about. Getting people to buy, rather they need it or not.
Advertising does help when there are competing businesses in the industry but the reason why people buy it is because the supplier has made the product affordable enough to buy the product which I'm assuming you are specifically referring to luxury items.
Quote (I_Guy) Until you dump your pollution onto someone else's land.
If I have a self-interest to maintain or increase the value of my land and someone is dumping pollution onto my land then I will do something about it.
Quote (I_Guy) I was actually referring to egoistic narcissistic anthropocentrist, which is the majority of society (in a capitalist nation, such as ours).
right...
Quote (I_Guy) That is your interpretation. I never gave those descriptions, because that's not what I think. Quote (I_Guy) prevents them from realizing their puppet position
Quote (I_Guy) the harm they bring to others through their "business."
You constantly refer to the human race as parasites.
You have more than once have said that humans are pathetic. Those are just a few examples. But even your whole belief on how society should work backs up my statements. You say we need to put ppl thru heavy rehabilitation in order to create a new man that would be able to be productive within society. Quote (I_Guy) It's not necessarily about happiness. It's about sustainability. If the responsibility of sustainability happens to be bland or unhappy, well then that's unfortunate. But it doesn't have to be bland or unhappy if you have a wise people. But to favor escapism over responsibility or situational euphoria over sustainability, well that's just stupid.
If your society sacrifices happiness in the name of sustainability then I assure you your society will never come about.
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Tuesday, 09/Feb/10, 6:45 PM | Message # 32 |
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
Quote (eboyd) Quote (J-Breakz) economics obviously affect the progression of technology. capitalism is not the only way to focus on economics and economics also isn't by any means the only factor, or even the biggest factor in the progression of technology. Quote (J-Breakz)
No we both stated this isn't a good example because it wasn't able to last that long. oh really? then what do you have to say about the Paris commune? the kibbutzen? so the Spanish Revolution was crushed by force.... and? that means that all movements of this kind will be crushed by force? the Spanish Revolution was dissolved under extreme circumstances. it wasn't even expected to last because the anarchist movement took over while the two big dogs -- fascism and state communism -- were warring over the land. anarchism was like the little kid that picked up the video game controller while the two big kids were fighting over it and once one of the kids one he ripped the control from the hands of the little kid and sent him packing. Quote (J-Breakz)
After being ruled by an extremely oppressive govn't then of course people are going to have high spirits and be enthusiastic about work. that is such a weak argument it is ridiculous. i don't even know where to begin debunking this. Menace has more facts then i do on this though so, Menace, take it away lol  Quote (J-Breakz)
I don't know about that. There's been drugs, sports, sex, board games, card games, religion, etc. let's see, the majority of drugs are productive and we've actually seen a major increase in recreational drug use since the advent of capitalism (ie: MDMA, LSD, the use of cocaine and heroin for non-medicinal purposes, etc.) so we can wipe that off the list, sex isn't a distraction because it actually is productive (after all, how does life come about in the first place?) so that is gone, sports, board games and card games can be combined into one category of games and i would argue that the majority of games prior to capitalism taught people how to strategize among other things, making them actually productive, but i'll be nice and let you have games, and religion is often very productive, though it is in all likelihood fallacious, especially when you consider that almost every humanitarian movement has been headed by a religious faction. so in essence, the only distraction that predates capitalism that you can actually claim is games, which i even said was a bit iffy because there are still positive things gained from games (though many games since capitalism's inception have been pointless and mind-numbing). Quote (J-Breakz)
You just have a hate for human beings huh? You feel we are so horrible that we have to be completely changed to unrealistic standards using unrealistic methods. why do you assume that these standards are unrealistic? i believe we've more than met our burden of proof that such a change is not unrealistic. in fact assuming that any change that doesn't defy natural laws is unrealistic i feel is an unfounded assumption. Quote (J-Breakz)
you think people have to be a certain way (because anyone who focuses their life on business is obviously unhappy and evil) anyone who expects people to subordinate themselves to working for them that lives in a society where the values have been set and the opportunities are there for subordination not to exist and people are more than able to work without being employed by a boss is, in my opinion, not evil, but probably selfish and unhappy because he/she would have to have been unsuccessfully trying for years to find employees but they simply can't because that isn't how things would work in that type of society.
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Tuesday, 09/Feb/10, 6:56 PM | Message # 33 |
|
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
Quote (J-Breakz) That's actually very damaging to the environment, there's a lot of evidence backing up the idea of "tragedy of the commons" yes, so as a result, every square inch of land in every place that humans exist should be privately owned (no, your article didn't say this, but it is a good argument for this position).
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Tuesday, 09/Feb/10, 7:29 PM | Message # 34 |
|
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (eboyd) yes, so as a result, every square inch of land in every place that humans exist should be privately owned (no, your article didn't say this, but it is a good argument for this position).
oh ok.
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Tuesday, 09/Feb/10, 8:36 PM | Message # 35 |
|
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (eboyd) that is such a weak argument it is ridiculous. i don't even know where to begin debunking this. Menace has more facts then i do on this though so, Menace, take it away lol :D
The Soviet Union was pretty successful at first which scared many people in America, but after awhile there were shortages in some products while other goods were overproduced. Everything began to fall apart. Is there even any difference between how state-communist and an anarcho-syndicalist society would handle the allocation of resources? Isn't it essentially the same thing? An organization does research to figure out what we need to produce more of and what we don't need to produce as much? Because that's how the soviet union tried it and it failed. This is what I don't understand. Anybody who favors ur system doesn't seem to understand how complex production can be. It'd be extremely difficult to accurately do something like that. Quote (eboyd) let's see, the majority of drugs are productive and we've actually seen a major increase in recreational drug use since the advent of capitalism (ie: MDMA, LSD, the use of cocaine and heroin for non-medicinal purposes, etc.)
You blame this on capitalism? I'd maybe consider this if recreational drugs weren't illegal and banned from being traded. Quote (eboyd) sex isn't a distraction because it actually is productive (after all, how does life come about in the first place?) so that is gone
Not necessarily. If you can't afford children then it wouldn't be productive, or if your using some sort of birth control then it wouldn't be productive. Quote (eboyd) i would argue that the majority of games prior to capitalism taught people how to strategize among other things, making them actually productive, but i'll be nice and let you have games
Oh jeeze, well okay, I'll play your game:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070121/204559.shtml Looks like the majority of games in general are productive. Capitalism has actually been able to make it so more people could afford these productive products. Quote (eboyd) religion is often very productive, though it is in all likelihood fallacious, especially when you consider that almost every humanitarian movement has been headed by a religious faction.
It depends how you look at it, I suppose. But you can't deny the fact that millions of people have died or done horrible things because of the idea of religion. Btw, the anarcho-capitalism thread is calling ur name, erik
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Wednesday, 10/Feb/10, 4:35 AM | Message # 36 |
|
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
Quote (J-Breakz) The Soviet Union was pretty successful at first which scared many people in America, but after awhile there were shortages in some products while other goods were overproduced. Everything began to fall apart. Is there even any difference between how state-communist and an anarcho-syndicalist society would handle the allocation of resources? Isn't it essentially the same thing? An organization does research to figure out what we need to produce more of and what we don't need to produce as much? Because that's how the soviet union tried it and it failed. This is what I don't understand. Anybody who favors ur system doesn't seem to understand how complex production can be. It'd be extremely difficult to accurately do something like that. no, it isn't the same. the Soviet Union, first of all, was communist. while i think I_Guy is in favor of a form of communism, Menace and i are speaking of syndicalism, often called the "third way", and also possibly participatory economics, both of which are very different from communism. and btw, i will play your game here. Cuba, one of the leading Communist nations that has been Communist since the 1950's, while it has it's problems such as the people of the country being restricted in what they are allowed to purchase, do, say, etc., actually has quite a healthy economy, possibly one of the healthiest in the world, and by far the healthiest in Latin America, a region where multiple nations, due to US support, are capitalist or mixed economies. Cuba's poverty level is 1% and it's unemployment rate is 1.9%, it's GDP is $125.5 billion, and it's GDP growth as of 2008 was at 4.3%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Cuba the biggest though not only objections i have with Cuba and other state communist and socialist countries is the government involvement. also, i don't think regulation will actually be necessary if a society is free of government and private property rights. regulation isn't actually a defining factor of socialism as many seem to think. the idea that i am for is that labor will be based solely on free association. if you work, say, in a factory, that factory won't be your place of employment, no one will own it, and workers will be at a workplace on a voluntary, though not necessary short term basis. working at a specific place of work would be encouraged, though not required. the factory would likely be built in collaboration by the people of the community that the factory is built in, effectively giving the community at large a claim to the factory, and everything having to do with the factory will be discussed by anyone who wants to discuss it in that community, even if they join the community after the factory was built. self-employment, trade between individuals, etc., would not be limited or eliminated as it was in communist countries and any attempt to start a business with a hierarchic structure, though it would likely meet opposition from the people who realize that it is against the values of the society, would meet no legal opposition, however, if the owner tried to enforce a contract between an employee and himself/herself, nobody would enforce that contract and it would, in effect, be meaningless. this would be a natural way to make wage labor next to impossible without regulation. here's some info on syndicalism (there's another article specifically on anarcho-syndicalism that might be better, but this one focuses specifically on the economic principles. also, wiki has a great page for libertarian socialism, which is a blanket term for anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-socialism and anarcho-communism): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism and here's one on the newer (albeit more comprehensive) economic concept that is gaining steam within anarchist circles of participatory economics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics i bring both up because participatory economics, in many ways, picks up where syndicalism left some slack, including lending a more dynamic approach to how work is awarded, but i mainly base my ideals off of syndicalism.
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Wednesday, 10/Feb/10, 4:41 AM | Message # 37 |
|
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
Quote (J-Breakz) You blame this on capitalism? I'd maybe consider this if recreational drugs weren't illegal and banned from being traded. i cant' blame it on capitalism directly, but i can still say that drugs are productive for their medicinal uses and i think we can both agree that their illegality perpetuated their abuse a chronic recreational uses. Quote (J-Breakz) Not necessarily. If you can't afford children then it wouldn't be productive, or if your using some sort of birth control then it wouldn't be productive. sex, in and of itself, biologically, is naturally a productive act, though of course the pleasure factors are not to be left out. and btw, one would only not be able to afford a child in a capitalist nation  and i will not counter that statement. either way, games are not distractions. Quote (J-Breakz) It depends how you look at it, I suppose. But you can't deny the fact that millions of people have died or done horrible things because of the idea of religion. as an atheist, i would never deny that
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Wednesday, 10/Feb/10, 4:46 AM | Message # 38 |
|
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (eboyd) and btw, i will play your game here. Cuba, one of the leading Communist nations that has been Communist since the 1950's, while it has it's problems such as the people of the country being restricted in what they are allowed to purchase, do, say, etc., actually has quite a healthy economy, possibly one of the healthiest in the world, and by far the healthiest in Latin America, a region where multiple nations, due to US support, are capitalist or mixed economies.
I'm sorry, I don't think I can read the rest of your post... please do not tell me your serious when you say cuba has one of the healthiest economics in the world.
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Wednesday, 10/Feb/10, 4:56 AM | Message # 39 |
|
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
oh ur fuckin wit me huh? [edit] no u seem pretty serious
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Wednesday, 10/Feb/10, 5:07 AM | Message # 40 |
|
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (eboyd) i cant' blame it on capitalism directly, but i can still say that drugs are productive for their medicinal uses
Ok. Quote (eboyd) i think we can both agree that their illegality perpetuated their abuse a chronic recreational uses.
Idk, I haven't read up enough about that. But what does that have to do with capitalism?Quote (eboyd) sex, in and of itself, biologically, is naturally a productive act, though of course the pleasure factors are not to be left out.
Lol, we're arguing this... yeah well when you use birth control it kinda kills the productiveness out of the action. Unless you want to say it's a stress reliever, then again almost any distraction can be a stress reliever so really I_Guys point is invalid. Quote (eboyd) and btw, one would only not be able to afford a child in a capitalist nation ;)
...huh? 1 a : to manage to bear without serious detriment b : to be able to bear the cost of
2 : to make available, give forth, or provide naturally or inevitably I'm pretty sure the term affordability fits any society. Quote (eboyd) and i will not counter that statement. either way, games are not distractions.
Alright, so I'm beginning to forget what I_Guys point was supposed to be but wonderful.
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Wednesday, 10/Feb/10, 5:29 AM | Message # 41 |
|
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
Quote (J-Breakz) I'm sorry, I don't think I can read the rest of your post... please do not tell me your serious when you say cuba has one of the healthiest economics in the world. i'm dead serious. if not one of the healthiest in the world it is most definitely the absolute healthiest in Latin America, of which there are nations that are far more capitalistic. once again, numbers don't lie. Cuba has a very low amount of people below poverty level, a very low unemployment rate, and a GDP of $125.5 billion which would give it a rank of 11th place in the entire world on all of these lists had it not been intentionally excluded: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29 Quote (J-Breakz) Idk, I haven't read up enough about that. But what does that have to do with capitalism? lol nothing much. just trying to lay claim that none of those activities are truly distractions. Quote (J-Breakz) Lol, we're arguing this... yeah well when you use birth control it kinda kills the productiveness out of the action. Unless you want to say it's a stress reliever, then again almost any distraction can be a stress reliever so really I_Guys point is invalid. haha, once again, just as i stated above. Quote (J-Breakz) 1 a : to manage to bear without serious detriment b : to be able to bear the cost of 2 : to make available, give forth, or provide naturally or inevitably I'm pretty sure the term affordability fits any society. i mean affordable in an economic sense. there would be no reason not to be able to afford a kid in the society i propose because all you would need to do is work a little bit more. i can't see any possibility of people not being able to afford another kid because their work translates better to money. of course we then run into the problem of over-population, but then really, how many people are truly dumb enough to go and have 30 kids? lol Quote (J-Breakz) Alright, so I'm beginning to forget what I_Guys point was supposed to be but wonderful. haha, yeah, it's whatever. i was just softening your point up a bit so he could proceed with a bit more ease when he returns for the rest of this argument
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Wednesday, 10/Feb/10, 12:48 PM | Message # 42 |
|
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (eboyd) Cuba has a very low amount of people below poverty level, a very low unemployment rate, and a GDP of $125.5 billion which would give it a rank of 11th place in the entire world on all of these lists had it not been intentionally excluded:
Alright. I don't think you understand what poverty is. "Determining the poverty line is usually done by finding the total cost of all the essential resources that an average human adult consumes in one year." So basically the reason why there's apparently very little poverty in Cuba is because EVERYBODY's sucking. "The average wage at the end of 2005 was 334 regular pesos per month ($16.70 per month) and the average pension was $9 per month."
16.70 bucks is a lot of money.. "Cuba took limited free market-oriented measures to alleviate severe shortages of food, consumer goods, and services. These steps included allowing some self-employment in certain retail and light manufacturing sectors, the legalization of the use of the US dollar in business, and the encouragement of tourism" "For some time, Cuba has been experiencing a housing shortage because of the state's failure to keep pace with increasing demand." "Studies have shown that, as late as 2001, the average Cuban's standard of living was lower than before the downturn of the post-Soviet period" "The average Cuban's standard of living remains at a lower level than before the downturn of the 1990s, which was caused by the loss of Soviet aid and domestic inefficiencies. Since late 2000, Venezuela has been providing oil on preferential terms, and it currently supplies about 100,000 barrels per day of petroleum products. Cuba has been paying for the oil, in part, with the services of Cuban personnel in Venezuela, including some 20,000 medical professionals. In 2007, high metals prices continued to boost Cuban earnings from nickel and cobalt production. Havana continued to invest in the country's energy sector to mitigate electrical blackouts that had plagued the country since 2004." http://www.nationmaster.com/country/cu-cuba/eco-economy It should be common sense that Cuba isn't doing well. They completely ignore economics.
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Wednesday, 10/Feb/10, 12:49 PM | Message # 43 |
|
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
And just as I thought. There's a thriving black market in cuba: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....36.html
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Wednesday, 10/Feb/10, 5:37 PM | Message # 44 |
|
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
Quote (J-Breakz) So basically the reason why there's apparently very little poverty in Cuba is because EVERYBODY's sucking. everyone is on the same level. this is the point. unfortunately their heavy government restrictions hold the whole country back, but the majority of the people complaining are people who are mad that they aren't able to become ridiculously rich or people that are mad (rightfully) that Castro and co won't let them practice their religion, own certain things, open their own business, etc. of course these things have changed in the past 20 years. Cuba is no longer an atheist nation, but rather, as Castro proclaims, secular, as you pointed out, people are allowed to open businesses, etc. none of this would be a problem in a syndicalist country with no rulers. any restrictions will be necessary restrictions voted on by the people, but it is likely none of these restrictions would be necessary. like i said, i'm all for a free market as long as we simply define free market as uninhibited trade. once we start adding capital and wage labor, etc. in there, then that is not the free market i am talking about. Quote (J-Breakz) "Cuba took limited free market-oriented measures to alleviate severe shortages of food, consumer goods, and services. These steps included allowing some self-employment in certain retail and light manufacturing sectors, the legalization of the use of the US dollar in business, and the encouragement of tourism" and guess what? while i'm still not sure about the whole US dollar thing (though i'm sure there's probably a way to work that out as well), i am all for self-employment and tourism. i've stated this before. Quote (J-Breakz) "For some time, Cuba has been experiencing a housing shortage because of the state's failure to keep pace with increasing demand." that's because Cubans have to wait for the state to allow them housing and build more houses. it's simple in this case: if you are building a new house (or likely a commune), as long as the land you are building on is sturdy enough to build a house on, you can build your house. you will, of course, need to coordinate it with others that will live with you if it's a commune or ask a union to get people to assist you in building a house and the union will pay them for helping you build your house, or you could pay independent contractors using money you made working in a collective. Quote (J-Breakz) "The average Cuban's standard of living remains at a lower level than before the downturn of the 1990s, which was caused by the loss of Soviet aid and domestic inefficiencies. Since late 2000, Venezuela has been providing oil on preferential terms, and it currently supplies about 100,000 barrels per day of petroleum products. Cuba has been paying for the oil, in part, with the services of Cuban personnel in Venezuela, including some 20,000 medical professionals. In 2007, high metals prices continued to boost Cuban earnings from nickel and cobalt production. Havana continued to invest in the country's energy sector to mitigate electrical blackouts that had plagued the country since 2004." they have been struggling since they lost the Soviet Union's aid, this is true, and Castro and staff have made mistakes economically, but 1. everyone, including people who are actually savvy in economics, will have a say, and 2. this wouldn't be a planned economy like Cuba. oh, and let's not forget, GDP in Cuba is still among the highest in the world, as is the GDP in France, which is a mixed economy that is actually quite socialistic, and they are among the top contenders when it comes to standard of living in the world (they were #1 early this year). also, Cuba still has a higher standard of living than any Latin American country. Quote (J-Breakz) And just as I thought. There's a thriving black market in cuba: gee, i wonder why? Castro's stupid ass outlaws certain products. luckily he and his brother have been reversing this trend as of recent.
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| I_Guy |
Date: Wednesday, 10/Feb/10, 6:12 PM | Message # 45 |
Heads
Posts: 1792
|
Quote (J-Breakz) This causes demand to drop. Mcdonalds has responded to this by trying to gain a more healthy image and presenting healthier foods.
But people don't realize their destructive cycle, so no the demand doesn't drop. Because people don't realize the interconnection of all the problems. Quote (J-Breakz) So what explains the many failed products that the industry has tried to put out?
Didn't push it in people's noses obsessively enough. Quote (J-Breakz) What are you trying to say? That before private industry the idea of beauty was never attributed to physical qualities?
Not saying that. But I explained that they say bodily beauty as belonging to a deeper meaning, not merely selling it as a marketing tool. Quote (J-Breakz) hat about the ancient egyptian women lengthening their necks? Or their depictions of attractive women being chubby? http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/beauty.htm Or what about geisha women applying white makeup on their face and blackening their teeth? And asian women breaking their feet to stunt the growth. Or ancient indias sculptures depicting women with exaggerated physical features?
These are purely cultural developments, not market perpetuation. Quote (J-Breakz) That's actually very damaging to the environment, there's a lot of evidence backing up the idea of "tragedy of the commons"
"However, this self-interested stewardship of private lands did not extend to the commons. As a result, the commons were overgrazed and degenerated to the point that they were no longer able to support the villagers' cattle. This failure of private incentives to provide adequate maintenance of public resources is known to economists as 'the tragedy of the commons.'"
Private property is involved here. So this point's relevance to my comment is little. Quote (J-Breakz) "It wouldn't be left up to the corporations, it would be left up to the owners of the property that the corporations are affecting."
And? You'll have people spilling garbage onto other people's land. No difference. Quote (J-Breakz) It's because there isn't a demand for a higher quality product. People are satisfied with the quality they pay for.
LMAO, sure, people prefer to buy products that wear out quickly instead of products that last. That is absurd. This "demand" and "satisfaction" you speak of is an illusion. Many people don't know shit is being designed to wear out. So of course there is no demand, they assume everything is normal and top-of-the-line. When in reality they're getting duped. Explain to me how products were once long lasting and sold affordably, and for some reason now they're not. Quote (J-Breakz) You can't make the assumption that there is a "puppet position" and that there is harm being done through their business.
I can based on everything I have previously argued. Quote (J-Breakz) It only becomes an issue when the government gives reasons for people to not work.
? Quote (J-Breakz) True, anything can be addictive, this isn't limited to just products offered by private industries.
Right, but the various industries deliberately create addiction. Is that not unethical? Quote (J-Breakz) Secondly, it only becomes a problem when the person is not productive enough to live comfortably. If a person is not able to live well because they are sucked in by TV or video games then he will be forced to sacrifice those luxuries in order to provide himself with necessities.
What of it when they do enough just to get along? You act like people realize in an instant that they are neglecting their health, or that they are causing themselves to lose out in the long run. Realizations like this are slow to come about. Sometimes it's too late by the time a person realizes. They've wasted too much time. But the real issue is that individual situations like this creates a nation of apathetic people who are too distracted to be concerned with vital issues, and then they go and give their vote, which affects both you and me. Or they spread ignorance which contributes to an extension of the same problem. I'm not saying that all people are like this. Not all people are obsessive gamers. But you can substitute "gamers" and you'll see my point. Quote (J-Breakz) Advertising does help when there are competing businesses in the industry but the reason why people buy it is because the supplier has made the product affordable enough to buy the product which I'm assuming you are specifically referring to luxury items.
Imagine if their was no competition. There would be no advertisements shoving garbage in people's face. Because there would be no directly applied self-interest in a cooperative society, because only what is needed and agreed upon will be produced. There would be no money-hungry entrepreneur trying to sell the next brand of unneeded bullshit. Quote (J-Breakz) If I have a self-interest to maintain or increase the value of my land and someone is dumping pollution onto my land then I will do something about it.
If you know about it, and if you have enough power, and if someone doesn't do something about you dumping pollution onto their land (lol). Don't take this one too seriously. Quote (J-Breakz) You constantly refer to the human race as parasites.
You have more than once have said that humans are pathetic.
That doesn't mean I think humans are "evil." We ARE parasites. All life is a form of parasite. We just happen to be the most destructive. Because we are parasites to that (the entire planet) which gives birth to all life. Parasites aren't "evil" either. Quote (J-Breakz) You have more than once have said that humans are pathetic.
And I supplied a revision that specified egoistic narcissistic anthropocentrists. Quote (J-Breakz) If your society sacrifices happiness in the name of sustainability then I assure you your society will never come about.
It will if people are made happy by their contribution to sustainability. Quote (J-Breakz) The Soviet Union was pretty successful at first which scared many people in America, but after awhile there were shortages in some products while other goods were overproduced. Everything began to fall apart. Is there even any difference between how state-communist and an anarcho-syndicalist society would handle the allocation of resources? Isn't it essentially the same thing? An organization does research to figure out what we need to produce more of and what we don't need to produce as much? Because that's how the soviet union tried it and it failed. This is what I don't understand. Anybody who favors ur system doesn't seem to understand how complex production can be. It'd be extremely difficult to accurately do something like that.
They didn't have the technology to manage their resources. We have the technology now to much better do so. That's what the Venus Project advocates: technology as the extension of human abilities. Will you deny that technology will be able to regulate a natural supply and demand of resources? Technology already regulates the supply and demand in supermarkets or any other business. All we have to do is extend the concept to the entire planet through international cooperation. It is a "systems approach." Quote (J-Breakz) You blame this on capitalism? I'd maybe consider this if recreational drugs weren't illegal and banned from being traded.
Drug dealers compete just like business men do. Capitalism inherently necessitates people to both compete and generate wealth. In a deprived situation, some turn to drug dealing. Beings its an easy way to make money, and beings capitalism requires them to compete with other drug dealers to make this money, the drug epidemic proliferates as more and more dealers compete and they find more consumers to buy, especially when capitalism contributes to class stratification resulting in a steady growing supply of drug consumers. Drugs are an epidemic in low class society because drugs are a means of escape, and because it generates money. Drugs are a problem in upper-class societies often because things such as speed or coke help people keep up in the high stress and high pace world of business. Then you have the party culture. Quote (J-Breakz) Not necessarily. If you can't afford children then it wouldn't be productive, or if your using some sort of birth control then it wouldn't be productive.
Sex is irrelevant because there is no industry that fuels sexual intercourse, except of course for black markets. The point I am making is that distractions or unhealthy activity is created by private industries who dominate society for profit to the point of an individual's annihilation. It is both unethical and counterproductive for society.
These studies make unbelievable extrapolations. Learning hand-eye coordination or visual/mental strategy only benefits the individual in the situation that creates the learning. You're not going to play a racing game and be able to race better unless the game sufficiently simulates the conditions of driving (the stress, fear, physical position, etc.) That's why at NASA they try to simulate space flight for astronauts, but they also put astronauts through extensive stress/pressure training. Because robotically learning a particular repetitive hand-eye motion will only be useful for the situation that created that particular repetitive hand-eye motion.
We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...
|
|
|
|
