Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
Fishing Problem(IE the problem with capitalism)
I Read This
November 18, 2018, 20:59:05 EST *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Lupinia Hosting Community, which hosts I Read This, is supported by donations!  Please contribute if you're able, click here for details.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3]
  Print  
Author Topic: Fishing Problem(IE the problem with capitalism)  (Read 11317 times)
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #30 on: January 14, 2009, 16:16:50 EST »

Andrei, part of me wants to agree, but I may be just accepting that it's not currently politically feasible to get people -out- of the market.  As a general rule, absolutely.  People may say "Heq's a smart guy." but no-one says "Heq's a smart guy, let's give him a hammer and a bottle of nitro" because I should not be the person in charge of either of these objects.  I think it's because we use terms like "smart" as a universal, which any wise person is aware is kinda, well, not true at all.

I mean, there's a big cross section of "smart" people here, who would probably look like degenerate fools in each other 's fields, but the langauge we use for most of society is that someone is smart.  Thus it is assumed that as both Heq and Andrei possess the attribute of smartness (supposidly neccessary for both our fields) so to Joe Sixpack we should both be good at doing each other's jobs.

This causes us to believe it, so people invest because they think they are smart and thus can do it well.  Thus people invest so they can show off thier smartness, just as people drive cars to prove their sexual virility.  What we end up with is a pile up on the financial highway because we've given every 16 year old a hummer with overdrive and no seatbelts.

Psy-  Oh, absolutely.  I think it's very hard for actually thoughtful people to succeed in public politics because they realize the flaws in the positions they hold or the fact that they are misrepresenting issues.  I'll even give you Voltaire's socialism of the benevolent dictator could work, but in a popular democracy pure socialism is probably a pipe dream.  I would even go so far as to say I can generally point to what killed it.  Party politics encourages the worst sort of people to rise to the top while convincing people to "support thier team" rather then think of how best to put forth a project.  I'd like to see the argument for how the government as it exists is more competant at things then the corporate world though.
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #31 on: January 14, 2009, 17:49:44 EST »

I'd like to see the argument for how the government as it exists is more competant at things then the corporate world though.
Its not a question of competence, but of interests.  Corporations are not generally interested in ensuring that society runs, in fact, they are willing to force society to pay the tab for their own endeavors.  This works because by the time society collapses, they will either be dead or in Acapulco.

Currently, the universal solution to everything, be it the corporation, the government, or the citizen, seems to be to heap your problems onto the next generation in the hopes that they will have the productivity to deal with it, and if they can't, whatever, least its not us. 
This has to change or society is going to tear itself apart.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #32 on: January 14, 2009, 17:57:29 EST »

Psy-  Oh, absolutely.  I think it's very hard for actually thoughtful people to succeed in public politics because they realize the flaws in the positions they hold or the fact that they are misrepresenting issues.  I'll even give you Voltaire's socialism of the benevolent dictator could work, but in a popular democracy pure socialism is probably a pipe dream.  I would even go so far as to say I can generally point to what killed it.  Party politics encourages the worst sort of people to rise to the top while convincing people to "support thier team" rather then think of how best to put forth a project.  I'd like to see the argument for how the government as it exists is more competant at things then the corporate world though.

Marx's solution was remove the contradictions of different class interests by removing class from the equation by having a classless society.  A standard example is a stranded work crew, each member of the crew is highely skilled in their field, in this case a classless democracy would provide by far the best results, as there would be no conflict in what the goal is and you have highely educated people partaking in the democratic process and decisions are made based on getting to the common goal.
Logged
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #33 on: January 14, 2009, 22:29:49 EST »

Marx's underlying historical assumptions were false, and his timeframe wrong.

Almost invariably the ones who overthrow power are those with power, we can debate the nitty pieces of the theory, but to date no classless revolution has occurred anywhere.  Most certainly there are no classless states.  Perhaps you are right and a classless democracy could come about, but I have seen no data that causes me to believe I will live to see it.

I think the best that can be done is create a highly mobile society, which I think is in the best interests of most everyone.  I don't think the vehicle for this is the government, as it consists almost exclusively of people who are both upper class and who have few other merits then being part of that class.

Marx expected too much of people, IMO, the masses are not going to have an awakening and, if anything, the historical rise of political consciousness has been shown false.  Give people bread and circuses and two teams to watch play and they will pick their team and cheer for it, but the system remains the same.
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #34 on: January 14, 2009, 22:43:36 EST »

Marx's underlying historical assumptions were false, and his timeframe wrong.

Almost invariably the ones who overthrow power are those with power, we can debate the nitty pieces of the theory, but to date no classless revolution has occurred anywhere.  Most certainly there are no classless states.  Perhaps you are right and a classless democracy could come about, but I have seen no data that causes me to believe I will live to see it.
Marx didn't believe in a classless revolution (that what the Anarchists believe in), Marx believed a classless society would develop after a successful workers revolution and as capitalism winds down a classless society would form due to a lack of class relations.

Quote from: Heq
I think the best that can be done is create a highly mobile society, which I think is in the best interests of most everyone.  I don't think the vehicle for this is the government, as it consists almost exclusively of people who are both upper class and who have few other merits then being part of that class.

Marx expected too much of people, IMO, the masses are not going to have an awakening and, if anything, the historical rise of political consciousness has been shown false.  Give people bread and circuses and two teams to watch play and they will pick their team and cheer for it, but the system remains the same.
There has been times workers as a class have struggled against the capitalists class.
Logged
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #35 on: January 15, 2009, 06:36:18 EST »

As a general rule, no one believes their own ideology is/was influential when bad things happen and everyone believes their ideology is/was influential when good things happen.

This is because the laws of causality are so unclear in the social sciences that you can blame anything on anything and make it sound convincing. I'm pretty sure someone smart enough could make a good argument that the current economic crisis is entirely the fault of Robert le Guiscard (google if needed).
One of the BBC's economics commentators (all of whom are idiots) has tried to pin the blame on David Bowie.  Tim Worstall has taken him to task for that.

Just one more reason I think that, in the social sciences, correlation should be taken to imply causation until we find rigorous laws of causation.
I don't think that is wise.  Any idea in the social sciences must at least tackle methodological individualism.

The problem with relying entirely on correlation is that so many things happen at once.  Hence we have to think about it more carefully.  Otherwise we end up with nonsense like global warming being caused by piracy.  Read about that here and here.
Logged
Andrei
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 472


« Reply #36 on: January 15, 2009, 21:35:02 EST »

Quote from: Current
Quote from: Andrei
Just one more reason I think that, in the social sciences, correlation should be taken to imply causation until we find rigorous laws of causation.
I don't think that is wise.  Any idea in the social sciences must at least tackle methodological individualism.

The problem with relying entirely on correlation is that so many things happen at once.  Hence we have to think about it more carefully.  Otherwise we end up with nonsense like global warming being caused by piracy.
By the lack of piracy, more precisely... and who's to say that's not what's happenning.

In all seriousness, I was obviously using comical exaggeration when claiming that anything can be blamed on anything, but I do believe that, given enough knowledge about the political situation, you can convincigly blame any major event on the actions of any of the politicians to have had influence in the region in the past 10-20 years.

In fact, if you look around the internet, you'll notice this about the economic crisis. Left-wing people blame it on Bush&Co while right-wing people blame it on programs initiated under the Clinton presidency.

And that's the way I use my "correlation is causation" rule : whoever's in power when something goes wrong is responsible for it, and it's fair to blame his ideology for it.

It's just too easy for ideologues to manipulate causation, at least chronology is something they can't manipulate (at least not for another 50 years, after that even chronology is up for grabs...).

Quote from: Heq
Thus people invest so they can show off thier smartness, just as people drive cars to prove their sexual virility.
Might be a cultural thing.

I have no interest in investing (outside, maybe, of low-interest guaranteed funds in stable banks), and I don't know how to drive. I don't feel threatened in regards to either my intelligence or my virility...

Then again, culture is easier to change than most people assume.
Logged

He looked severely at me for awhile, then, grabbing his moustaches, he said:
- Boss, with all due respect, you are naive and pedant.

"Alexis Zorba", by Nikos Kazantzakis (translation mine)
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #37 on: January 15, 2009, 21:42:03 EST »

Agreed, when I lived in the art ghetto it was basically contemptable to even want to drive or invest.  In capitalist circles both are seen as massively important as they are displays of competance in the field (ie:  Both cost lots of money to have one worthy of being a talking point).
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
Pages: 1 2 [3]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!