Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 83

Thread: Real Economic Activity

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Oakland, California
    Posts
    7,865
    Organisation
    ISO
    Rep Power
    160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baseball View Post
    Considering that profit can only be accrued by satisfying somebody else's need and want, consideration of the consumer is the main interest of the capitalist.
    What consumer? Any consumer? I don't have a house and there are 3 vacant ones that have been empty for a year in my neighborhood. Why won't they lower the price for me? I'm a consumer, I can give them $12,000 for it.

    The only need to be satisfied in the reality of capitalism is the need for greater profits. Of course there has to be some overlap - you can't sell what NOBODY wants, but the goal is still PROFIT, not the needs of the consumer, that's secondary at best. If a consumer has a need or want that is unprofitable - like food or homes for example - then it won't be met.

    Why would production suddenly go down because of the economic crisis? Did consumers suddenly not want cars or houses or banks? Or was it because of an inability to make profits?

    Perhaps. But since socialism reduces production, it does not matter that it saves on the costs of telemarketers ect.
    Socialism, as in the democratic control of production, would not necessarily reduce production of all things - probably people would decide to put more resources into building better homes or communities, more of the things people want, while no longer producing things that are really only for the benefit of the capitalist system, like prisons, the military machinery, and so on.

    If workers (being the vast majority of society) democratically controlled production then the difference between producer and consumer would no longer exist as we know it. People would only want to work so far as it was useful to them and others.

    Capitalism - on the other hand - does all sorts of irrational things in the pursuit of profit.

    Sure. It lasts longer and can be shipped further. Is it an advantage to have to spend hours, everyday, shopping for food? I don't think so.

    It is certainly true that the local dairy industry would prefer consumers consume their product over condensed milk from another country. But there would seem to be a reason why local consumers do not agree. Perhaps it has to do with choosing not to buy milk daily and instead doing other things with one's time. Perhaps there are other explanations. But it does seem clear that you have an issue with what people are choosing to consume.
    No consumer is asking for this! It is the option they are given because it is more profitable for business to produce in this way - less profitable competitors are driven out of the market - NOT because of a consumer preference, but because it could not keep hold of its place in the market because it was making less profits. This is not Marxist theory, this is basic capitalist theory

    If consumers had their choice in the abstract, most would choose mom and pop stores over places like WalMart, most would want a natural apple rather than the really cheap hard and bland ones that are affordable and easy to ship across the country. Most consumers would want homes to live in that they could afford and bank loans that had fair deals rather than being swindled into sub-prime loans.

    The idea that capitalism is primarily concerned with meeting the needs of consumers is a less convincing myth than the chupacabra when you consider the amount of inequality and the amount people (consumers) go without in this system.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jimmie Higgins For This Useful Post:


  3. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,211
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Delirium View Post
    I like meat. And I'm not arguing that everyone should become a vegetarian.

    Meat is wasteful though. That is a fact.
    No it isn't, as people like meat for reasons besides calorie intake.

  4. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Kitty
    Posts
    664
    Organisation
    Rainbow Family of Living Light
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skooma Addict View Post
    No it isn't, as people like meat for reasons besides calorie intake.
    That's totally irrelevant and analogous to saying that SUVs aren't wasteful because people like them for reasons other than fuel efficiency. Here's a cool website you can go to where people will take your "marginal utility is the answer to everything" philosophy seriously:

    http://mises.org/
    follow me on twitter

    https://twitter.com/thug_lessons

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Thug Lessons For This Useful Post:


  6. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Kitty
    Posts
    664
    Organisation
    Rainbow Family of Living Light
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    My new ten-ton Hummer H3 (or Triple H as I like to call it, after my favorite pro wrassler ) isn't inefficient because, get this libtard, I don't give even a single fuck about MPG. I'm a libertarian. I believe in the theory of marginal utility. I'm going to see the Atlas Shrugged movie a dozen times. I'm going to fart and smell my own farts because they smell good to me and I don't care what you think. You laugh at me because I smell different, but I laugh at you because you all smell the same.

    Oh, and by the way, for every animal you don't eat, I'm gonna eat three.
    follow me on twitter

    https://twitter.com/thug_lessons

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Thug Lessons For This Useful Post:


  8. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,504
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    What consumer? Any consumer? I don't have a house and there are 3 vacant ones that have been empty for a year in my neighborhood. Why won't they lower the price for me? I'm a consumer, I can give them $12,000 for it.
    Because they will find somebody who will give them more than $12000.

    The only need to be satisfied in the reality of capitalism is the need for greater profits. Of course there has to be some overlap - you can't sell what NOBODY wants, but the goal is still PROFIT, not the needs of the consumer, that's secondary at best. If a consumer has a need or want that is unprofitable - like food or homes for example - then it won't be met.
    I am skeptical that with $12000 to spend you are living in the street. Someone, at some point, built the apartment building in which you are no doubt residing.
    Upon what basis would you claim that house?

    Why would production suddenly go down because of the economic crisis? Did consumers suddenly not want cars or houses or banks? Or was it because of an inability to make profits?
    People stopped buying cars and homes. Ergo, no profits.

    At this point, my usual question is something along the lines if "It remains mysterious why the socialist community would continue to produce cars which people didn't want" or whatever example was being used.

    Socialism, as in the democratic control of production, would not necessarily reduce production of all things -
    Yes, it would.



    If workers (being the vast majority of society) democratically controlled production then the difference between producer and consumer would no longer exist as we know it. People would only want to work so far as it was useful to them and others.
    You have a job which apparently does not allow you to take a break. How many customers who pass who pass through doors are more concerned about your working conditions, than with the reason which brings them in?
    The differences will always exist because the producer and consumer have different interests at stake. Socialism will not change this- much as it may try.



    No consumer is asking for this! It is the option they are given because it is more profitable for business to produce in this way - less profitable competitors are driven out of the market - NOT because of a consumer preference, but because it could not keep hold of its place in the market because it was making less profits
    .

    And its making less profits because there is better product consumers can choose, or a particular firm has figured out a better way, an EASIER way, to produce that item.

    I
    f consumers had their choice in the abstract, most would choose mom and pop stores over places like WalMart,
    Maybe. But perhaps there are consumers who would prefer to go to one store in one shot for their goods as opposed to a half dozen.

    m
    ost would want a natural apple rather than the really cheap hard and bland ones that are affordable and easy to ship across the country.
    Sure. And those people can eat apples a few months out of the year. Meanwhile, someone in the Northeast USA who may wish an apple NOW can easily find one.

  9. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Northern Europe
    Posts
    11,176
    Organisation
    NTL
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    "It remains mysterious why the socialist community would continue to produce cars which people didn't want"
    People stopped buying cars because they were poor and could'nt afford them, not because they did'nt want them.

    You don't honestly think that during the crisis people just stopped wanting stuff?

    How many customers who pass who pass through doors are more concerned about your working conditions, than with the reason which brings them in?
    The differences will always exist because the producer and consumer have different interests at stake. Socialism will not change this- much as it may try.
    Yes it would, because workers would have control over the working conditions, whereas everyone would have a say in the overall economic policies.

    As far as interests are concerned, people are both producers and consumers, they switch roles yeah, but thats why the economy should be organized as a whole and democratically, so those interests don't cause the crap that happens in Capitalism.

    Maybe. But perhaps there are consumers who would prefer to go to one store in one shot for their goods as opposed to a half dozen.

    m
    So why would we incentivise a system that rewards slave labor? that rewards destroying workers rights?

    BTW, its overall NOT better for consumers, but considering they are detached from the processs and have no way other than through their pocket book (which is really really inbalanced) to have a say, they obviously just go for short term ease.

    You give people a say in the macro level of economics nad give people a say in actual economic policy you might find some other interests come out.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to RGacky3 For This Useful Post:


  11. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,211
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thug Lessons View Post
    That's totally irrelevant and analogous to saying that SUVs aren't wasteful because people like them for reasons other than fuel efficiency. Here's a cool website you can go to where people will take your "marginal utility is the answer to everything" philosophy seriously:

    http://mises.org/
    This is a terrible analogy. Your analogy would hold if I were arguing supplying meat was efficient regarding calories. That isn't what I am arguing. People eat food for reasons besides calorie intake. Did you know this?

  12. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,504
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    People stopped buying cars because they were poor and could'nt afford them, not because they did'nt want them.

    You don't honestly think that during the crisis people just stopped wanting stuff?
    Of course not. But people are always going to have to choose in which order to satisfy their own needs.



    As far as interests are concerned, people are both producers and consumers, they switch roles yeah, but thats why the economy should be organized as a whole and democratically, so those interests don't cause the crap that happens in Capitalism
    .

    The "crap" that occurs is a result of those interests. Capitalism doesn't cause it.


    So why would we incentivise a system that rewards slave labor? that rewards destroying workers rights?
    People who work in a mom and pop store earn less, receive less benefits and basically have no place for advancement.
    Where is the slave labor really found?

    BTW, its overall NOT better for consumers, but considering they are detached from the processs and have no way other than through their pocket book (which is really really inbalanced) to have a say, they obviously just go for short term ease.
    How many people really give a flying f**k the processes involved in building their computer? What possible difference can it make?

  13. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Kitty
    Posts
    664
    Organisation
    Rainbow Family of Living Light
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skooma Addict View Post
    This is a terrible analogy. Your analogy would hold if I were arguing supplying meat was efficient regarding calories. That isn't what I am arguing. People eat food for reasons besides calorie intake. Did you know this?
    Actually it is perfectly analogous my lolbertarian friend, because people drive cars for reasons other than fuel efficiency just like they eat foods for reasons other than caloric efficiency. The reason that meat consumption and Hummers are wasteful isn't because they're inefficient at meeting people's desires, but because they're destroying the planet whereas other options for nourishment and transportation would not.
    follow me on twitter

    https://twitter.com/thug_lessons

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Thug Lessons For This Useful Post:


  15. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Northern Europe
    Posts
    11,176
    Organisation
    NTL
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    But people are always going to have to choose in which order to satisfy their own needs.
    .... Yeah, but the point still stands.

    The "crap" that occurs is a result of those interests. Capitalism doesn't cause it.
    It causes it because Capitalism creates those conflicts of interests. Its like saying its a monarchs interest to kill people that hunt on his ground, yeah, thats his interest, under monarchy.

    People who work in a mom and pop store earn less, receive less benefits and basically have no place for advancement.
    Where is the slave labor really found?
    You got stats on that? Because most mom and pop stores don't really have that many employees.

    How many people really give a flying f**k the processes involved in building their computer? What possible difference can it make?
    They probably don't .... So how does that justify Capitalism?

  16. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    388
    Organisation
    IAC- International Action Center Los Angeles
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TC View Post
    If you're raised vegan or vegan for long enough, you find animal flesh and secretions disgusting and not at all suitable as food. With a critical mass of vegans, animals will simply no longer be raised for food - it would be regarded socially intolerable, disgusting, and profoundly inhumane...just as it is not socially tolerated to produce pig flesh in many Muslim countries or cow flesh in Hindu areas.
    This doesnt make any sense. First of all, we are meant to eat meat, just like other omnivores and most other animals. Thats why we have incisors. Vegans are all about nature, yet it is pretty natural for humans and other creatures to meat

    Secondly, if those Muslim countries have a non-secular government or strong religious influence, then of course it would not be socially tolerable to produce pig flesh! Islam forbids consumption of pig flesh (regardless if thats because it causes bad health effects or only because god said so), so of course a Islamic gov would forbid it or at least discourage it.

    The first world having the means to live without meat doesnt take away anyones right to eat it. Plus, meat is filling, and just soo damn tastay!!
    Last edited by Scary Monster; 28th February 2011 at 23:54.
    "The Earth does not belong to us, we belong to the Earth" -Chief Seattle

    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a Communist." Hlder Pessoa Cmara

  17. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    LI, NY
    Posts
    1,964
    Rep Power
    40

    Default

    People who work in a mom and pop store earn less, receive less benefits and basically have no place for advancement.
    Where is the slave labor really found?
    I don't know who posted this, someone else quoted this, but from my personal experience at 5 chain stores and 3 mom-and-pops, this is totally untrue. I've never had an even somewhat dignified job at a chain, be it a joann's fabric, a taco bell, or whatever. They never give you full time, and therefor no benies (even if technically they DO provide it, you're not going to qualify), they pay you the absolute minimum (before taxes, of course), they treat you like a fucking machine and humiliate you.


    I don't "support" mom and pop petite bourgeois employers any more than any other employer, but it is usually much better work. I work at a dunkin donuts and a locally owned pizza place, and there is no comparison at all. At the pizza place I have some dignity, under the table min (which is still low, but it's better than taxed min at dunkin), concrete promises for raises in the near future, my boss doesn't take the tip money like at dunkin, I don't have to deal with 9 (yes, nine) cameras covering every little square inch of the tiny ass store, and I don't have to deal with constant phone calls from nameless "managers" in new jersey who constantly watch me through the cameras and harass me over every little thing, trying to squeeze every single little productive second they can out of me.




    Chain stores and the like fucking suck. Tell a woman who works three jobs, one at taco bell, one at jimmie john's, and one at burger king, because nobody will give her more than 14 hours a week (I know a few such women), trying to support her kids she never sees because she's always riding her bike from one shitty job to the next (they like to give you shork shifts so they don't have to give you breaks, so in one day you might have to work at two or three places), that she's better off than me at the pizza place. She'll laugh.


    I've been working at dunkin donuts for four months now, they still don't consistently give me more than 20 hours a week. Now that winter is ending, I got this other job and he already said I'll be working 40 hours in a few weeks, and in the summer I can get 50-60. I'm definitely switching teams soon.
    ... To live does it not mean to have indomitable faith in victory?

  18. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    6,143
    Organisation
    I.M.C.C.
    Blog Entries
    30
    Rep Power
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baseball View Post
    I am skeptical that with $12000 to spend you are living in the street. Someone, at some point, built the apartment building in which you are no doubt residing.
    Upon what basis would you claim that house?
    On the basis that the person who built it wasn't properly compensated for his work in building, much like Jimmie is not properly compensated for his labor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Baseball View Post
    People stopped buying cars and homes. Ergo, no profits.
    This goes both ways, notably: improvement of quality or labor compensation accrued fewer profits, so such business models were divested from / eliminated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Baseball View Post
    You have a job which apparently does not allow you to take a break. How many customers who pass who pass through doors are more concerned about your working conditions, than with the reason which brings them in?
    The differences will always exist because the producer and consumer have different interests at stake. Socialism will not change this- much as it may try.
    This is only accurate in the mystification of the market. Importantly, if the working class enjoyed the full fruits of its labor, consumption would be commensurate with labor. And there's not enough space here to go over all of the problems this would solve - notably, for one, it would create a very powerful, sustainable consumer demand for mass-production.


    Quote Originally Posted by Baseball View Post
    And its making less profits because there is better product consumers can choose, or a particular firm has figured out a better way, an EASIER way, to produce that item.
    Or the quality was lowered or costs were lowered. Its important not to pretend that capitalism is ideal - the exorbitant investment in financial capital, which accrues very little consumer value compared to its surplus rate, is a testament to the failure of the for-profit model. Cheapening of labor is another good example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skooma Addict View Post
    This is a terrible analogy. Your analogy would hold if I were arguing supplying meat was efficient regarding calories. That isn't what I am arguing. People eat food for reasons besides calorie intake. Did you know this?
    Not the least of which is that advanced capitalism has created (or perpetuated, failed to diversify) a very narrow food market. This is a result of several functions which don't really need to be investigated here (the influence of extant agricultural firms would be the place to start). Also, consider the value that having a near-universal consumer base accrues - serving the same thing as your competition allows easy market entry and provides a business with latent demand.

    But the simple, short answer to the problem is that there is large demand for cost-effective foods which is primarily met through a cheapening of more expensive foodstuffs (meat). Burgers at fast food restaurants routinely include soy products and other vegetables - a testament to the economic preferability to certain non-meats.

    The homogeneity of the market makes changes along these lines unlikely - though the market will work in the background to try to achieve cheaper methods.

    Your model of STV doesn't really take into consideration the whole production and consumption process, and this is important because so much of the process is shear manipulation and disenfranchisement of the consumer. In the context of controlling Money Trust, merely responding to extant demands provides no input, and certainly no educated input (what we should aspire to) from the consumer class.

  19. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Oakland, California
    Posts
    7,865
    Organisation
    ISO
    Rep Power
    160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baseball View Post
    Because they will find somebody who will give them more than $12000.
    Apparently not since, as I said they have gone vacant.

    This is what capitalism does all the time, if you can not make a profit - even on something customers want and need, then it goes unbuilt, subsidies are paid to keep fields empty and crop prices high, commercial buildings and homes sit empty. Christ, stick your head out the window, this is what most US cities look like rights now - go talk to a Realtor about how nothing's moving right now and then go talk to people in line for section 8 housing and tell me how well the system meets people's needs and wants.

    I am skeptical that with $12000 to spend you are living in the street. Someone, at some point, built the apartment building in which you are no doubt residing.
    Upon what basis would you claim that house?
    I don't have $12,000 dollars, I live paycheck to paycheck, but if there was a nice house for 12,000, I'm sure I could borrow money from friends and family and that's low enough that I'd be able to pay it back. It was a silly example to illustrate that the only drive of capitalism is profits, not the well-being of customers/consumers. Use value in the abstract is not the goal of capitalist production, profits are. Again, this is very basic Smith and Ricardo capitalist economics, you'd think you might want to learn something about the system you apparently worship so much.

    People stopped buying cars and homes. Ergo, no profits.

    At this point, my usual question is something along the lines if "It remains mysterious why the socialist community would continue to produce cars which people didn't want" or whatever example was being used.
    You are saying 2 different things here. So people in the US in 2008 suddenly no longer needed or wanted cars? Or is it that the kinds of cars being produced (SUV's have a higher profit margin than compacts) could no longer be sold at a profit? Again, you don't need to be a socialist to recognize this, every CEO in Detroit knows this reality and they know what they are doing - the difference is that socialists don't think what they are doing is the best way to run society.

    As to why would workers continue producing cars that no one wanted... well they wouldn't, that's what I've been argueing for: if production was done democratically rather than for profit, the goal would be meeting real demand, not the demand that can make a profit.

    The market is terrible at meeting people's real demands (all the starvation while we produce enough food to feed everyone) and it also causes problems of overproduction. So really, why would capitalists continue makeing expensive SUV's and McMansions that people could not afford... why was there a housing bubble, why were people speculating and investing in things that actually weren't useful for consumers? Answer: because it was profitable to invest in these areas during the bubble, it caused a crash, because things were being produced that didn't get used!

    Yes, it would.
    Socialism would just automatically decrease production of everything by what material process? Magic? Your say-so? I made a clear argument that democratically decided production would actually increase production of things that people thought was more useful while decreasing production of things people don't find useful.

    In fact, production has slowed in construction and manufacturing in capitalism right now, exposing the fact that the amount that things are produced is based on conditions and the way production is organized.

    You have a job which apparently does not allow you to take a break. How many customers who pass who pass through doors are more concerned about your working conditions, than with the reason which brings them in?
    The differences will always exist because the producer and consumer have different interests at stake. Socialism will not change this- much as it may try.
    Do you want to eat lunch prepared by someone without healthcare or sick-days? Do you like going into stores and having the person at the register so demoralized and pissed-off that they huff when you ask a question or they snap at you?

    Consumer is an idiotic way to group people because everyone who is human must eat and in capitalism that makes them "consumers". All workers are consumers. But "Consumer" in capitalism is a fake category because it is not based on an abstract and total "consumption" but only on consumption that yields a profit. "Consumer" is a category made up to mystify the real forces at work in our system: mainly the profit motive.

    And its making less profits because there is better product consumers can choose, or a particular firm has figured out a better way, an EASIER way, to produce that item.
    No, because it is more profitable. It would be easier and more efficient to make all electronics open-source and flexible so that when a new operating system comes or some new technology, the old equipment could be easily upgraded. Instead, capitalist production has always gone out of its way to make some things more difficult, less efficient, and often have a planned obsolescence.

    Maybe. But perhaps there are consumers who would prefer to go to one store in one shot for their goods as opposed to a half dozen.
    You mean like most main streets a generation ago? I do like things to be groupd, I think centralization of some things can make things easier - I'd love to see communities where houses are built around a central hub with laundry, entertainment, and food. But WalMart's business model is not about making things easy on anyone, it is about trying to make as much profit as quickly as possible. It has NOTHING to do with what people in general want and EVERYTHING to do with what is most efficient for making profits.

    In business, they call profits "the bottom line" - if customer satisfaction was their goal, wouldn't that be their bottom line? It's pretty obvious to everyone capitalist or non-capitalist that the goal of business is profits - usually the pro-capitalists just argue that profits are a virtuous goal.

  20. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    59
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scary Monster View Post
    This doesnt make any sense. First of all, we are meant to eat meat, just like other omnivores and most other animals. Thats why we have incisors. Vegans are all about nature, yet it is pretty natural for humans and other creatures to meat
    I've got a womb. It is therefore natural for me to get pregnant. Therefore, contraceptives and abortion are an impediment to the natural process. Therefore they should be opposed. You don't agree with that do you? Personally, whilst I am morally comfortable eating meat, I find these sorts of 'naturalistic' arguments (really, they are fallacies) pretty ineffective, and your "argument" really boils down to: "Plus, meat is filling, and just soo damn tastay!!"

  21. #56
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,504
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    [QUOTE=Jimmie Higgins;2035699]

    T
    his is what capitalism does all the time, if you can not make a profit - even on something customers want and need,
    A profit occurs when the value of a finished product exceeds that of its component parts.
    Why would a socialist community not be interested in production where the value of a finished product is greater than its component parts?



    It was a silly example to illustrate that the only drive of capitalism is profits, not the well-being of customers/consumers.
    Which is not contrary.

    Use value in the abstract is not the goal of capitalist production, profits are.
    The "use value" is assigned by the undividual.

    nt to learn something about the system you apparently worship so much.

    You are saying 2 different things here. So people in the US in 2008 suddenly no longer needed or wanted cars?
    No. people simply decided that their "use value" was less than in say 2005.

    Or is it that the kinds of cars being produced (SUV's have a higher profit margin than compacts) could no longer be sold at a profit? Again, you don't need to be a socialist to recognize this, every CEO in Detroit knows this reality and they know what they are doing - the difference is that socialists don't think what they are doing is the best way to run society.
    So to be clear: car companies generally have made a better profit producing SUV's than subcompact; people stop buying SUV's and the car companies start cutting back production of SUV's.
    Given such circumstances, what other decisions would a socialist community make?

    As to why would workers continue producing cars that no one wanted... well they wouldn't, that's what I've been argueing for: if production was done democratically rather than for profit, the goal would be meeting real demand, not the demand that can make a profit.
    Profit is a way the demand for a product is guaged.

    So really, why would capitalists continue makeing expensive SUV's and McMansions that people could not afford...
    People were buying them

    why was there a housing bubble, why were people speculating and investing in things that actually weren't useful for consumers? Answer: because it was profitable to invest in these areas during the bubble, it caused a crash, because things were being produced that didn't get used!
    Yes. That's the nature of a "bubble."

    Socialism would just automatically decrease production of everything by what material process? Magic? Your say-so? I made a clear argument that democratically decided production would actually increase production of things that people thought was more useful while decreasing production of things people don't find useful.
    "Democratically decided production" simply describes how decisions would be reached. It says nothing about the information used in making those decisions. You have eliminated profit as a source of information in making "democratic" decisions, and replaced it with... what, exactly?

    In fact, production has slowed in construction and manufacturing in capitalism right now, exposing the fact that the amount that things are produced is based on conditions and the way production is organized.
    One would think that construction and manufacturing production in the socialist community is also dependent upon "conditions."

    Do you want to eat lunch prepared by someone without healthcare or sick-days? Do you like going into stores and having the person at the register so demoralized and pissed-off that they huff when you ask a question or they snap at you?
    Entirely beside the point.

    Consumer is an idiotic way to group people
    Its not grouping people. Economic activity is about consumption and production.

  22. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    6,143
    Organisation
    I.M.C.C.
    Blog Entries
    30
    Rep Power
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baseball View Post
    Its not grouping people. Economic activity is about consumption and production.
    You're attempting to define the two terms as alienated; however, they overlap, and the executive processes of labor and consumption need not exist apart from one another.

  23. #58
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,211
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dean View Post
    You're attempting to define the two terms as alienated; however, they overlap, and the executive processes of labor and consumption need not exist apart from one another.
    Provide an example.

  24. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    388
    Organisation
    IAC- International Action Center Los Angeles
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exakt View Post
    I've got a womb. It is therefore natural for me to get pregnant. Therefore, contraceptives and abortion are an impediment to the natural process. Therefore they should be opposed. You don't agree with that do you? Personally, whilst I am morally comfortable eating meat, I find these sorts of 'naturalistic' arguments (really, they are fallacies) pretty ineffective, and your "argument" really boils down to: "Plus, meat is filling, and just soo damn tastay!!"
    lol cmon now. i think this is what someone would call a strawman argument. All i said was, our biology allows us to eat meat, we crave meat, and meat is very filling and very tasty. So why not eat it? I can tell you, u can never go wrong with meat. I can get enough of it from the grocery store to keep 5 people full for a few days, all for $8
    "The Earth does not belong to us, we belong to the Earth" -Chief Seattle

    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a Communist." Hlder Pessoa Cmara

  25. #60
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sol system
    Posts
    12,312
    Organisation
    Deniers of Messiahs
    Blog Entries
    17
    Rep Power
    136

    Default

    The idea that livestock rearing is inherently "inefficient" is a stupid fallacy that needs to die already.

    Firstly, the energy used to feed a pig doesn't just disappear - throughout the pig's life it drops out of the other end of the pig in a very useful form.

    Secondly, animal parts are used for so much other than eating - aside from the muscles and internal organs, bones horns and hooves can be rendered down into glue, collagen can be extracted from skin, fat is used to make soaps, and numerous other parts are used to make all sorts of things.

    Livestock rearing is only inefficient if looked at in a completely one-dimensional manner - as a source of nutrition - rather than as a lynchpin to a whole series of tasks. So yes, livestock rearing is a real economic activity. It produces a range of tangible products that many people of all kinds of backgrounds find a very good use for.

    If we want to talk about the kind of thing that isn't real economic activity, there are much more obvious targets - the whole banking system, for a start. Do those besuited bastards actually do anything that any sensible being would consider useful?

    This I consider the litmus test for a "real" economic activity - is it something that would be considered useful outside the context of modern capitalism? A steak or a leather coat or a heap of dung are inherently useful no matter the economic system. Outside of capitalism, a stock portfolio is fucking useless except possibly as toilet paper.
    The Human Progress Group

    Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker - Mikhail Bakunin
    Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains - Karl Marx
    Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we've been ignorant of their value - R. Buckminster Fuller
    The important thing is not to be human but to be humane - Eliezer S. Yudkowsky


    Check out my speculative fiction project: NOVA MUNDI

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to Ẋʼn For This Useful Post:


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 7th October 2010, 05:14
  2. Real Parties as Real Movements and Vice Versa
    By Die Neue Zeit in forum RevLeft Articles
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 7th October 2010, 05:13
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 7th October 2010, 05:11
  4. Activity in the real world.
    By superborys in forum Politics
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 11th August 2010, 22:25
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 15th January 2010, 12:30

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •