|
BottledBodhisvata posted:Well, don't animals have territories and dens and the like that they defend and live in? Could that not be considered a sort of private property, or is this something more complicated? Others have already touched on this, but private property requires enforcement. This can be physical enforcement, the police clubbing heads if you break into my place, but it is just as much an issue of boundries. My day job is as a building caretaker, and we get a lot of snow up here in Saskatoon. Early on in the season, the crazy old lady who lives next to one of my buildings came over and threw a fit about the fact that I was putting snow onto 'her side' of the property. Despite her being crazy, she was actually right upon checking the property lines, but in a stateless society who is going to enforce or even acknowledge her claim to that specific bit of property?
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
Not to mention humans are social animals and the very idea of 'private property' only exists because of massive collective structures. Early human groups might have had a territory that they contested with others, but saying an individual human naturally must have their own plot of land is odd. Issues of how ownership can really be defined show how all types of power relationships (social, economic, political) tie together. The Pharoahs might have been seen as living embodiments of Gods - justifying their power on every level. The French kings had a Divine Mandate, which led to great social upheavals when Louis XVI was executed because all the ideas of the Nation, God, ownership, and who was in charge were thrown into the air. The Kochs argue that the economic power of money is the most just/democratic type of power relationship and so it should be unrestrained (and surprise this idea benefits them enormously).
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:Literally seeing this happen down the hall from me. One of my professors (who's got a courtesy appointment in philosophy) is trying to push back against this, but what on earth is one Buddhist lesbian Jew with impulses toward apophatic theology going to do against a whole cavalcade of smug "rational" white dudes? Honestly, I assume that since a lot of these issues are tied to demographics it also will change with demographics over time. Things like mentorship play a role in this. A lot of these older views also fail to have much causal or explanatory traction and are leading to a lot of this work being ignored by everyone outside of the field. This is hurting them in the long run. Their disconnect with actual science is also playing a big role in this. The use of statistics in experimental philosophy was very telling in that it updated a lot of philosophy of mind from older models. That is giving them a longer lasting power. The more detailed and not as apologetic to blank spots in ethical work likewise are engaging with new issues that expands their application. New forms of rationalism built from updates to the rational equilibrium model of Rawls, social epistemology and others are also playing a role in this. These new models take biases into account and are much more successful. Enactivists are another example, for a long time they were considered 'romanticist' because people just assumed they were. Now they are being used in simulations and modeling. Ogodei_Khan fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Jan 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
If rich dudes are getting richer and then hoarding it somewhat, why is there not just a corresponding price deflation in everyone else's shrinking money supply?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:If rich dudes are getting richer and then hoarding it somewhat, why is there not just a corresponding price deflation in everyone else's shrinking money supply? The rich people hoarding money are also the same people refusing to allow prices to drop. You see this in what Walmart does economically, especially. As the largest retailer in the nation they have an enormous amount of control over the prices of numerous things. Their policy is pay workers less, demand lower prices from suppliers, and force retail prices upward but deliberately undercut any sales others have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 09:09
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The rich people hoarding money are also the same people refusing to allow prices to drop. You see this in what Walmart does economically, especially. As the largest retailer in the nation they have an enormous amount of control over the prices of numerous things. Their policy is pay workers less, demand lower prices from suppliers, and force retail prices upward but deliberately undercut any sales others have. If rich people were such an shadowy cabal of conspirators, i'm sure they wouldn't simultaneously increase the buying power of everyone else while lowering their own profit margins. The real answer is that when people talk about the rich hoarding money, the money is ultimately funneled into marketable securities, but they are employing legal fiction to avoid paying taxes on it. For example, Apple holds tons of cash in its offshore subsidiaries and as long as they claim that it's invested, they don't have to pay taxes on these earnings until brought into the US. These offshore subsidiaries then hold the money in US banks more often than not, invested in US securities. Apple as a whole gets taxed like a foreigner on that money as long as they don't touch it, even if it was across the street.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 10:06
|
|
|
on the left posted:If rich people were such an shadowy cabal of conspirators, i'm sure they wouldn't simultaneously increase the buying power of everyone else while lowering their own profit margins. I don't think they're a shadowy cabal that's working together cartoon villain style. I'm certain every rich person would deliberately gently caress over every other rich person if they had the chance. I think that the absurdly wealthy are, as a whole, individually manipulating things politically for their own benefit. Look at the money spent on lobbying by various industries and groups. That must come from somewhere, as must the decision. The actions of very large businesses are directed by upper management, often heavily influenced or ultimately decided the CEOs or majority shareholders. I'm not entirely sure how exactly it is now but if you look at periods like the 19th century the extremely rich often had their hands in many pies. Some of them were on the boards of dozens of companies, some of which competed with each other. There was a gently caress ton of collusion between the rich and the government. You see this in the financial sector now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 10:25
|
|
|
http://www.theyrule.net/ Whether there's a shadowy cabal of conspirators depends on your definition of "shadowy," "cabal," and "conspiracy."
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 11:17
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:If rich dudes are getting richer and then hoarding it somewhat, why is there not just a corresponding price deflation in everyone else's shrinking money supply? It would take a lot to create deflation but it should slow inflation when it's not being spent. By comparison note that it's considered a good thing that the dollar is used as a reserve currency and stored in vaults in large quantities (in various forms) around the world. Dollars are literally gift cards to the U.S. economy, if people don't want to spend them that's great for everyone else. You could construct an argument that this poses future risk, because if the sums are large enough they could create inflation if/when dumped back into the economy. But the other part invariably overlooked is that the money isn't in some giant vault anyway, but is undoubtedly invested. The rich aren't dumb and like earning a return on their money. Also the U.S. rich don't save at an exceedingly high rate, the U.S. rich save at roughly the average rate of the nation of china. So the attacks on the rich hoarding money are generally nothing more than a creative attempt to find another way to criticize the rich. In this case a baseless one. Sort of like criticizing a retailer notorious for low prices for raising prices: ToxicSlurpee posted:The rich people hoarding money are also the same people refusing to allow prices to drop. You see this in what Walmart does economically, especially. As the largest retailer in the nation they have an enormous amount of control over the prices of numerous things. Their policy is pay workers less, demand lower prices from suppliers, and force retail prices upward but deliberately undercut any sales others have. VideoTapir posted:http://www.theyrule.net/ Did you just unironically post a link to a website with a flash intro and a spinning executive chair for a mouse icon as a source? I'm not sure because I left immediately. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Jan 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Did you just unironically post a link to a website with a flash intro and a spinning executive chair for a mouse icon as a source? I'm not sure because I left immediately. Is that statement meant to increase your credibility?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Is that statement meant to increase your credibility? It's a straightforward attempt to critisize what appears to be a garbage source. If VideoTapir comes back and defends it I'll try to skip the into, ignore the spinning chair and read some of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Are sources garbage for cosmetic reasons?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:It's a straightforward attempt to critisize what appears to be a garbage source. If VideoTapir comes back and defends it I'll try to skip the into, ignore the spinning chair and read some of it. Your red title is showing again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Are sources garbage for cosmetic reasons? Yes. If you're not evaluating website quality based on a range of qualities including visuals I suggest you start. Just having a flash intro is annoying itself but the stylized montage of a corporate boardroom is far worse and screams "politicized propaganda".
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Yes. If you're not evaluating website quality based on a range of qualities including visuals I suggest you start. theyrule was developed by activists to make a political point about the very small number of people who sit on many boards of directors of large companies and non-profits. Once you get past the introduction, FAQ, and about pages, which exist to provide the political context to the website, the result is a very well put together system for doing graph based searches of corporate boards. It's really interesting and derived entirely from public data, and your criticism of their aesthetic choices suggests mostly that you're kneejerking without spending even a few minutes looking at the content of the thing you're criticizing. Edit: My one criticism of this site is that the average number of jumps needed to connect any two people on earth is somewhere in the range of 5, and the user interface of the system really encourages people to draw multi-level connections between organizations that may not be meaningful. decarboxylated fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:It would take a lot to create deflation but it should slow inflation when it's not being spent. By comparison note that it's considered a good thing that the dollar is used as a reserve currency and stored in vaults in large quantities (in various forms) around the world. Dollars are literally gift cards to the U.S. economy, if people don't want to spend them that's great for everyone else. Is there a source you could provide for the estimate that the US rich don't hoard money? I mean, its a basic capitalist principle that capital is meant to be reinvested, but I often wonder how its reinvested and how much of it actually is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
It's hard to believe that people can be on tons of boards of directors and yet still wield a massive amount of influence over every one of the organizations. When someone is on a bunch of boards, it tells me more that being on a board doesn't mean all that much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Interlocking directorates have been a thing for at least the last 100 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:It would take a lot to create deflation but it should slow inflation when it's not being spent. By comparison note that it's considered a good thing that the dollar is used as a reserve currency and stored in vaults in large quantities (in various forms) around the world. Dollars are literally gift cards to the U.S. economy, if people don't want to spend them that's great for everyone else. China happens to have one of the highest savings rates in the world. A quick google shows savings rates for personal households at about 15% for '08 and '09, while it's only 6-7% for US households for the same years. So..yeah, one segment of society saving over twice as much as the average in terms of percentage might qualify as hoarding, especially given that this segment is the one that already has most of the wealth/cash to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
decarboxylated posted:theyrule was developed by activists to make a political point about the very small number of people who sit on many boards of directors of large companies and non-profits. Once you get past the introduction, FAQ, and about pages, which exist to provide the political context to the website, the result is a very well put together system for doing graph based searches of corporate boards. It's really interesting and derived entirely from public data, and your criticism of their aesthetic choices suggests mostly that you're kneejerking without spending even a few minutes looking at the content of the thing you're criticizing. Well thanks for actually posting about the website content. I literally said I didn't read it in my first post. I agree with your criticism although I'll say there is nothing wrong with the data being presented. But the idea that we can draw conclusions based simply on "x sits on board with y" is sort of ridiculous. There are far more powerful bonds between humans than that. Buried alive posted:China happens to have one of the highest savings rates in the world. A quick google shows savings rates for personal households at about 15% for '08 and '09, while it's only 6-7% for US households for the same years. So..yeah, one segment of society saving over twice as much as the average in terms of percentage might qualify as hoarding, especially given that this segment is the one that already has most of the wealth/cash to begin with. That's true but it's one example of the fact that savings rates arn't a primary economic factor. China is saving tons of money and growing incredibly fast. The financial system can cope with wide ranges and deal with changes over time. Actually IIRC the U.S. rich save more like 50%. So yeah, money is being saved. The point is it doesn't really matter. If anyone wants to argue otherwise I invite them to address the dollar being used as a foreign reserve. Rexicon1 posted:Is there a source you could provide for the estimate that the US rich don't hoard money? I mean, its a basic capitalist principle that capital is meant to be reinvested, but I often wonder how its reinvested and how much of it actually is. Peruse through this http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-29/billionaires-flee-havens-as-trillions-pursued-offshore.html Which is cited in this popular (here) link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/wealthy-stashing-offshore_n_3179139.html The only positive claims being made in huffpost is that the money is offshore. For example: bloomburg posted:Alisher Usmanov, Russia’s richest man, earlier this year restructured the way he holds his $19.7 billion fortune, moving the majority of his assets -- including his two most valuable, Metalloinvest Holding Co. and OAO MegaFon (MFON), worth $12.7 billion combined -- under the control of British Virgin Islands-based USM Holdings. So there is no notion here of the money being horded in cash. It's just existing holdings being shuffled around offshore. The bad part is that it's shielded from taxes. But any notion of "cash hordes" are basically manufactured fiction. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 05:24 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
I was under the impression that the high savings rate in China was a consequence of its relative lack of a social safety net, is that accurate?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Well thanks for actually posting about the website content. I literally said I didn't read it in my first post. I agree with your criticism although I'll say there is nothing wrong with the data being presented. But the idea that we can draw conclusions based simply on "x sits on board with y" is sort of ridiculous. There are far more powerful bonds between humans than that. Why should we agree with any assertions you make when you can't be assed to spend even five seconds on a website, yet can be assed to come on the forums and bitch about how lovely it is? I'm sorry but this really annoys me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
Let's not make up lovely excuses to criticize everything asdf32 does. That site is a fairly mediocre source of any evidence of anything but a really good way to present a lot of public data. That said it's top popular chart is "Monsanto" which is hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Let's not make up lovely excuses to criticize everything asdf32 does. That site is a fairly mediocre source of any evidence of anything but a really good way to present a lot of public data. He literally said "I saw a spinning chair and didn't look at it, explain to me why it has value."
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
I like to make the contention that civilization has been little more than a series of apologetics for the concept of hierarchy and domination, both of which were and still are essential for the foundation of society, but both of which feel "wrong" to feeling human beings on some level. As people wake up more and more to the connectedness of people and things due to more and better information, it becomes harder for those riding the top of the hierarchy to defend their position, and they have to get more and more extreme paladins to preach the holy word: separation. You want humans without separation? Go find yourself some paleolithic-style hunter-gatherer band. They're all fuckin each other and raising each others kids and sharing everything. Civilization begins with the concept that all that Garden-of-Eden stuff was bullshit, and now I own this land, this woman, these animals, and by the Father God above me, my sons will inherit my wealth. Why? Because I am better and different than you, maybe smarter, maybe stronger, maybe both. This rages unchecked through the span before the complete establishment of empires, until anyone not playing by this game is enslaved or killed. I'd like to make an analogy based on Baroque and Rococo architecture, since Ayn loving Rand was such a fan of architecture. So, you had this whole early enlightenment period where baroque art flourishes, with lots of gold and filigree as a deliberate show of wealth and power and dominance of King and Church. It was confident, yet with all of its decadence, it still was ordered and stable. Consider:  This can only last so long. Eventually, that pride leads to a fall. But before the fall, you get something else. You get the last, dying gasp of a once-vital style, and it's called Rococo, where the Baroque goes to die. It's a death rattle, the last release of all the neurochemicals, the final scream before oblivion, and god is it messy. Absolute Monarchy with all of its excesses is about to get its head chopped off and replaced by revolutionary governments in France and America, and all it can do is make the same arguments, more loudly and in panic.  This is what it looks like when the Baroque shits itself in panic. Gone is all restraint, to be replaced by the idea that if we just shout loud enough, it will be true. Someone needed to be the death rattle of the concept of domination and separation, and Ayn Rand happened to be in the wrong place at the right time. The past 3,000 years have been a story of the gradual awakening of large parts of society to the inherent horror of war, slavery, and domination. But you know what? Ayn Rand looks at that and says gently caress THAT NOISE, separation has been right all along, and I can prove it, BITCH. Watch me: I'm going to plug my loving ears to every hint of any thing that indicates that humans are connected to each other, or to the natural world and environment, and then show you what the world looks like from my viewpoint. There are good people, who are smart and selfish and domineering, and they all look good and never do wrong, and they DESERVE to be on top of the world not because of some god or heredity, but because they are governed PURELY by reason-as-I-define it, which means that subjectivity is and always has been a lie. All that Jesus and Buddha poo poo? All that cooperation and compassion poo poo? A bald-faced lie. Her philosophy is the purest possible distillation of the "Virtue of Selfishness" taken to its illogical extreme. There is no sophistry in it, no compromise: If you are dying of poverty, it is your loving fault. If you are rich, it is because you are of the better sort. Materialism is the only reality, and this is a just world. Now I could be wrong, and there could be a deeper level of hell we could sink to: I'm not going to play Marx and act like my ideas are the end of the dialectic. However, it's hard to conceive of Objectivism as implemented by the Koch brothers as anything other than a desperate, screaming death rattle of an idea long past its prime. I contend that these people KNOW on some deep level that domination and privilege and separation are under a massive attack right now, and that this might be the end of their rulership, and so we get these messy, horrible, bloody death-screams. We'd tend to agree here that any sane, feeling person looks at Rand and at the Kochs and is disgusted at how transparently wrong they are. How can they genuinely believe in a fantasy-world so different from the world you and I see every day? Well, I would say they are the most conservative of all conservatives, trying to give life support to the most ancient idea of all culture: Ownership and domination and separation are the only good, and we inherit it by right. Oh and by the way, gently caress you. We don't have to apologize for it anymore. So what are the repercussions of the ideology of the Koch brothers? If my analysis is correct, then they are burning out the last of any goodwill the world has for domination because they can do no other. Will they end up like Charles I or Louis the XVI? Well, that would be boring repetition, wouldn't it? I'm making the argument that even they know they are at the end of their rope, so you tell me what replaces it. Can we really cut out the cancer that is the Koch/Rand ideology without cutting out the whole idea of hierarchy and profit and slavery and domination that goes with it? I'm just a crazy dumbshit, but I think the world would have to make a novel and difficult choice to really wipe them out, and that a world free of them would be a world free of the concept of money, scarcity, violence, or subjugation of any kind. But, since that's so dumb and goddam-crazy, let's talk about which parts of the Koch/Rand ideology we just can't do without because they're SO PEACHY, and how terrible and impossible it would be to throw out our beloved sense of being the biggest, baddest things on the planet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Well that was hallucinatory to the point of giving offense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
Rogue0071 posted:I was under the impression that the high savings rate in China was a consequence of its relative lack of a social safety net, is that accurate? I thought it was largely cultural. Also an aging demographic. Caros posted:Why should we agree with any assertions you make when you can't be assed to spend even five seconds on a website, yet can be assed to come on the forums and bitch about how lovely it is? I'm sorry but this really annoys me. It's important to make it clear that we all reject sources or decide not to read certain things all the time. Being good at this is really important and it's completely legitimate. What do you think about Scientology? Have you read their texts? I'm comfortable saying that I haven't, that I think Scientology is bad, and that L. Ron Hubbard's works are on the massive list of things I never intend to read in my lifetime. If a scientologist wants to call me out for "not spending five seconds" reading their stuff so be it. In terms of this specific website my gut reaction was 100% correct. While there is probably nothing wrong with their data the reason the site exists is to encourage people to draw wild conclusions from data which doesn't support them. The flash intro's attempt to prime the reader was a great sign that the content wasn't going to support the conclusions. If this bothers you then at least appreciate that I'm bothered when I click links on SA, read them, and discover they're utter garbage or have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. And beyond wasting time, crappy sources are a root of crappy opinions and deserve to be called out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:It's important to make it clear that we all reject sources or decide not to read certain things all the time. Being good at this is really important and it's completely legitimate. What do you think about Scientology? Have you read their texts? I'm comfortable saying that I haven't, that I think Scientology is bad, and that L. Ron Hubbard's works are on the massive list of things I never intend to read in my lifetime. If a scientologist wants to call me out for "not spending five seconds" reading their stuff so be it. That isn't what you did though. When I first heard about Scientology I listened for about a solid 10-15 seconds before laughing and going on about my business. I wait until I have even some casual understanding of what is being discussed before I reject it. My problem is that you rejected a website out of hand in what must have been about 1-2 seconds based on a flash animation of loving chairs and then immediately came back here to complain about how lovely it was. quote:If this bothers you then at least appreciate that I'm bothered when I click links on SA, read them, and discover they're utter garbage or have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. And beyond wasting time, crappy sources are a root of crappy opinions and deserve to be called out. So what sources do you use normally? Because the quality of your posting indicates that they must be especially dense and reactionary 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Caros posted:That isn't what you did though. When I first heard about Scientology I listened for about a solid 10-15 seconds before laughing and going on about my business. I wait until I have even some casual understanding of what is being discussed before I reject it. My problem is that you rejected a website out of hand in what must have been about 1-2 seconds based on a flash animation of loving chairs and then immediately came back here to complain about how lovely it was. No the flash into was 10-15 seconds at least. Lots of Wikipedia.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
Quidam Viator posted:I like to make the contention that civilization has been little more than a series of apologetics for the concept of hierarchy and domination, both of which were and still are essential for the foundation of society, but both of which feel "wrong" to feeling human beings on some level. I don't think the "paleolithic-style hunter-gatherer band" is without separation. They would be individuals that exist as individuals. Separation is more fundamental then as being from civilization. You are asserting your own separation in these paragraphs. The very first word in your post is fundamentally an assertion of separation: "I". But I don't think you're incorrect about the consequences of separation "anyone not playing by this game is enslaved or killed." We (humanity in general) do tend to crucify radical egalitarians. But there is a problem with the way you're looking at it. Society and government also asserts "we" in addition to "I", action by society is action of one-ness, it's action together, communal. Unified, communal, egalitarian, action can be just as dominating as separation and hierarchy. I think you're absolutely right about Rand and objectivism, "Her philosophy is the purest possible distillation of the "Virtue of Selfishness" taken to its illogical extreme." And it's definitely an inversion of the "Jesus and Buddha poo poo", she explicitly asserts that. But you are still an "I". An individual, a self separated from other selves. That's a self - ish -ness. Typical or similiar to (ish) in the state of (ness) self. You are playing the game too. Quidam Viator posted:Now I could be wrong, and there could be a deeper level of hell we could sink to: I'm not going to play Marx and act like my ideas are the end of the dialectic. However, it's hard to conceive of Objectivism as implemented by the Koch brothers as anything other than a desperate, screaming death rattle of an idea long past its prime. I contend that these people KNOW on some deep level that domination and privilege and separation are under a massive attack right now, and that this might be the end of their rulership, and so we get these messy, horrible, bloody death-screams. The problem is (and I think you've identified this), is that they have tied their domination to the foundational ideas of society. I would specifically say they have done so to the foundations of our society, to Freedom (through Mises in "Human Action "with Praxeology) and the Constitution (through Hayek Constitution of Liberty). And you're looking at it apocalyptically, you use the words "the end", and this "messy, horrible, bloody death-screams" is hell talk. I look at it that way (apocalyptically) too. I think these ideas are being uncovered for what they are. That means, I think the end is coming for this. I think you see that end, but then you do this "so you tell me what replaces it?" That's where you look away. You don't have to do that. The end of the world isn't the end of the world. There is an "after" of apocalypse. After an uncovering of (an end of, an apocalypse of) this idea of the "Virtue of selfishness" or this idea of the "holy word of separation", will self and separation go away? No. Quidam Viator posted:Well, I would say they are the most conservative of all conservatives, trying to give life support to the most ancient idea of all culture: Ownership and domination and separation are the only good, and we inherit it by right. Oh and by the way, gently caress you. We don't have to apologize for it anymore. But they are apologizing for it. They have canon :http://www.kochind.com/Newsroom/EconomicFreedom.aspx. They have dogma (Dogma are rules negative, "No" statements to prevent distortions, Libertarian talk of being against violence or force is dogma). They even have creed (Eg "For a New Liberty") And they care very much about their apologies (eg. Charles Koch tweaking the wording of and inserting new ideas into his "principles" over (edit) forty years! Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Jan 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
I know I'm double posting but this didn't have much to do with my last post: Found this on Kochfacts, Twenty Questions with Charles Koch: http://www.kochind.com/files/AJB02-2009TwentyQuestions.pdf Highlights: Twenty Questions with Charles Koch" posted:3. How and when did you become acquainted with Austrian economics? Praxeology yet again. Twenty Questions with Charles Koch" posted:4. How has your engineering background influenced your management philosophy? Saw this in earlier Market Based Man article, this confirms it's his words directly quoted. Twenty Questions with Charles Koch" posted:6. When did you first come up with the MBM® philosophy? So not a decade, it's forty years working on his systamatic! I think the arguments that Koch aren't true believers are getting more specious. Twenty Questions with Charles Koch" posted:18. What is the best advice you ever received? More interesting than the actual advice to me is that he ties his own philosophy to his fathers advice directly. To do that is make a direct tie to JBS. So Tea Party as partial permutation of John Birch Society. I've seen people saying Tea Party is like JBS for ever. But it's not like it's from, it's "is the same", or maybe and rather literally begotten.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
quote:As an engineer, I understood that the natural world operated according to fixed laws. Through my studies, I came to realize that there were, like wise, laws that govern human well being. Boy if that isn't engineers.txt I don't know what is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:I thought it was largely cultural. Also an aging demographic. Really? What cultural aspect is that? Korea has a very similar culture and aging demographic yet has one of the highest debt loads in the world. "Culture" is a great place holder for "I have no idea"
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
menino posted:Really? What cultural aspect is that? Korea has a very similar culture and aging demographic yet has one of the highest debt loads in the world. I mean sort of. But China's savings rate is ridiculous and I'm not aware of any simple explanations. I'd venture to suggest that it has something to do with China's rapid recent growth. People who are making many times their previous (real) incomes from a decade or so before seem likely to save much of that increase. I don't see low safety net as much of an explanation because looking at this, I don't see a great correlation. For example see France and German's position above the U.S. (and Canada). So I find it hard not to fall back on "cultural" though I agree it's somewhat weak.  Though a few more comments, it's interesting that India and China are both so high, they have broadly similar recent histories of rapid growth, but Brazil lags significantly. Although here is another possible explanation for China's particularly unique savings rate: forbes posted:The resulting pressure on the marriage market in China might induce men and parents with sons to do things to make themselves more competitive. Increasing savings, mostly by cutting down on the family’s spending, is one logical way to do that. Wealth helps to increase a man’s competitive edge in the marriage market. Ironically, increased savings does not change the total number of men who get married in the aggregate. In this sense, the increased savings is socially inefficient. However, from an individual household’s viewpoint, when the competition for a marriage partner is tough, it cannot afford to save less than its competitors. I call this effect “keeping up with the Zhangs.” asdf32 fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Jan 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Both China and India have dense populations, gender imbalances, sketchy stock markets, and a paltry social safety net. The first three blow up real estate prices for slightly different reasons (land scarcity, wife scarcity, safe haven for $ scarcity) which causes huge amounts of savings. As does the fourth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Durkheim mother-fucker, mother-fucker. It's all about modern anomie and how it relates to our conception of the "self".
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 11:06
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Boy if that isn't engineers.txt I don't know what is. So what is the social edit: pseudoscience equivalent of F=MA? VideoTapir fucked around with this message at 13:56 on Jan 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 12:27
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Boy if that isn't engineers.txt I don't know what is. I dunno, most of his point seems to be the end point of materialism. If nothing outside physical reality exists, then human minds are extensions of physical reality and are governed by its rules. The issue is a) we don't really understand our physical world that well yet, and b) the Austrian school takes a few of the trappings of science without any of the rigor-- it's just-so junk philosophy in drag. The issue is the final place Koch is taking things, not the "engineer's mentality" that the world is an ordered place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
It's engineers.txt because engineers always think they know the loving rules, and it's pretty obvious that there is a ton we don't know about human interaction in all of its modern and ever changing complexities. It's also engineers.txt that in when reality doesn't agree with what they think they have a pretty bad habit of putting their fingers in their ears and going, "la-la-la-la".
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
rscott posted:It's engineers.txt because engineers always think they know the loving rules, and it's pretty obvious that there is a ton we don't know about human interaction in all of its modern and ever changing complexities. It's also engineers.txt that in when reality doesn't agree with what they think they have a pretty bad habit of putting their fingers in their ears and going, "la-la-la-la". I always saw this as weird, because I'm an engineer and always thought stuff like Austrian econ was junk strictly because its practitioners did their best to ignore any sort of experimental verification. That's basically science 101 to me, and I'm just a dense engineer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 14:56
|
|