July 23, 20214 yr 10 hours ago, Dave Moss said: Yeah, that seems like a lot of effort for zero likes. It was funny in the flat earth thread, but I think it has run its course already.
July 23, 20214 yr 25 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Honestly, I wasn't sure though I thought the Irish used them to to a lesser extent. Your point holds in any case. Scots are the ones known for it.
July 26, 20214 yr On 7/20/2021 at 8:01 PM, EaglesRocker97 said: Marx got plenty right about the inherent deficiencies and excesses of capitalism, he just didn't offer much in the way of realistic solutions. Ultimately, people forget that Marx wasn't an economist or a politician; he was a philosopher. Marx got virtually nothing right and his philosophy was horsesh**. He was a moron and a worthless bum who mooched off of Engels and his rich family because he couldn't hold a job (shocking, I know!). His legacy is mass murder and starvation in the name of an ideology that reflects a toddler's understanding of the world and brought economic ruin to anyone who tried his "philosophy.".
July 26, 20214 yr 7 minutes ago, TEW said: Marx got virtually nothing right and his philosophy was horsesh**. He was a moron and a worthless bum who mooched off of Engels and his rich family because he couldn't hold a job (shocking, I know!). His legacy is mass murder and starvation in the name of an ideology that reflects a toddler's understanding of the world and brought economic ruin to anyone who tried his "philosophy.". Marx was 100% correct that capitalism is built on exploitation of the working class, that it is, more or less, a form of economic imperialism, and that the only way to mitigate it is for the working class to collectively fight back.
July 26, 20214 yr Just now, EaglesRocker97 said: Marx was 100% correct that capitalism is built on exploitation of the working class, that it was more or less a form of economic imperialism, and that the only way to mitigate it is for the working class to collectively fight back. No, he wasn't. Only morons believe this.
July 26, 20214 yr 6 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Marx was 100% correct that capitalism is built on exploitation of the working class, that it is, more or less, a form of economic imperialism, and that the only way to mitigate it is for the working class to collectively fight back. If you limit the discussion to a relative metric like a wealth gap comparison then you can get some mileage out of this position but if you look at the overall general levels of societal prosperity things get a lot more nuanced and the analysis shifts significantly.
July 26, 20214 yr 8 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Marx was 100% correct that capitalism is built on exploitation of the working class, that it is, more or less, a form of economic imperialism, and that the only way to mitigate it is for the working class to collectively fight back. Not being able to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of different economic systems and different forms of government is kryptonite for some of the posters on here.
July 26, 20214 yr 3 hours ago, DrPhilly said: If you limit the discussion to a relative metric like a wealth gap comparison then you can get some mileage out of this position but if you look at the overall general levels of societal prosperity things get a lot more nuanced and the analysis shifts significantly. I'm talking more from the perspective of mechanisms, which doesn't negate the possibility that capitalism ultimately produces greater prosperity on the whole. I think the analogy to imperialism is instructive and, although not perfect, fairly accurate. At a basic level, capitalism is essentially built on a "might makes right" mentality, whereby accumulated wealth and control of the means of production replaces the power of the state. Capital supremacy and market share is substituted for military power and territorial control. Ultimately, it is system where by individuals are used (exploited) for the aggrandizement of a privileged class. Whether a handful of others make money in the process is really beside the point.
July 26, 20214 yr 2 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said: I'm talking more from the perspective of mechanisms, which doesn't negate the possibility that capitalism ultimately produces greater prosperity on the whole. I think the analogy to imperialism is instructive and, although not perfect, fairly accurate. At a basic level, capitalism is essentially built on a "might makes right" mentality, whereby accumulated wealth and control of the means of production replaces the power of the state. Capital supremacy and market share is substituted for military power and territorial control. Ultimately, it is system where by individuals are used (exploited) for the aggrandizement of a privileged class. Whether a handful of others make money in the process is really beside the point. No system is without weaknesses and no system lacks a hierarchy.
July 26, 20214 yr 7 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: No system is without weaknesses and no system lacks a hierarchy. Very true, although some on here have a hard time acknowledging literally any shortcomings in capitalism. Personally, I just wished we'd get a little more back to mixed-market trends of the late-19th/early-20th centuries. I'm particularly concerned about the rise of contemporary monopolies/oligopolies. When was the last time the SEC/FTC blocked a merger or, God forbid, broke up a company that was inimical to fair competition? Ultimately, unfettered capitalism gets you to the point where the "free market" is anything but free.
July 26, 20214 yr 1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Very true, although some on here have a hard time acknowledging literally any shortcomings in capitalism. Personally, I just wished we'd get a little more back to mixed-market trends of the late-19th/early-20th centuries. I'm particularly concerned about the rise of contemporary monopolies. When was the last time the SEC blocked a merger or, God forbid, broke up a company that was inimical to fair competition? Ultimately, unfettered capitalism gets you to the point where the "free market" is anything but free. Anti-trust is a huge problem. To maximize benefits of markets under capitalism we need low barriers to entry and strong competition.
July 26, 20214 yr 8 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Very true, although some on here have a hard time acknowledging literally any shortcomings in capitalism. Personally, I just wished we'd get a little more back to mixed-market trends of the late-19th/early-20th centuries. I'm particularly concerned about the rise of contemporary monopolies/oligopolies. When was the last time the SEC/FTC blocked a merger or, God forbid, broke up a company that was inimical to fair competition? Ultimately, unfettered capitalism gets you to the point where the "free market" is anything but free. Literally this morning. https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/aon-willis-towers-watson-call-off-30-bln-merger-2021-07-26/
July 26, 20214 yr 2 minutes ago, vikas83 said: Literally this morning. https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/aon-willis-towers-watson-call-off-30-bln-merger-2021-07-26/ Yeah, I was thinking about going back and editing that to say "major." It at least seems like certain players (Looking at you, Amazon) are allowed to grow unchecked. Politics, bedfellows, and such.
July 26, 20214 yr 2 minutes ago, Toastrel said: There is no free market. There never has been. it's always a spectrum, and as such its advantage has always been "how free is the market in the US compared to other Western nations with advanced economies?" in the US, it's possible for 1st or 2nd generation immigrant to establish a business and grow to wealth within a generation or two. I have no idea where that sits relative to other countries, but it's not something I can imagine is common. I know there are economic mobility concerns especially for the low end ("the poors") with the American system relative to some other advanced economies, and I am an advocate of doing what we can to help in that regard because I think we're ALL better off when individuals of ALL classes at least know they have the opportunity to succeed where their parents might not have. but some of this new generation wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater and that's just nucking futs.
July 26, 20214 yr 2 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Yeah, I was thinking about going back and editing that to say "major." It at least seems like certain players (Looking at you, Amazon) are allowed to grow unchecked. Politics, bedfellows, and such. I think that's reading a bit too much in terms of where politics and business overlap. To be sure the big guys are out there lobbying for regulatory capture, no doubt. But with regards to businesses like Amazon and some of the tech firms, I think the SEC/FTC has a really difficult time because in a lot of ways these businesses are creating new markets for products that didn't previously exist. It's hard to differentiate between being first to market because nobody else was doing what you are, and behemoth companies that bully through regulatory actions. There's no shortage of competition for Amazon.com for example. Amazon just does it better than most.
July 26, 20214 yr 5 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: There's no shortage of competition for Amazon.com for example. Amazon just does it better than most. What they do better is basically offer everything for 5 cents less than their competitors' bottom dollar, because their operations and market share have become so massive that they can undercut literally anyone.
July 26, 20214 yr 3 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: What they do better is basically offer everything for 5 cents less than their competitors' bottom dollar, because their operations and market share have become so massive that they can undercut literally anyone. It's called economies of scale, and it benefits consumers massively.
July 26, 20214 yr 3 minutes ago, vikas83 said: It's called economies of scale, and it benefits consumers massively. Yes, but you eventually reach a point where competition is stifled, which negatively impacts both consumers and the labor market. There needs to be balance.
July 26, 20214 yr 6 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: What they do better is basically offer everything for 5 cents less than their competitors' bottom dollar, because their operations and market share have become so massive that they can undercut literally anyone. I don't actually think that's true anymore. I think early on, when capturing marketshare, Amazon was better because they were cheaper and made shipping things to your house convenient enough that it compared favorably to going to the store. While this is now where the market is at, Amazon did a LOT of work and spent a LOT of money getting the market there - and that's no small thing. Now? I don't think Amazon is by and large cheaper than other online retailers. They may still be marginally cheaper than a lot of big box stores, and I'm not arguing they're expensive mind you, but I don't think the cost savings are as important to people as the convenience. Also look at things like smile.amazon.com - the research Amazon did revealed that when a percentage of your purchase goes to donations, people were willing to overpay. by more than the donation. People value convenience. That's where Amazon does it better. I order stuff, it shows up within a couple days. My time investment was minimal, it came at a reasonable price, and I didn't have to even leave my house.
July 26, 20214 yr 54 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: I don't actually think that's true anymore. I think early on, when capturing marketshare, Amazon was better because they were cheaper and made shipping things to your house convenient enough that it compared favorably to going to the store. While this is now where the market is at, Amazon did a LOT of work and spent a LOT of money getting the market there - and that's no small thing. Now? I don't think Amazon is by and large cheaper than other online retailers. They may still be marginally cheaper than a lot of big box stores, and I'm not arguing they're expensive mind you, but I don't think the cost savings are as important to people as the convenience. Also look at things like smile.amazon.com - the research Amazon did revealed that when a percentage of your purchase goes to donations, people were willing to overpay. by more than the donation. People value convenience. That's where Amazon does it better. I order stuff, it shows up within a couple days. My time investment was minimal, it came at a reasonable price, and I didn't have to even leave my house. I use my Amazon prime for things where the shipping price will kill you, normally. I prefer to order books from local bookstores, hardware from hardware stores, etc. However, if the hardware store is out of flag pole clips, I use Amazon. What I like about Amazon is that is replaces me needing to go to a Fing mall. I hate malls. I appreciated my mall growing up, having an outside door into the arcade, so I didn't have to enter the cesspool of the mall itself.
July 26, 20214 yr 25 minutes ago, Toastrel said: I use my Amazon prime for things where the shipping price will kill you, normally. I prefer to order books from local bookstores, hardware from hardware stores, etc. However, if the hardware store is out of flag pole clips, I use Amazon. What I like about Amazon is that is replaces me needing to go to a Fing mall. I hate malls. I appreciated my mall growing up, having an outside door into the arcade, so I didn't have to enter the cesspool of the mall itself. I prefer real books, but not enough to overcome the awesome convenience of having a Kindle and being able to order that next book right when I want.
Create an account or sign in to comment