We are on the verge of a Great Great Depression

[mooney]

i pretty much only watch videos and read books from sources i consider leftist and completely opposite to my view.  if you know a lot about chomsky or marx or trotsky i'd like to discuss those positions, i never see a pov other than mine presented here.  i only have trolls trying to argue semantics and word definitions who never offer their own view or add anything to the conversation.  plus i can only watch the same ron paul speech repackaged and redelivered so many ways. 

i could tell you nothing about Trotsky or Marx, to be frank. I'd be wiki'ing every 5 seconds if i even tried. I could probably convey Chomsky's, seeing as i find myself in agreement with his views on pretty much all counts... Basically a kind of anarcho-syndicalist/libertarian socialist/bottom-up democratic society etc... etc... Which i know is not quite your bag. I think (forgive any ropey terminology) you have a more individualist - i'd say darwinian morality - based outlook. Mines more collectivist - people working together in the interest of other people and not profit, free of any coordinator and/or capitalist classes. We've been down this road before though, where we seem to agree on core issues and then go sharply in opposite directions to one another.

The video was excellent thanks, i think i'll get the book soon.

In the age of globalisation, borders are disappearing, and nations are not powerful. Institutions and companies have the power to shape nations, not the other way round. 

The quality of life in the west is far better than they'll probably ever have. If there's food on the table and you've paid the bills, you're probably in the top 5% of people in the world. The USA might be struggling at the moment, but it is still head and shoulders above China in terms of GDP, and (official) military expenditure.

Quality of life seems like a rather subjective term in my view but in the US and i believe in the UK working hours have shot up, wages stagnated (over the last 20-30 years) etc... A small minority of people are getting increasingly richer at ordinary working peoples expense... I've no doubt many peoples "quality of life" in places like the middle east would greatly increase if we'd leave them in peace instead of invading for material and geo-strategic goals. Places like Bolivia - poor countries... have been implementing a more participatory, bottom up, democratic society with great success... I'd be interested to here their views on 'quality of life'.

[2NaFish]

quality of life is curious, as mooney says, and depends on outlook. Due to the squeeze on jobs, many households in the UK are now single income whereas before they had two, with all the vendors this involves - extra cars, more frequent holidays. How many people's quality of life is improved by a tighter family unit if they choose to view it that way?

That's obviously a rather optimistic way of viewing the situation - kinda sounds like something a Tory would say offhand - but there's lots of ways to consider quality of life. I'm moving to Bhutan.

[polar]

i could tell you nothing about Trotsky or Marx, to be frank. I'd be wiki'ing every 5 seconds if i even tried. I could probably convey Chomsky's, seeing as i find myself in agreement with his views on pretty much all counts... Basically a kind of anarcho-syndicalist/libertarian socialist/bottom-up democratic society etc... etc... Which i know is not quite your bag. I think (forgive any ropey terminology) you have a more individualist - i'd say darwinian morality - based outlook. Mines more collectivist - people working together in the interest of other people and not profit, free of any coordinator and/or capitalist classes. We've been down this road before though, where we seem to agree on core issues and then go sharply in opposite directions to one another.

The video was excellent thanks, i think i'll get the book soon.

right on dude, the middle men are just in the way, i'd rather discuss collectivism vs individualism ...or even break it down a little further, Force vs freedom

i pretty much have little problem with the idea of collectivism at it's root.  i have a company, and i consider much of what we accomplish would fall into a collectivist category.  i have no problem with unions.  they are a form of collectivism as well.  if a group of skilled people get together and decide they want to bargain collectively and charge the same collective rate for service or product and work to match a certain quality of work, i'm all for it. 

there are many upsides to collectivism.  the problem i have is when something is forced.  Take for example, the teachers union in my state.  you can't be a teacher and not be a union member, and a school can't hire a teacher that's not in the union.  there is no opt out for either employee or employer.  that's wrong

I hire several contractors daily, from electricians to masons to painters to landscapers and etc etc.   here in town, we have a local carpenter's union.  we have an electrical union.  we have a painters union, etc.   Sometimes i hire union, sometimes i don't.  if a union guy has the skills to back up what he is charging and has a consistent set of standards, i pay the cash.  however, i have specific guys that are not in the union, that do an equally or even superior job than their union counterparts, and when they're available (which is rare, they're the best and the busiest) i will hire them first.  now shouldn't i, as a small business owner, have the option to hire who i want?  would you take away my choice if you could?

we're just scratching the surface but i don't want to write a novel and let points get lost in the blur

[polar]

Quality of life seems like a rather subjective term in my view but in the US and i believe in the UK working hours have shot up, wages stagnated (over the last 20-30 years)

well, it's hard make that statement since it's apples and oranges.  in the past, we had the wages we did, the gas prices we did, and the work hours we did because we were the only developed industrial nations out there.  50 years ago, Detroit all by itself had 33% of the world's entire GDP.  gas was cheap because we were the only demand.  We could promise old people a social security pension at 65 because the average joe lived to be like 67 and there were 30 people paying into the system for every 1 person withdrawing.  companies could offer their workers a pension because there was no option of shipping the job overseas and there was no other game in town.

now, the rest of the world is catching up.  most countries need oil.  most countries can sew a shirt or weld shit together.  our wages dropped because they were built on a bubble.

[Sean]

quality of life is curious, as mooney says, and depends on outlook. Due to the squeeze on jobs, many households in the UK are now single income whereas before they had two, with all the vendors this involves - extra cars, more frequent holidays. How many people's quality of life is improved by a tighter family unit if they choose to view it that way?

To answer this question or maybe not answer but to shed light on the situation. The quality of life by a tighter family is at its worse when its forced and not chosen.    This opens a whole new subject because culture falls into it as countries like Spain, Greece, Italy .. families are very close knit and share households in general on larger scale than say UK and especially USA. This is the ONLY way based on what I said yesterday about salaries how the EU can force these countries people to squeeze out to their last dime to the governments ... and that is to exploit peoples weakness and cultures and as a downside makes them impossible to uhhh invent?.  Do you know how many men I know in their 40's who live with mom still?  Its a sad truth and the way its going....  they will never get to leave.  < (most commonly).  The old answer (for many) to this situation was to leave the country and work in the UK, still is...  dunno for how long though.

[mooney]

right on dude, the middle men are just in the way, i'd rather discuss collectivism vs individualism ...or even break it down a little further, Force vs freedom

i pretty much have little problem with the idea of collectivism at it's root.  i have a company, and i consider much of what we accomplish would fall into a collectivist category.  i have no problem with unions.  they are a form of collectivism as well.  if a group of skilled people get together and decide they want to bargain collectively and charge the same collective rate for service or product and work to match a certain quality of work, i'm all for it. 

there are many upsides to collectivism.  the problem i have is when something is forced.  Take for example, the teachers union in my state.  you can't be a teacher and not be a union member, and a school can't hire a teacher that's not in the union.  there is no opt out for either employee or employer.  that's wrong

I hire several contractors daily, from electricians to masons to painters to landscapers and etc etc.   here in town, we have a local carpenter's union.  we have an electrical union.  we have a painters union, etc.   Sometimes i hire union, sometimes i don't.  if a union guy has the skills to back up what he is charging and has a consistent set of standards, i pay the cash.  however, i have specific guys that are not in the union, that do an equally or even superior job than their union counterparts, and when they're available (which is rare, they're the best and the busiest) i will hire them first.  now shouldn't i, as a small business owner, have the option to hire who i want?  would you take away my choice if you could?

we're just scratching the surface but i don't want to write a novel and let points get lost in the blur

on your penultimate question, yes you should.

I think what you are talking about is self management. There are different types of decisions that people make that require a different form of arriving at a conclusion. So for example, in a participatory economy, the work force will decide what is and how much gets produced based on need, or a community will get together and decide on things for their community. However, when you wake up in the morning, you dont get the community or the workforce round a table to decide which jeans you'll wear that day. There doesn't need to be a democratic decision made. Which socks or jeans you wear have no affect on anyone else... or, which electrician you hire.

Compare that to the way corporations are run - top down, tyrannical and, interestingly - pyschopathological (if that's even a word). The behaviour of corporations fits almost verbatim the clinical definition of a psychopath.

[2NaFish]

you're quite right Sean, although I'd say its less about choice, imo, than practicality. many people would choose to be a two income family and enjoy 3 holidays a year as opposed to spending more time together as a family. its trite to argue that stuff doesn't equal happiness, but where living on the breadline isn't a genuine concern it may well be that people would be happier with less money and more time.

obviously where the situation is that the family unit needs two incomes the situation will not be helped by removing an income.

[polar]

on your penultimate question, yes you should.

I think what you are talking about is self management. There are different types of decisions that people make that require a different form of arriving at a conclusion. So for example, in a participatory economy, the work force will decide what is and how much gets produced based on need, or a community will get together and decide on things for their community. However, when you wake up in the morning, you dont get the community or the workforce round a table to decide which jeans you'll wear that day. There doesn't need to be a democratic decision made. Which socks or jeans you wear have no affect on anyone else... or, which electrician you hire.

what part of participatory economics is it exactly that appeals to you?  in a free market economy, the consumers determine what is and how much gets produced.  consumers don't need to have a big meeting to decide, they vote with their wallets and the purchases they make.  might need to clarify your point because i know a lot about that economic theory and i'm sure that there are aspects you find more pleasant

 

Compare that to the way corporations are run - top down, tyrannical and, interestingly - pyschopathological (if that's even a word). The behaviour of corporations fits almost verbatim the clinical definition of a psychopath.

no two corporations are the same.  this is a dangerous blanket statement made to smear a boogie man i'm not sure you understand.  my corporation doesn't work like this, and no corporation i've worked for runs like this.  i've seen the movie you got this idea from too, keep in mind i watch chomsky videos as well.  they tried to assign a personality to a corporation, which is not logical.  that would be like saying a gun is psychopathic.  or a calculator.  or my wristwatch.  they're tools.  if someone has a disagreement or distaste for the way some corporations get favorable treatment from a government, i'm all for a separation of govt and economy.

a corporation has one purpose:  to make money and turn a profit.  that doesn't mean it's bad or good.  it's a purpose.  forming a corporation for me personally was a logical choice because it protects me personally from losing my house and protection for my family if my company gets sued or fails.  it's also A LOT easier to sell my business when i decide to move on to greener pastures.

[Sean]

To say a corporations sole purpose is to turn profit is ridicules.   Too many times its just the opposite  and other times it just fits their model.  Also comes responsibility that shouldn't be FREE to damage the environment or people internally and externally. but this can be adapted by local law....  mostly I guess.   

and no corporation i've worked for runs like this.

2. I have worked for plenty of corporations that fit mooney's description. And there are plenty that are not that way too.

3. On a smaller scale I understand Polars view on labels.

ps. If you were theoretically speaking ..... then yea the underlying purpose is what it is.

[dman1991]

forming a corporation for me personally was a logical choice because it protects me personally from losing my house and protection for my family if my company gets sued or fails.  it's also A LOT easier to sell my business when i decide to move on to greener pastures.

Just curious, how are you protected? Insurance, govt, some other way?

[polar]

Just curious, how are you protected? Insurance, govt, some other way?

if i die, my business is still there and the debt doesn't pass on to my wife and they couldn't take my house and personal assets.  if i get sued and lose, i have more protection too.  if you do it right and have your yearly board meeting and perform due diligence it's valid.

[polar]

To say a corporations sole purpose is to turn profit is ridicules.

 
ps. If you were theoretically speaking ..... then yea the underlying purpose is what it is.

lol which is it, make up your mind

Too many times its just the opposite

can you elaborate?

Also comes responsibility that shouldn't be FREE to damage the environment or people internally and externally. but this can be adapted by local law....  mostly I guess.   

this isn't a corporation's fault, this is government interference into the free market that allows this.  when governments start picking favorites, you have the problems that everyone bitches about

2. I have worked for plenty of corporations that fit mooney's description. And there are plenty that are not that way too.

For example?

[sunnyp]

just because the US is doing better than another country doesn't mean anything.  you can't measure how well you are doing by comparing yourself to someone else.  the US should be holding ourselves to strict standards that we set for ourselves, accepting any less is pathetic.  that's how we got into the mess we're in, people quit paying attention and got lazy and complacent because they thought all the fighting for liberty and freedom had been done before them, but we're finding out you have to stay vigilant for life.  all those other countries need to fend for themselves and do figure out on their own what works.

there are a lot of people who once looked at europe as some kind of social model we need to follow, now they look at spain and greece and all the other chips that are about to fall and they realize we need to go back to our founding principles

It's all relative. There's only a finite quantity of material wealth on this planet, and a great deal of it is in American hands.

It's in human nature to go move from lower to higher, and to say that success and comparison have no link ignores the innate human instinct to thrive.

[Sean]

Polar,     Mooney was pointing out a negative impact that are caused by 'corporations' that doesn't take much common sense to know some examples.  Your reply to him was to throw out a definitive statement about corporations.  My response was pointing out it was all you said.

To say a corporations sole purpose is to turn profit is ridicules.

Your answer as a rebuttal to already in place corporate irresponsibility doesn't justify actions.

"If you were theoretically speaking ..... then yea the underlying purpose is what it is."

Theoretically speaking I agree with you, this is the underlying purpose. Only its not the case and certainly not an excuse.

For example Walmart paying millions of dollars to go to court instead of paying a $7,000 fine related for a trampling death that took place to an employee.  If it was only about profit, nobody would know about this and millions of dollars profited and countless hours save.   Courts are there for justification just as corporations are there to solely profit correct?

edit to add:

Corporations that cook the books and show no profit but at the same time pay salaries is a very common practice as well.