Close

Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Text messaging

  1. #1
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default Text messaging

    visit-red-300x50PNG
    This is an interesting

    article about text messaging.



    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/bu... /> <br /> Q
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  2. #2
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default

    Hi Bel.

    Not being a member

    of the NYT, what was the main point of the article, please? I text frequently.

    THanks in advance
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  3. #3
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    The main point is that it costs

    virtually nothing to transmit text messages. As a matter of fact, since they are on a control channel that has to be

    open anyway, the cost is nothing at all. Several carriers are being sued over price fixing for text messgaing right

    now.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  4. #4
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default

    Thanks! That's very

    interesting. Seems like a good, contemporary example of pricing that has nothing to do with direct cost.

    I love

    to hear about predatory capitalism (or misuse/abuse of the markets somehow) in all its forms, because I'm always

    trying to get my mind around it to form better economic beliefs.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  5. #5
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    I don't know if I'd call it

    predatory but I do feel people should know what they are paying for. A basic principle of economics is to charge

    whatever the market will bear. But when the market is aware of over-pricing it gives them an incentive to shop the

    prices and tends to force the market down. While not explicit, there were some hints about price fixing between the

    cariers as well and that is unacceptable.

    You have to remember that I am a capitalist that has discovered the

    benefit of charging less for better. My techs are swamped while some major competitors, charging almost 50&#37;

    more, are bemoaning the slowdown. Gee, I wonder why?
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  6. #6
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth View Post
    I

    don't know if I'd call it predatory but I do feel people should know what they are paying for. A basic principle

    of economics is to charge whatever the market will bear. But when the market is aware of over-pricing it gives them

    an incentive to shop the prices and tends to force the market down. While not explicit, there were some hints about

    price fixing between the cariers as well and that is unacceptable.

    You have to remember that I am a capitalist

    that has discovered the benefit of charging less for better. My techs are swamped while some major competitors,

    charging almost 50&#37; more, are bemoaning the slowdown. Gee, I wonder why?
    I know. I questioned my use of

    that word, but left it in for lack of good words to describe what happens around the edges, so to speak, of

    capitalism.

    I'm glad your pricing strategy has been successful for you. You have to aim your approach at the

    people who are your likely customers.

    I've typically worked on a sliding scale, based on ability to pay; while

    limiting a certain percentage of what I do to pro bono (Cher and Cher alike, I always say. Yuk Yuk.) work.

    That works well for me in my line of work, where ethical considerations always ultimately "trump" (no pun intended)

    capitalist ones, though capitalist factors are up there to be sure. For example, if a kid is thinking of self harm,

    you treat first and -- if necessary -- think of compensation later. I guess that means I'm not really a capitalist,

    per se.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  7. #7
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,400
    Rep Power
    6383

    Default

    Capitalism is funny, it'll both

    allow and demand different pricing structures.

    Doc, your altruism is evident both in the field of work you've

    chosen and in the way you choose to give when giving seems socially responsible.

    Bel's business, as far as I

    understand it, is kind of a service commodity, allowing for reduced rates in the interest of higher volume,

    maintaining both income and growth.

    My business involves both product and service, and I'll typically have only

    10-12 clients in a year, sometimes less. Most are wealthy, and I've spent as long as 2 years with a client on a

    single project. In this environment pricing becomes an art form, as each job (and client) has its own unique

    requirements. Naturally I want to make as much money as I can, but still be fair and not gouge for the sake of

    money.

    A word that I like, and do business by, is "value". I provide a high level of product and service at a

    high cost, but never has a client had anything but 100&#37; satisfaction with the work I do.

    Having said all

    that, a huge corporate entity such as a cellular provider, or a car company, are limited and controlled by strict

    market and stockholder demands. A corporation has to perform for the stockholders, and its only when the consumer

    is ignorant that they're taken advantage of. Thanks to Bel's post, I started looking at what I'm being charged

    for certain Int'l text messages. I found a much better deal with little effort. Not only text, but voice as

    well.

    I'm intrigued by Doc's comment about what happens around the "fringes" of capitalism. Thinking about it,

    capitalism (in its perfect expression) is not so much an economic "system" or "theory" as it is what happens when

    people are free to trade without gov't intervention. If that's true, then what happens within capitalism is

    nothing more or less that what happens in a free society. There will be those who rape, pillage and plunder as well

    as those who give, nurture and lift up those less fortunate.

    Small business truly drives our economy, and few

    things give me greater pleasure than writing payroll checks, esp. when they've had a productive week.

    In a way,

    financially speaking, capitalism is the perfect expression of the individual. For the purpose of this thread, I

    guess that a large corporation is more of a profit machine than individual, and hence the need for consumer

    information, and, as a last resort, gov't regulation.
    Last edited by idesign; 01-22-2009 at 04:52 PM.


  8. #8
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default

    Idesign, capitalism is a lot

    of things, and is a construct with an enormous amount of substance around and within it.

    For example, it is a

    system and theory of government, a particular way of doing things instead of another.

    It is also a belief system

    or systems. But as an "ism" or belief system, it competes with other "isms", values, and belief systems.

    It can

    be used for a variety of purposes here, including a moral philosophy (e.g, when "maximizing (shareholder) wealth",

    is the driving force behind a person's (or artificial person's) every decision.)

    On the scale of collectivism

    versus individualism, to use an example within the known world of competing ideological belief systems, capitalism

    is at one far end of the scale. So it's not as if it is some neutral lack of ideology. It is possible for it to be

    quite the opposite.

    It is also a specific set of practices in a particular society or community. As such, and in

    our society, capitalism is very complex and multifaceted, because as you illustrate, corporate capitalism, with its

    artificial persons, writing of legislation, effect on world culture, effect on society and the planet, and power

    centers, is quite a difficult system to wrap yourself around conceptually. The common resources that are in limited

    supply, as well as being the sustainence of life on a planet (land, water, air, oil, vegitation, and how these

    interact), are what is at stake in the process of competition.

    Also, you have situations where people in

    practice have varying degrees of practical freedom to direct their purchases.

    This is well known in the cases of

    utilities, health care, and other crucial goods and services, for example.

    You have situations where businesses

    of different sizes have differing abilities to compete, depending on certain structures. You have antitrust

    legislation, labor concerns, environmental concerns, and gee whiz it gets complicated.

    There are even

    psychologies behind capitalism, such as the producer/consumer model of persons, where a person's worth and life's

    meaning are determined by how much she or he produces and consumes, and wherein the forces of society push persons

    toward greater expenditure of all their life and personal resources, and time, toward those ends. There are a myriad

    of implications behind such a psychology, of course.

    Any economics is laden with a philosophy, a politics, a

    psychology, a biology (e.g., the biological idea that humans are independent, self-sufficient creatures), and even a

    geology (e.g., the idea that this particular planet's resources are limitless, and therefore neutral units of

    competition and acquisition; a related idea being that perpetual growth is a be all and end all goal, or reliable

    value.).

    To make things even trickier for us, there is not just one "capitalism" within any of these realms. And

    there are types and varieties, such as corporatism, a specific type which played a role in Mussolini's

    economics.

    This is why I am just trying to get some concepts together to put capitalism in context. so far I

    haven't succeded, but plan on picking up The Wealth of Nations and some Marx, to try to familiarize myself with the

    history of economic thought. I am embarrassed I haven't read Smith, in particular. At least I've been exposed to

    Marx in secondary sources while studying philosophy.
    Last edited by DrSmellThis; 01-26-2009 at 07:34 PM.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  9. #9
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,400
    Rep Power
    6383

    Default

    Thoughtful post Doc, and I agree

    on most points. My initial idea was mostly drawing a basic line in the sand between freedom to trade and controls

    restricting trade.

    I think you'll agree that all economics depend on exchange of goods, and the value any person

    places on those goods. Interfere with that basic exchange, and you interfere with natural law, or "state of

    nature".

    Anything which interferes with that natural "free" state is political economy, which your post

    accurately describes. Social constructs and psychologies etc are purely understandings and interpretations of what

    happens in a natural world. In any understanding of political economics, it amounts to how you interpret how and

    why men behave as they do, economically in this case. Different capitalisms are just differences in how men

    interpret the allowances you gain in a free trade environment. Some trade fairly, others not.

    In my thinking

    I'm intrigued by the very same variances in the capitalist idea as you. I do, however, stick to my thought that

    capitalism is ultimately based on freedom, and will prosper or fall in any society that accepts, rejects or

    willingly bastardizes its fundamental freedom.

    Now for the good stuff. Marx and Adam Smith are, in my mind, like

    Rosie O'Donnell and Wm Buckley. You know which compares to whom, or something like that. There's just no basis

    for Marx's theory of Labor Pricing, either intellectually or in modern experience.

    Interestingly, Marx is

    usually required social science reading in most academic venues, while A.Smith is mostly read in pure economics

    courses.

    Here's why. Labor is useless without a market, and markets are not created by laborers.
    Last edited by idesign; 01-30-2009 at 07:32 PM.


  10. #10
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by idesign View Post
    Thoughtful post Doc, and I agree on most points. My initial idea was mostly drawing a basic

    line in the sand between freedom to trade and controls restricting trade.

    I think you'll agree that all

    economics depend on exchange of goods, and the value any person places on those goods. Interfere with that basic

    exchange, and you interfere with natural law, or "state of nature".

    Anything which interferes with that natural

    "free" state is political economy, which your post accurately describes. Social constructs and psychologies etc are

    purely understandings and interpretations of what happens in a natural world. In any understanding of political

    economics, it amounts to how you interpret how and why men behave as they do, economically in this case. Different

    capitalisms are just differences in how men interpret the allowances you gain in a free trade environment. Some

    trade fairly, others not.

    In my thinking I'm intrigued by the very same variances in the capitalist idea as you.

    I do, however, stick to my thought that capitalism is ultimately based on freedom, and will prosper or fall in any

    society that accepts, rejects or willingly bastardizes its fundamental freedom.

    Now for the good stuff. Marx and

    Adam Smith are, in my mind, like Rosie O'Donnell and Wm Buckley. You know which compares to whom, or something

    like that. There's just no basis for Marx's theory of Labor Pricing, either intellectually or in modern

    experience.

    Interestingly, Marx is usually required social science reading in most academic venues, while A.Smith

    is mostly read in pure economics courses.

    Here's why. Labor is useless without a market, and markets are not

    created by laborers.
    Hi, idesign.

    Thanks for making me think about this stuff more. I'm at a bit of a

    disadvantage momentarily; as my serious thoughts on the field of economics are very much still forming. So I'll try

    to keep this post at a basic level consistent with where I am currently, and add more developed thoughts as

    necessary and possible.

    * If you had said that within orthodox capitalistic theory that economics was all about

    the exchange of goods, I'd have agreed. This is a specific theory driven definition of economics. If you are going

    to consider more than one strict version of one theory, however, this definition suffers. Econ definitely involves

    the exchange of goods, but not only.

    So there is no way I am going to define "economics" reductionistically; as

    the exchange of goods. That would be reducing humans and society to something less than they are, in order to make

    them fit an ideology.

    Specifically, we would be reducing a human being to the sum total of what he or she

    produces (and by implication, consumes) in terms of a specific commodity produced, and specific commodities

    consumed. This definition puts us at risk for embodying the same type of miserable dehumanization that Marx

    deplored, and subjects us to the brunt of Marx's best critiques. So it is unnecessary; and unwise, intellectually

    speaking.

    As regards everyday human beings, economics is more fundamentally, and holistically, about persons

    trying to find a somewhat sustainable role; within a particular society, community, and natural environment;

    in the context of a shared collective goal of survival; and the fullfillment of persons' talents, interests, and

    the community's needs; as well as the thriving of the natural environment within which the concerns of any

    economics are defined, and only within which that any person's survival needs might be fulfilled.

    I should

    expand that to add that a particular society or community also has a specific role to play in a larger environment,

    ultimately on the planetary level. But even here, on a colllective level, what a community offers the planet

    economically, and means to the planet, is much more than just a specific commodity it produces. This is not an

    ideology, but just an everyday reality.

    Or say, within a family, a father's real "economic" ("economics" as

    defined by everyday humanity rather than classical textbooks) role is about more than the salary he makes, just to

    flesh this more holistic mindset out a bit more. If you replace the human father with his salary from cutting a

    metal part for a widget or whatever, you will see that the value of the trade is not equal, to say the least. The

    failure within society to understand this, as fathers left their homes and communities in the early industrial age,

    for the assembly lines in the next town over; is what led to the devaluing of fatherly wisdom in our society, the

    disintegration of community cohesiveness, and the disintegration of fathers' roles in society and families. (such

    as fathers' traditional role as moral educators). How does one calculate the "cost" (again, in the most real and

    most holistic possible terms) to the planet, of fathers abandoning their historical roles within their communities

    and families? In the most real possible everyday terms, what would be the "economic" benefits of restoring that

    fatherly role within our culture? That difficult question is an example of the kinds of questions considered within

    a broader vision of economics.

    In my opinion, people will eventually be forced to consider economics more

    holistically as their lives are reduced in quality more and more. Things are not getting any better any time soon,

    with no change of direction. I know that for me, money or salary means less than nothing, (meaning I'd TRADE

    everything I've ever had or will ever have for what is more important) compared to everything else that is

    important in life, allowing for brute survival needs. But I think you can also be forced into thinking that way, and

    that here in the real world, many of us already are so forced.

    Within this broader, more holistic picture, a

    person is much more than the sum total of commodities he or she produces and consumes. (The current hegemony of the

    deeply disturbing reductionistic psychology and vision of humans is precisely one of the problems with capitalism as

    practiced, as noted in my last post.)

    So this allows us to incorporate real scientific findings about real

    humans, real societies, and real planets, for example; without sucking the life out of all of it. It keeps us from

    giving ourselves a lobotomy before the enquiry even begins (Garbage in, garbage out.).

    Economics is originally

    about a two way interaction between a person and that context, but also about the other myriad interactions among

    the elements of that context.

    * The "state of nature" idea in economics has always been based on contentious

    enlightenment philosophy, and not so much empirical data. Some religions also picked up the idea from Aquinas (who

    got it from Aristotle, complete with all the well known scientific shortcomings of Aristotelianism, through no fault

    of Aristotle or Aquinas.) and enlightenment philosophy too.

    Now the whole concept seems to have been kidnapped

    by political ideology and religion, to the detriment of scientific thinking.

    That is where, psychologically, it

    gets in trouble.

    There is no way that the individualism and biological picture of nature within "strict or

    purist capitalism" (leaving this vague for now) would be supported by the empirical data.

    The idea that the

    "state of nature" is essentially individualistic individuals competing with each other and exchanging goods is

    certainly not based in any remotely credible psychology, for example.

    It is the ideological "tail" wagging the

    "dog" of economics.

    Economics, like psychology, and other sciences, ultimately fails when not based solidly and

    empirically in the whole lives of whole people, living everyday in their whole bio-psycho-social-environmental

    context.

    * Regarding Marx, we often paint charicatures of economic thinkers for ideological reasons. Nowhere is

    this more true than in the case of Marx, at least in conservative rhetorical circles in England and the US. Pretty

    much everywhere else he is deeply respected, and infinitely moreso than Rosie and William F combined.

    Same goes

    for Adam Smith, of course. The wonderful interplay between intellects and ideas in the history of economics is what

    makes the field interesting, at least for me.

    By most all accounts, Marx is one of the seminal economic thinkers

    in history, and wrote the seminal historical critique of capitalism. I'm not going to let some taboo around him for

    being a "radical communist", (or being falsely identified with Stalinism) or whatever, keep me from appreciating his

    insights. I think we ignore his critique of capitalism at our peril, at the least.

    More specifically, within the

    field of philosophy, my consistent sense was definitely that Marx is currently perceived, widely, as brilliant in

    his critique; but as lacking in the concrete solutions department. So far, I agree with that entirely mainstream

    image of him within the field.

    His critique of capitalism seems mostly dead on, at least in general. He seems to

    have also predicted a lot of the events within the history of capitalism -- again, at least in

    general.

    Obviously, Marx is required reading in more settings because his work is broader in scope, across

    fields. Though Smith was a moral philosopher originally, most of his influence -- and it was beyond huge -- was in

    economics and politics.

    Regarding Marx's importance, You can even say that in a sense, and literally, the world

    was split in half, half under the influence of Smith, and half more under the influence of Marx. So objectively

    speaking, Marx was a great, world changing, history changing economist. You cannot get a degree in econ without some

    mastery of Marx.

    * What specifically is it about the value of labor and labor pricing ideas that you disagree so

    strongly with; apparently finding it, like Marx, entirely without merit or redeeming value? Marx himself very

    pointedly distinguished between the labor value and the exchange, market value of goods, even as he felt that labor

    value is extremely important. So I'm not entirely clear on your critique. As a caveat, here we have ultimately to

    be careful also to distinguish between economic value of labor as applied to a specific item, the real "economic"

    value of a real person and all of their work to a particular society, and the exchange value of a specific item a

    person produces. Again, this is just to say we have to be careful not to use a dehumanizing, empirically unnatural

    definition of economics.

    I'm going to delay writing too much on labor value issues, until we can make it more

    specific.

    Seems to me that the labor value concept in general has been extremely useful for understanding what

    happens in real life. Even Smith used the concept a lot, or something very close to it, from what I gather. Again,

    here I am speaking of the general concepts at this point, not, say, whether the numbers in some model square up with

    particular events in a particular setting, over a particular time frame.

    Labor value seems these days to be

    closely related to the minimum wage, as technology, the forces of large capital, specialization and the like have

    pushed labor value down to its theoretical floor. Conversely, I think part of Marx's idea was that workers deserved

    to share in the fruits of their labor more than at a minimal, sustainence level (which the minimum wage does not

    even approach!); indeed, even that an economy cannot function over time, if labor does not benefit from the fruits

    of its own labor.

    We have continued to produce at record levels in the world and historically, while real

    standards of living, and real wages have dropped steadily since the sixties. So there is little incentive for

    workers to produce, historically speaking, except for fear of death. Further, workers cannot afford to buy the goods

    that workers produce, as their minimum wages are used up entirely to survive, while resulting in even more debt

    (since a minimum wage is not a living wage) and zero savings (as a nation we now save less than zero dollars per

    capita per year, if I am not mistaken.). Individuals will never pay back the debt, or even the interest on it. But

    ultimately what happens to individuals, and to the least of us, happens to all of us, as our national debt reaches

    ten trillion.

    Meanwhile wealth has been concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer people, and the number of

    millionaires has grown logarithmically; as capitalism and monopolization have marched forward. Conversely there has

    so far been much incentive for the major capitalists to aquire more and more capital. But even this last vestige of

    prosperity within a capitalist economy fails eventually, according to Marx.

    Although the verdict of history is

    still out, I think you are seeing a Marxian failure of the economy now, as the major capitalists are finally failing

    themselves, with the desent of the middle class into poverty, and the desent of the impoverished into desperation.

    As people lose their homes and people are trapped in indentured servitude indefinitely, to pay off their debts and

    interest, financial CEOs have made record salaries and record current bonuses. But finally, even the richest and

    most powerful capitalists are experiencing failure, due to their unacknowledged dependence on the failing prosperity

    of the people; and we now scramble to bail out the financial industry. This is right out of Marx. The same should

    prove true in other crucial industries, such as energy (though we have yet to see what will happens long term to big

    oil) and health care (where record profits and CEO salaries are now showing some signs of vulnerability, as one in

    five goes without health care coverage).

    Marx predicted it all and more, quite accurately. That is not to say

    there isn't more to the world's failing economy. There is more to economics than Smith and Marx.

    * As regards

    freedom, That is a big discussion unto itself. I think when we resolve these other issues, the issue of freedom

    becomes very different. What do we mean by "freedom"? Is it absolute, unstructured individualistic freedom -- naked,

    momentary self interest? Should mutual, individualistic selfishness, similar to what Smith endorsed (and here I am

    likely to disagree with myself somewhat as I form a more complete picture of Smith.), really be institutionalized

    and legislated as the best of all possible solutions?

    Isn't the idea of institutionalizing selfishness

    everywhere as the whole basis for your society -- the stereotypical Smithian utopia -- just flat out wrong on its

    face? Isn't it just logical to assume there is a better solution? I mean, people just aren't naturally selfish at

    their core. They just are not, which is why we bother to characterize some people as more selfish. Of course, we

    could also dig up endless psychological studies showing as much.

    So if people aren't essentially selfish, why

    should their institutions and societies be? In other words, why should all their cooperative efforts be? Doesn't

    that potentially violate "natural law"? (in this modern case, the findings of science). Isn't that an artificial

    and ultimately inferior way of doing things?

    Is this Smithian selfishness -- and he did literally use that term

    -- really some sacred value we should all strive to be ideologically pure in our adherance to?

    Ironically, Marx

    saw capitalism as a necessary, albeit immature and selfish historical step. He just didn't see it as the be all and

    end all for a society.

    Are there more and less mature images of "freedom"? Is not our freedom whatever we as a

    species choose to do from this point onward?
    Last edited by DrSmellThis; 02-10-2009 at 07:47 PM. Reason: typo
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  11. #11
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,400
    Rep Power
    6383

    Default

    To say that one understands

    economics is like saying one understands why black holes aren't white, or where does the wind go after it shreds

    your umbrella, or why is there an Oprah. A little Keynes, a little Smith, then, throw in a Marxist, chop up a few

    supply-siders and stir in gallons of politicians to make a perfect hash out of it all. Remove politics from

    economics and all you have is a few charts and formulas that you can't remember, mostly because you were copping

    glances at the cleavage of that freshman beside you and wondering if you had enough money in your pocket to buy her

    a cherry float. Econmics 101. Unlimited desire meets limited resources. If there is anything that can create

    unlimited desire its a large breasted coed, and if there is anything which motivates that desire its means, to

    achieve. That's why we work.

    And it really is that simple (see, I do get it). We want things, and we take the

    necessary measures to get them. Now, at this point I can get philosophical and say that groping a freshman is

    immoral, and your pocket change achieves a higher value by, say, buying ME a cherry float. After all, I let your

    buddy crash on my couch last week and fed him pizza, and I think that as a provider of general welfare I deserve

    some of your resources. And if I don't get that cherry float, I'll see to it you don't get into that fraternity.

    Hmmmm... decisions decisions. Take the girl, or take the leveraged extortioner? (nothing is free, not even

    sleeping on empty pizza boxes). Now you can see why I don't have a lot of reverence for philosophy when its shoves

    its way into economics. It does little besides try to impose guilt trips on my natural desire to dispose of my

    resources as I please. And its always touching you for 25&#37;. And philosophy doesn't pay very well, which leads

    me too...

    Why do we work? Why do we flip burgers? Why do we put in 60 hrs/week to start up a business hoping to

    see a profit in the next year or two? Fot the benefit of others? I've yet to experience a Denny's cook wave to

    me from the kitchen and yell out "I hope you enjoy the eggs I made for you, and in your honor I'm donating my

    day's pay to the charity of your choice"! When was the last time you heard a philosophy professor say something

    like "no, really, tenure is not for me, give it to someone less deserving".

    I use the term philosopher loosely,

    and blend it with politics, which are unavoidable, and generally come up with ideology. Shoot me, but poetic

    license needs some room to operate. Sure, ideology is the bastard child of philosophy's ugly sister, but its what

    we have to work with.

    Now, backtracking to cleavage, self-interest drives almost all of our purely economic

    decisions. I won't call it selfishness (I think Smith did) because it has negative connotations. But there's a

    helluva lotta negative economic activity out there, so we can move back and forth between self-interest (not a bad

    thing on its own) and selfishness (greed, corruption, abuse of economic power). What Smith understood is that there

    is a beneficial by-product from economic self-interest, namely production of goods and services for profit. Profits

    for one, goods for another. I don't work for the benefit of all society, I work for enough money to get that buxom

    coed into my car next Friday night.

    Its the exact same principle that Marx MISunderstood. If you remove the

    direct and timely benefit of labor from the labororer, he has no incentive to produce anything, save for perhaps a

    black market. Under any Marxist (communist, totalitarian etc) economy, the black market thrives because desire

    meets supply directly, unencumbered by the inefficiencies of the latest Five Year Plan for the Perpetuation of the

    Ideological Construct. What Marx misunderstood was that labor is not noble, its necessary. Any man can produce

    something, by and large. What he produces, whether its ditches dug, houses built or businesses managed, is subject

    to value; how much is it worth to someone.

    What we canNOT do is assign arbitrary values to a given work.

    That's done by philosophers, politicians and ideologues. Bad on them.

    "From each according to their ability, to

    each according to their need." A pre-electronic age soundbite if ever I heard one. Breaking it down, the obvious

    flaw is that it begs a definition, and then a subjective ruling. "Need" Who's going to decide what I "need"?

    Indeed, why is "need" even the determining factor of my economic life? What if I have what I need and want to move

    on to wants? Who's going to run my life? Anyone who states that they will supply the "needs" of the people will

    also tell you they know what's best for you, and it usually ends up being what's best for them, the ruling elite.

    Historically, such a system creates more need than it can hope to provide.

    What Marx and his ilk have done is

    take the money AND the girl. Mankind is, by nature, internally motivated to work, create, build, produce, and they

    want to see something at the end of the day. "My hands (brain, personality, skills, ability) did this, and now I

    have my reward." When you take away the freedom to reap those rewards, you take away incentive and motivation.

    Rather than elevate labor to a higher purpose or plane, labor is reduced to "make-work" activities to be shunned for

    its monotonous "reward", to some vague and meaningless concept of "the people". Its been proven time and time

    again in real world experience.

    I'm sometimes struck how the sloganeering of collectivist systems resembles

    the chants of liberal politics in this country. An intellectually bankrupt ideology needs public appeal I suppose,

    to those who'll listen but not think.

    A sad legacy of the former Soviet system is that it ruined not only many

    cultures, but in addition the effects of those decades are seemingly impossible to overcome now that "freedom" has

    arrived. The psychological damage to whole societies has left countries unable to move from the stagnant mentality

    created by authoritarian control. Generations of suppressed motivation and desire has crushed the "collective"

    until they have no concept of self rule. The authoritarian control over the minutia of every life has left in its

    wake social zombies, among whom pure self-interest is reflexive, as they've been taught by not having their most

    basic needs met. Such a system causes societies to regress to lower and lower levels of human behavior. Of course

    these statements do not reflect on individuals, only the net result within that society/culture.

    Yes, economics

    are inseparable from politics, philosophy and ideology. I believe that to the extent that the opportunity to

    produce profitably is encumbered by any system of control or restriction, the less free any individual becomes. I

    also believe that philosophers, politicians and ideologues use economics as a way to further authoritarian goals.

    Marx's critique of capitalism was prescient, but his alternative stands reason on its head.

    I reserve the

    right to expand further on these thoughts. Its just too darned complex, as Doc noted.
    Last edited by idesign; 03-11-2009 at 09:34 PM. Reason: I'll edit until I die, I just can't think of everyting at once


  12. #12
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    Ah! But I do know where the

    wind goes and why black holes are black. I do not claim to understand more than the basics of economics though. The

    one thing I do know is that despite all it's shortcomings capitalism has survived and thrive for ten thousand

    years. To say it is unfair is not reasonable because there is no uniform or objective measure of fair to go by. That

    some win and others lose in a rather darwinian fashion is simply a fact of life and cannot be legislated away. Every

    attempt to do so has eventually failed, without exception. And the current effort in the US is going to fail as

    well. Left well enough alone, capitalism works and results in the fewest hurt in the long term.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  13. #13
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,400
    Rep Power
    6383

    Default

    Bel, you and Doc are each

    smarter and better educated than I am so you understand various things better, at least academically. I can only

    observe and report.

    I couldn't care less about black holes, but I would be interested in where the wind goes,

    and will it pay for a new umbrella? Or is it in the bailout plan?


  14. #14
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    Black holes are far more

    interesting than economics, frankly, and the wind is no more than an expression of rotational forces and pressure

    differentials. Regardless of that, you do a good job of reporting what you see more clearly than many better

    educated than any of us.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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