Support NeoGAF

[cooljeanius]

Capitalism rewards idleness over work (most people believe that to be wrong). Capitalism rewards idleness at the expense of work, i.e., it takes what people work for and permits people who did not work to appropriate it (most people believe that to be wrong). Capitalism divides society into two classes whose interests are mutually opposed, thereby creating antagonism within society (most people believe that to be undesirable).

What I am describing is not an opinion about capitalism. It is in the theory itself. No rational person believes that the exploitation of people who work by those who don't or that the creation of antagonistic classes in society are good things in and of themselves. A rational person may, however, believe them to be necessary evils, i.e., bad things to put up with for some other overall good. I would disagree with those people. But people who assert that capitalism is virtuous per se are either ignorant or sociopaths, usually the former.

That's Marx's theory of what capitalism is, which depends on the labor theory of value, which has largely been displaced by marginalism nowadays. I doubt a capitalist would actually describe capitalism that way.

 

[sagi446]

....no, regulated capitalism is pretty damn good. Unregulated capitalism leading to power consolidation is the problem.

How do you regulate it?

Hell, don't answer that, answer this instead:

Can you regulate capitalism now in America?

 

[WARCOCK]

How do you regulate it?

Hell, don't answer that, answer this instead:

Can you regulate capitalism now in America?

I'm not sure. But wouldn't you agree that perhaps a society closer to how germany is run is perhaps a more attainable goal(however unlikely) than applying the manifesto or ideas of Das Capital verbatim to the united states?

 

[RustyNails]

I don't think you can regulate capitalism though, at least not in the way everyone assumes. Capitalism is built on the concept of conning each other by as much as possible. Healthcare is a business. A bottle of WATER costs 2 bucks in Manhattan, NYU tuition is 50,000$ per year, and so on. I mean this is all okay with capitalism, dog eat dog mentality, etc. Hey if you don't like it just become a school superintendent and rake in the cash lol pull your bootstraps kid you can do it. Completely oblivious to the fact that it's grossly immoral.

Especially on the fact that it's not about how smart you are it's how savvy you are, how cute and charming you can be. And you need to be friends with marketers and con artists if you have a neat invention you want to share to the world (and if you don't give them a share of your profit your invention will never see the light of day or will be stolen).

Everything is connections and ass kissing. Homeless/poor people are scum, science and technology isn't getting the funding it needs because a bigger football stadium has to be built, selling your soul on TV will net you more money than becoming a physicist, and anyone who tries to protest this mentality gets labeled a dirty hippie. wut.

I always like reading your posts dude, and this is one of the better ones.

 

[MBison]

Capitalism rewards idleness over work. Wow. That is lulz. I think you mistook welfare for capitalism.

 

[Dartastic]

I just thought I'd come in and post about how much better this thread looks without overt trolling by Manos. It really does. Carry on with the good discussion.

 

[empty vessel]

That's Marx's theory of what capitalism is, which depends on the labor theory of value, which has largely been displaced by marginalism nowadays. I doubt a capitalist would actually describe capitalism that way.

Well, it's an empirical observation, so a capitalist that didn't describe capitalism that way wouldn't be describing capitalism but something else. I mean, one cannot deny that capitalism allows one to make money while sitting on the couch watching television. That's what investment is: earnings without labor (hence the term "unearned income"). You can buy a stock, go sit on the couch, and pretty soon start receiving dividend checks. And we also know that wealth cannot be created without socially useful labor. Which means that if somebody is earning wealth without labor, somebody who is laboring is being shortchanged of the value of their labor.

I'll give you an example.

Consider a man who builds a desk. It costs him $25 in materials and after he builds it he sells it for $100. The $75 he earned represents the value of his labor, and he keeps all of it. (Incidentally, this is socialism.) Now consider the same man who spends $25 in materials to build a desk, except that he finds he is unable to complete the desk because he lacks a certain expensive tool. His neighbor has the tool, and his neighbor agrees to lend him the tool in exchange for 20% of what he sells the desk for. The man agrees, and the neighbor gives him the tool, returns to his house, and watches television. The man finishes the desk and sells it for $100. He gives $20 of that to his neighbor and so his surplus is $55. That $55 does not represent the full value of his labor, which is still worth $75 as he did the same exact amount of work as in the previous hypothetical. The neighbor, however, earned $20, even though he performed no labor whatsoever. Rather, it was merely the neighbor's ownership status (of capital--productive wealth) that netted him money. The neighbor, therefore, received $20 in profit. And where did that profit come from? It came from the other man's labor (exactly the difference between the full value of the man's labor and his surplus). This is capitalism, hence the name--it allows one to accrue wealth from capital ownership instead of labor.

This is why it is ironic when ardent defenders of capitalism insist that a man should be entitled to the fruit of his labor. It is ironic because that particular principle actually describes socialism, not capitalism. Capitalism is the opposite: a system in which a man is entitled to the fruit of another man's labor because of his ownership of capital. All of this is not only empirically observable, it's right in the theory itself. (Again, hence the name.)

The reason capitalism has defenders, despite violating the (extremely) popular principle that every man should be entitled to the fruit of his labor, is because capitalism is deemed by some to produce aggregate social wealth more rapidly and efficiently. Although a cynic might say that capitalism doesn't really have any real defenders, only apologists, because everywhere capitalism is utilized it creates immense wealth imbalances and shuts most of the population out from its supposedly better rewards.

 

[kame-sennin]

Capitalism rewards idleness over work. Wow. That is lulz. I think you mistook welfare for capitalism.

The investor class does not work or produce goods, they only accumulate wealth.

Edit: beaten.

 

[MBison]

So it sounds like in your example of capitalism that it rewarded both the investor and the laborer since they both made money yet wouldn't have been able to do so without each other.

Imagine that.

 

[empty vessel]

So it sounds like in your example of capitalism that it rewarded both the investor and the laborer since they both made money yet wouldn't have been able to do so without each other.

Imagine that.

Well, yes, but that is only because productive property is allowed to be privately owned and rented out. In other words, it follows from how we socially define and enforce property. The only reason the man in the second hypothetical needs an "investor" is because that productive property is otherwise denied to him by society's rules. It is only this deprivation that creates the "need" for the investor. As a thought experiment, you can envision a society in which capital--tools of wealth creation--is not owned by private individuals but rather, say, kept in a "social shed" in which everybody is permitted access. (Obviously, there would need to be a mechanism to allocate these resources, but this is just a thought experiment for now.)

Are you familiar with the economic term of rent?

The point is that capitalism rewards idleness at the expense of labor, which most people would not consider a virtue. In other words, capitalism inherently is not virtuous. It is, at best, a necessary evil (if one is inclined to defend it).

 

[kame-sennin]

Osawatomie, Kansas
Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Pres. Obama travels to Osawatomie, Kansas to deliver remarks on the economy where he invoked Theodore Roosevelt's populism and challenged Republican belief in trickle-down economics.

That’s a theory that speaks to our individualism, Obama said, "but here’s the problem, it doesn’t work. It has never worked."

He highlighted the 99% protests and agreed with the premise of the demonstrators: the richest 1% are obtaining more wealth than the rest of the American population.

"This kind of inequality – a level we haven’t seen since the Great Depression – hurts us all. When middle-class families can no longer afford to buy the goods and services that businesses are selling, it drags down the entire economy, from top to bottom," he said.

The President promoted his economic priorities, including the extension and expansion of a payroll tax cut, which Congress has rejected.

Speaking to an enthusiastic audience, Obama said a strong economy starts with education, which he declared a "national mission."

The speech was billed as a "make-or-break moment for the middle class and all those working to join it," according to the White House. "We shall go up or down together," he said.

Video at the link:

http://www.c-span.org/Events/President-Obama-Discusses-Economy-in-Kansas/10737426036-1/

People will still claim that OWS hasn't changed the national debate.

 

[Myansie]

Regarding EmptyVessels desk example above the tool was originally built and developed by the investor. His labour was invested earlier. It`s just that one party needs to finish his job before the other can start his. The tool`s purpose is to allow the desk builder to build more efficiently. If he can build desks, thanks to this tool, twice as fast as before he`s now made $55 multiplied by 2 rather than $75 in the example above. Otherwise what`s the point of the tool? In this regard they can fairly work together and share resources.

The problem in modern capitalism is we have a lot of pointless tools. Derivatives come to mind. They serve no purpose other than to complicate the system and allow those in the know to skim off the top. They`re effectively a capitalist tool that feeds on itself creating another ponzi scheme. These ponzi schemes we`re seeing over and over are the real risk in capitalism. It`s the governments job to legislate them out of existence. I also argue it is their job to refine and simplify the legislation, but certainly not deregulate to the point we see today.

Capitalism isn`t the problem, it's a collapse in the system that's supposed to protect and nurture it that is. The judicial and legislative powers have been corrupted. No system will work under those conditions.


On a side note this thread has improved dramatically thanks to a little banning. Thanks to the mod who did that.

 

[nib95]

People who say the Occupy movement hasn't changed or affected anything are living in a giant bubble. The presidents speech last night was just one other thing that highlighted just how much of an impact it has had on discussion and process. Hopefully it's not all talk and he will actually do some of the things he said. Though I doubt congress will make it easy for him. You guys want change you need to vote to change the current make up there too. Fact that the House of representatives is mainly Republican, and Senate not far off certainly doesn't help.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Regarding EmptyVessels desk example above the tool was originally built and developed by the investor. His labour was invested earlier.

I agree with what both you and Empty vessel are saying, but would like to add that having the tool does not always mean that the person invested labour into it. It also does not mean that the amount of labour invested and the size of the tool have a correlation. I think what empty is mostly pointing at (correct me if I'm wrong of course) are things like inherited money/tools and lucky investments (obviously you can debate how much is luck and how much is smart investing) that yield profits vastly disproportionate to the invested money/labour. I'm not trying to say that someone who made a lot of money should be punished for it. The fact is though that wealth and labour are disconnected completely once you reach a certain amount of money/tools. And after that point it becomes almost impossible not to acquire more money/tools exponentially.

You could say that it's fair and legal, and I guess it is, but the fact remains that the people that already have these tools, are only acquiring more and more and more and more of them. Then comes the question: how much do we want to value these tools and how much do we want to value labour? I think that investments (the tools) have been disproportionately valued compared to labour. Both are dependant on each other, you are correct, without a tool, the labour means nothing, without the labour though, the tool means nothing also. And I think that might be the main point, have the tools been overvalued in our capitalist society? I think they have.

There was a documentary on Dutch TV the other day. Some big shot investor was saying how you shouldn't let your children get an MBA because the financial climate that has existed up until now, a climate in which we can make money by simply shifting money around and manipulating it is not going to remain present. I joked to my mother that he was just saying that so he would have less competition and he probably has children with MBA's too, but I think people might very well be waking up and realizing that labour, a skill, is worth much more than these tools and investments and that we shouldn't accept the disproportionate amounts of money that people are making by doing simply that, moving money around.

 

[kame-sennin]

People who say the Occupy movement hasn't changed or affected anything are living in a giant bubble. The presidents speech last night was just one other thing that highlighted just how much of an impact it has had on discussion and process. Hopefully it's not all talk and he will actually do some of the things he said. Though I doubt congress will make it easy for him. You guys want change you need to vote to change the current make up there too. Fact that the House of representatives is mainly Republican, and Senate not far off certainly doesn't help.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but the problem is not just the republican party. In the 2008 election, both John McCain and Barack Obama were heavily funded by Goldman Sachs. In fact, Barack Obama received more money from Goldman than McCain did. So when the issue of prosecuting financial fraud was raised, it was not surprising that the Obama administration did nothing. Republican obstructionism is certainly a problem, but it pales in comparison to the systematic corruption - flat out bribery - that afflicts both parties and impedes any effort for reform. I have no confidence whatsoever that Obama will enact any meaningful changes in this term or the next, if he is reelected.

 

[nib95]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but the problem is not just the republican party. In the 2008 election, both John McCain and Barack Obama were heavily funded by Goldman Sachs. In fact, Barack Obama received more money from Goldman than McCain did. So when the issue of prosecuting financial fraud was raised, it was not surprising that the Obama administration did nothing. Republican obstructionism is certainly a problem, but it pales in comparison to the systematic corruption - flat out bribery - that afflicts both parties and impedes any effort for reform. I have no confidence whatsoever that Obama will enact any meaningful changes in this term or the next, if he is reelected.

Wow. I actually had no idea. Not with respect t Goldman Sachs anyway. Makes sense now. Aren't ex members of G Sach's in higher positions of politics now? Occupy roll on.

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

I'm not sure. But wouldn't you agree that perhaps a society closer to how germany is run is perhaps a more attainable goal(however unlikely) than applying the manifesto or ideas of Das Capital verbatim to the united states?

I think Germany is overall the model to emulate as far as Capitalism goes, which to American's eyes is socialism. Germans would LOL you out the country if they ever heard that though

Northern Europe's socialism is nice, but it's not what I want personally, I like capitalism, hence me liking Germany. What I don't like is cronyism and corporatism, hence me not liking U.S.A. economy

 

[The Technomancer]

I think Germany is overall the model to emulate as far as Capitalism goes, which to American's eyes is socialism. Germans would LOL you out the country if they ever heard that though

Northern Europe's socialism is nice, but it's not what I want personally, I like capitalism, hence me liking Germany. What I don't like is cronyism and corporatism, hence me not liking U.S.A. economy

Yeah, Germany's pretty cool. And look who's weathering the Euro crisis the best.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Consider a man who builds a desk. It costs him $25 in materials and after he builds it he sells it for $100. The $75 he earned represents the value of his labor, and he keeps all of it. (Incidentally, this is socialism.) Now consider the same man who spends $25 in materials to build a desk, except that he finds he is unable to complete the desk because he lacks a certain expensive tool. His neighbor has the tool, and his neighbor agrees to lend him the tool in exchange for 20% of what he sells the desk for. The man agrees, and the neighbor gives him the tool, returns to his house, and watches television. The man finishes the desk and sells it for $100. He gives $20 of that to his neighbor and so his surplus is $55. That $55 does not represent the full value of his labor, which is still worth $75 as he did the same exact amount of work as in the previous hypothetical. The neighbor, however, earned $20, even though he performed no labor whatsoever. Rather, it was merely the neighbor's ownership status (of capital--productive wealth) that netted him money. The neighbor, therefore, received $20 in profit. And where did that profit come from? It came from the other man's labor (exactly the difference between the full value of the man's labor and his surplus). This is capitalism, hence the name--it allows one to accrue wealth from capital ownership instead of labor.

This is why it is ironic when ardent defenders of capitalism insist that a man should be entitled to the fruit of his labor. It is ironic because that particular principle actually describes socialism, not capitalism. Capitalism is the opposite: a system in which a man is entitled to the fruit of another man's labor because of his ownership of capital. All of this is not only empirically observable, it's right in the theory itself. (Again, hence the name.)

FUCKING THIS

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

Yeah, Germany's pretty cool. And look who's weathering the Euro crisis the best.

It's more nuanced than that as you know, Germany's always been a powerhouse, but the structure of its social political structures seem just overall more better for human consumption than the fuck you fuck you fuck you U.S. cronyism we have

 

[Azih]

It's more nuanced than that as you know, Germany's always been a powerhouse, but the structure of its social political structures seem just overall more better for human consumption than the fuck you fuck you fuck you U.S. cronyism we have

Until the 80s America was very much like Germany from what I can tell. Strong industrial base creating a large segment of middle class blue collar workers, Progressive politics etc.

 

[jorma]

I think Germany is overall the model to emulate as far as Capitalism goes, which to American's eyes is socialism. Germans would LOL you out the country if they ever heard that though

Northern Europe's socialism is nice, but it's not what I want personally, I like capitalism, hence me liking Germany. What I don't like is cronyism and corporatism, hence me not liking U.S.A. economy

So what is the difference between Germany and northern europe then? Afaik it's really similar. The nordic region was always capitalist, meaning that nearly all (approaching 100%) of the means of production is privately owned. We are big on redistribution of wealth, but so is germany. The nordic region is definately not socialist, and it never really was.

I would not say that the difference is so big that you can call it two different economic models. Germany has quite an extensive wellfare state as well.

 

[Pai Pai Master]

Hasn't Obama mentioned the uneven distribution of wealth in his speeches before? Certainly not focused on it, but I feel like I do remember him bringing it up in a smaller way as an issue once or twice before.

Not to discredit OWS for bringing the discussion out further, of course. Just surprised me that a lot of people seemed to jump on Obama after the speech.

 

[kame-sennin]

A Tennessee couple helplessly watched their home burn to the ground, along with all of their possessions, because they did not pay a $75 annual fee to the local fire department.

Vicky Bell told the NBC affiliate WPSD-TV that she called 911 when her mobile home in Obion County caught fire. Firefighters arrived on the scene but as the fire raged, they simply stood by and did nothing. "In an emergency, the first thing you think of, 'Call 9-1-1," homeowner Bell said. However, Bell and her husband were forced to walk into the burning home in an attempt to retrieve their own belongings. "You could look out my mom's trailer and see the trucks sitting at a distance," Bell said. "We just wished we could've gotten more out."

South Fulton Mayor David Crocker defended the fire department, saying that if firefighters responded to non-subscribers, no one would have an incentive to pay the fee. Residents in the city of South Fulton receive the service automatically, but it is not extended to those living in the greater county-wide area.

"There's no way to go to every fire and keep up the manpower, the equipment, and just the funding for the fire department," Crocker said.

The South Fulton policy produced precisely the same nightmare scenario last year, when homeowner Gene Cranick--who had likewise failed to pay the $75 annual fee for rural Obion County residents--saw his house engulfed by flames as South Fulton firefighter watched close by. That incident sparked a debate among conservative pundits over the limits of fee-for-service approaches to government.

For his part, Mayor Crocker stressed that the city's firefighters will help people in danger, even those who haven't paid the fee. "After the last situation, I would hope that everybody would be well aware of the rural fire fees, this time," Crocker said.

Video and pictures:

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/5QgPv...burns-while-firefighters-watch-191241763.html

 

[makingmusic476]

Video and pictures:

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/5QgPv...burns-while-firefighters-watch-191241763.html

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=454687

Also, I'm not really seeing the relation to OWS.

To avoid situations like this, the fee should've been incorporated into local taxes.

 

[WARCOCK]

Yeah, Germany's pretty cool. And look who's weathering the Euro crisis the best.

In case this is somewhat sarcastic, from what i gather the european debt crisis has more to do with awful lending practices throughout the union than the actual sustainability of a functioning(not completely corrupt) welfare state. German social democracy happens to be a larger exporter than the united states of america, if i am not mistaken. Not bad for a lot of people complaining about the quagmires caused by wealth mainly derived through financial tools.

 

[bill gonorrhea]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=454687

Also, I'm not really seeing the relation to OWS.

To avoid situations like this, the fee should've been incorporated into local taxes.

Don't you see? The evil Fire Department Corporation set the house on fire, then refused to put it out. #OccupyFireStations

 

[Wazzim]

So what is the difference between Germany and northern europe then? Afaik it's really similar. The nordic region was always capitalist, meaning that nearly all (approaching 100%) of the means of production is privately owned. We are big on redistribution of wealth, but so is germany. The nordic region is definately not socialist, and it never really was.

I would not say that the difference is so big that you can call it two different economic models. Germany has quite an extensive wellfare state as well.

Sorry but all of western Europe is socialist without a doubt, the three Scandinavian countries being the most socialist if my social science book of a couple of years ago was not deceiving me (although it only described your unemployment benefit system).
If you look how much we tax, regulate and what we debate about you can see that there is an undeniable socialist (and Christian!) root in our European society.

 

[empty vessel]

Sorry but all of western Europe is socialist without a doubt, the three Scandinavian countries being the most socialist if my social science book of a couple of years ago was not deceiving me (although it only described your unemployment benefit system).
If you look how much we tax, regulate and what we debate about you can see that there is an undeniable socialist (and Christian!) root in our European society.

I think jorma is right that they are capitalist, if you use traditional understandings of those terms. Capitalism is a system in which productive property (capital) can be privately owned for profit (rented out to people who use it to produce wealth). This exists in all western Europe. The use of the State to maintain baseline welfare and to redistribute wealth isn't technically socialism. It's just a more interventionist (and more humane) version of capitalism.

Although many people do describe welfare-state capitalism as socialism.

 

[Wazzim]

I think jorma is right that they are capitalist, if you use traditional understandings of those terms. Capitalism is a system in which productive property (capital) can be privately owned for profit (rented out to people who use it to produce wealth). This exists in all western Europe. The use of the State to maintain baseline welfare and to redistribute wealth isn't technically socialism. It's just a more interventionist (and more humane) version of capitalism.

Although many people do describe welfare-state capitalism as socialism.

Yup, I think you're right on that one.

We learn here (the Netherlands) in school that socialism was basically the Menshevik's take on the ideal of Marx. Forming the idea that our mix of Capitalism/Democracy and Communism resulted in our socialist/welfare system that we have now.
Maybe it's just because when I think about Socialism I think of what we have now in Europe.
Communism makes me think of the DDR and 'real' Capitalism of the USA before Roosevelt's 'Big Government'.
Maybe I have been told the wrong things all my life (lol) but that's pretty much the picture I have in my head when I think about those 3 things.

 

[empty vessel]

My name is Patrick Meighan, and I’m a husband, a father, a writer on the Fox animated sitcom “Family Guy”, and a member of the Unitarian Universalist Community Church of Santa Monica.

I was arrested at about 1 a.m. Wednesday morning with 291 other people at Occupy LA. ... I was in a group of about 50 peaceful protesters who sat Indian-style, arms interlocked, around a tent (the symbolic image of the Occupy movement). ...

As we sat there, encircled, a separate team of LAPD officers used knives to slice open every personal tent in the park. They forcibly removed anyone sleeping inside, and then yanked out and destroyed any personal property inside those tents, scattering the contents across the park. They then did the same with the communal property of the Occupy LA movement. For example, I watched as the LAPD destroyed a pop-up canopy tent that, until that moment, had been serving as Occupy LA’s First Aid and Wellness tent, in which volunteer health professionals gave free medical care to absolutely anyone who requested it. As it happens, my family had personally contributed that exact canopy tent to Occupy LA, at a cost of several hundred of my family’s dollars. As I watched, the LAPD sliced that canopy tent to shreds, broke the telescoping poles into pieces and scattered the detritus across the park. Note that these were the objects described in subsequent mainstream press reports as “30 tons of garbage” that was “abandoned” by Occupy LA: personal property forcibly stolen from us, destroyed in front of our eyes and then left for maintenance workers to dispose of while we were sent to prison.

When the LAPD finally began arresting those of us interlocked around the symbolic tent, we were all ordered by the LAPD to unlink from each other (in order to facilitate the arrests). Each seated, nonviolent protester beside me who refused to cooperate by unlinking his arms had the following done to him: an LAPD officer would forcibly extend the protester’s legs, grab his left foot, twist it all the way around and then stomp his boot on the insole, pinning the protester’s left foot to the pavement, twisted backwards. Then the LAPD officer would grab the protester’s right foot and twist it all the way the other direction until the non-violent protester, in incredible agony, would shriek in pain and unlink from his neighbor.

It was horrible to watch, and apparently designed to terrorize the rest of us. At least I was sufficiently terrorized. I unlinked my arms voluntarily and informed the LAPD officers that I would go peacefully and cooperatively. I stood as instructed, and then I had my arms wrenched behind my back, and an officer hyperextended my wrists into my inner arms. It was super violent, it hurt really really bad, and he was doing it on purpose. When I involuntarily recoiled from the pain, the LAPD officer threw me face-first to the pavement. He had my hands behind my back, so I landed right on my face. The officer dropped with his knee on my back and ground my face into the pavement. ...​

More: http://www.mitchelcohen.com/?p=1775

And, yes, I know some of you are thinking that this person deserved this and worse for being a "Family Guy" writer, but let's have some compassion despite that and try to think about the First Amendment here.

 

[kame-sennin]

^Fucking horrendous. The whole thing is worth a read.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=454687

Also, I'm not really seeing the relation to OWS.

To avoid situations like this, the fee should've been incorporated into local taxes.

You don't see a connection between limited access to public services and OWS?

 

[Bloodbeard]

Hey, can someone help me find an image? It's the one with a group of people with a shoe in their hands standing before the United Corporations of America flag. I can't seem to locate it and I want to put it in a video I'm making.

 

[DarkKyo]

So Occupy Boston is about to get raided by police..... It's all over the local news.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Occupy Amsterdam is getting cleaned up too. They want much less tents and only 4 people can stay overnight. I'm assuming to watch belongings etc. Police arrested 14 people, but all have been set free after 6 hours.

 

[Tom_Cody]

I read the whole Alan Moore interview article that was posted on the last page and I found one part very intriguing:

Economics is always strange. You’re not talking about anything that’s actually real. Researching a chapter for Jerusalem, I read a couple of books on economics to see if I could get my head around the facts of the situation. I was astonished when I found out the value of derivative bonds, in 2008. These are bonds that have a value in themselves that were once connected to a real thing, there might have been a bond made for the sale of a herd of sheep, but that can be sold on and they gain in value. The notional value of the world’s derivative bonds was in the region of sixty trillion. Exactly ten times the economic output of the entire planet, which is around six trillion. That means that the gap between what economists and what the world’s economic forces and the banks thought they had to play with and what actually existed was fifty-four trillion. That would seem to me the depth of the hole we are in.

So something has to be done about that. I would suggest beheading the bankers, but while it would be very satisfying and would cheer us up, it probably wouldn’t do anything practical to alter the situation. Behead the currency. Change the currency, why not? It would disempower all the people who had bought into that currency but it would pretty much empower the rest of us, the other ninety-nine percent.

Is this point as powerful as it sounds like at face value? If so, can someone say more about this topic or link me resource with more information?

Here's the article btw:
http://www.honestpublishing.com/new...he-occupy-movement-frank-miller-and-politics/

 

[Bloodbeard]

I'm looking for this image but without the text. Can I can't seem to find one though...anyone?

 

[sangreal]

I'm looking for this image but without the text. Can I can't seem to find one though...anyone?

I doubt it exists, since the text goes along with the Egyptian protesters that are photoshopped in. Likely they were added at the same time.

 

[captmorgan]

I'll give you an example.

Consider a man who builds a desk. It costs him $25 in materials and after he builds it he sells it for $100. The $75 he earned represents the value of his labor, and he keeps all of it. (Incidentally, this is socialism.) Now consider the same man who spends $25 in materials to build a desk, except that he finds he is unable to complete the desk because he lacks a certain expensive tool. His neighbor has the tool, and his neighbor agrees to lend him the tool in exchange for 20% of what he sells the desk for. The man agrees, and the neighbor gives him the tool, returns to his house, and watches television. The man finishes the desk and sells it for $100. He gives $20 of that to his neighbor and so his surplus is $55. That $55 does not represent the full value of his labor, which is still worth $75 as he did the same exact amount of work as in the previous hypothetical. The neighbor, however, earned $20, even though he performed no labor whatsoever. Rather, it was merely the neighbor's ownership status (of capital--productive wealth) that netted him money. The neighbor, therefore, received $20 in profit. And where did that profit come from? It came from the other man's labor (exactly the difference between the full value of the man's labor and his surplus). This is capitalism, hence the name--it allows one to accrue wealth from capital ownership instead of labor.

This is why it is ironic when ardent defenders of capitalism insist that a man should be entitled to the fruit of his labor. It is ironic because that particular principle actually describes socialism, not capitalism. Capitalism is the opposite: a system in which a man is entitled to the fruit of another man's labor because of his ownership of capital. All of this is not only empirically observable, it's right in the theory itself. (Again, hence the name.)

The reason capitalism has defenders, despite violating the (extremely) popular principle that every man should be entitled to the fruit of his labor, is because capitalism is deemed by some to produce aggregate social wealth more rapidly and efficiently. Although a cynic might say that capitalism doesn't really have any real defenders, only apologists, because everywhere capitalism is utilized it creates immense wealth imbalances and shuts most of the population out from its supposedly better rewards.

I`m confused by your example and have a few questions for clarification.

Why isn`t the rental of the tool included with the material cost? Why did the desk maker not increase his price to reflect his cost?
What if the cost of the raw wood goes up to 35$ and he can still only get 100$ for the desk did his labour value drop to 65$?
If he would be unable to sell the desk at the new cost was his labour really worth 75 dollars then?
what if the material cost drops to 15 dollars but people still want to give him a hundred dollars for his desk did his labour value increase to 85$
Lets say nobody wants/can afford 100$ for his desk, but several groups of writters offer him 5 dollars a week to rent desks from him does he become evil to do so?

 

[Blergmeister]

I`m confused by your example and have a few questions for clarification.

Why isn`t the rental of the tool included with the material cost? Why did the desk maker not increase his price to reflect his cost?
What if the cost of the raw wood goes up to 35$ and he can still only get 100$ for the desk did his labour value drop to 65$?
If he would be unable to sell the desk at the new cost was his labour really worth 75 dollars then?
what if the material cost drops to 15 dollars but people still want to give him a hundred dollars for his desk did his labour value increase to 85$
Lets say nobody wants/can afford 100$ for his desk, but several groups of writters offer him 5 dollars a week to rent desks from him does he become evil to do so?

Other people can respond to most of this better than I can so I'm just going to focus on the part that stood out to me.
Where does evil come in here at all? The discussion was providing a bare bones example of capitalism and socialism. Do you think the capitalist who rent things out are evil? Or did you mean to be hyperbolic and imply that the writer instrinsicly think the capitalists are evil just because? Either implication seems to show that you are trying to get an emotional response out of this, and your questions seem to be pushing the example further than it was created to demonstrate.

 

[sangreal]

Well, it's an empirical observation, so a capitalist that didn't describe capitalism that way wouldn't be describing capitalism but something else. I mean, one cannot deny that capitalism allows one to make money while sitting on the couch watching television. That's what investment is: earnings without labor (hence the term "unearned income"). You can buy a stock, go sit on the couch, and pretty soon start receiving dividend checks. And we also know that wealth cannot be created without socially useful labor. Which means that if somebody is earning wealth without labor, somebody who is laboring is being shortchanged of the value of their labor.

I'll give you an example.

Consider a man who builds a desk. It costs him $25 in materials and after he builds it he sells it for $100. The $75 he earned represents the value of his labor, and he keeps all of it. (Incidentally, this is socialism.) Now consider the same man who spends $25 in materials to build a desk, except that he finds he is unable to complete the desk because he lacks a certain expensive tool. His neighbor has the tool, and his neighbor agrees to lend him the tool in exchange for 20% of what he sells the desk for. The man agrees, and the neighbor gives him the tool, returns to his house, and watches television. The man finishes the desk and sells it for $100. He gives $20 of that to his neighbor and so his surplus is $55. That $55 does not represent the full value of his labor, which is still worth $75 as he did the same exact amount of work as in the previous hypothetical. The neighbor, however, earned $20, even though he performed no labor whatsoever. Rather, it was merely the neighbor's ownership status (of capital--productive wealth) that netted him money. The neighbor, therefore, received $20 in profit. And where did that profit come from? It came from the other man's labor (exactly the difference between the full value of the man's labor and his surplus). This is capitalism, hence the name--it allows one to accrue wealth from capital ownership instead of labor.

This is why it is ironic when ardent defenders of capitalism insist that a man should be entitled to the fruit of his labor. It is ironic because that particular principle actually describes socialism, not capitalism. Capitalism is the opposite: a system in which a man is entitled to the fruit of another man's labor because of his ownership of capital. All of this is not only empirically observable, it's right in the theory itself. (Again, hence the name.)

The reason capitalism has defenders, despite violating the (extremely) popular principle that every man should be entitled to the fruit of his labor, is because capitalism is deemed by some to produce aggregate social wealth more rapidly and efficiently. Although a cynic might say that capitalism doesn't really have any real defenders, only apologists, because everywhere capitalism is utilized it creates immense wealth imbalances and shuts most of the population out from its supposedly better rewards.

This example doesn't explain how the neighbor came to be in possession of the required tool. Presumably, it is from the fruits of his labor (or that of whoever gave it to him).

 

[kame-sennin]

I read the whole Alan Moore interview article that was posted on the last page and I found one part very intriguing:Is this point as powerful as it sounds like at face value? If so, can someone say more about this topic or link me resource with more information?

Here's the article btw:
http://www.honestpublishing.com/new...he-occupy-movement-frank-miller-and-politics/

I can't speak to Moore's numbers, but the popular Matt Taibbi article on Goldman Sachs talks about oil speculation inflating prices even as the actual demand for oil went down. It starts midway down this page, "Bubble 4: $4 a gallon":

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405?page=5

This example doesn't explain how the neighbor came to be in possession of the required tool. Presumably, it is from the fruits of his labor (or that of whoever gave it to him).

But if he inherited it, he's done no labor whatsoever.

 

[Bealost]

point of information, Occupy Boston raided this morning, no violence, no injuries. Approximately 46 arrests.

 

[KHarvey16]

point of information, Occupy Boston raided this morning, no violence, no injuries. Approximately 46 arrests.

Hours after Boston police shut down the Occupy Boston protest in Dewey Square, dismantling tents and arresting dozens of demonstrators, Mayor Thomas M. Menino said he thought the operation had turned out “real well.” At the same time, he said he felt the movement included “a lot of good people” with “real concerns.”

“From Day One, I was sympathetic to the movement because they had issues working people cared about,” he said in an interview with The Boston Globe. “The rich get richer. ... The other folks lose ground.”

“America has to get a hold of itself and change the way we operate,” said Menino, who was in constant contact with police and his staff during the operation early this morning.

Menino said he hoped that protesters would coalesce as an organization, choose leaders, and focus on a central issue, saying, Occupy “could be one of the most powerful organizations in the country.”

He said that the protesters who had camped out in Dewey Square since late September had the “wrong leadership.”

“The leadership changed every hour and twice on Sunday,” he said.

Menino said he had continuous evaluations of the camp done by the police, as well as city health and homeless shelter officials. He said he was determined not just to rely on police action, knowing that a number of homeless people had come to join the camp.

“I think we did better than most [cities]-- because we took into account the social factor,” he said.

The mayor indicated that social service agencies and the police had good lines of communication into protesters, and they had some help from the Service Employees International Union in that regard.

“I have to give my police department credit for having relationships. People trust them,” he said. “It does work to develop relationships.”

Story.

Robin Jacks, 31, who had been in the encampment since its earliest days, wanted to be arrested even as she tweeted about the unfolding police raid. Officers declined. “They made me leave,” said Jacks, disappointed. “I don’t want to leave. They said just tweet it.”

A moment of solidarity had passed, and Jacks felt dejected as her friends were led away. “I feel kind of guilty not being arrested with them.”

Story.


More at Boston.com.

 

[Milchjon]

Holy shit at the state of American newspaper reporting. Even if it's just a column...

Hasta la vista freeloaders!

Good riddance. Better late than never. How could we miss them when they wouldn’t go away? I’d have preferred a final Armaggedon-like confrontation featuring a 21st century reincarnation of the Tactical Patrol Force swinging billy clubs and letting loose the German shepherds on the filthy, drug-addled, obscenity-spewing trust-funders.

But you can’t always get what you want.

The good news is, the hippies are back in their moms’ basements, nestled all snug in their beds, while visions of beer-bongs dance in their heads. Is Starbucks hiring?

 

[Slayven]

Holy shit at the state of American newspaper reporting. Even if it's just a column...

Hasta la vista freeloaders!

It's in the Op/Ed section. I seen worse.

 

[J.ceaz]

^What's the persons name? Don't wanna click the article.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

^What's the persons name? Don't wanna click the article.

Spoiler

Manos.

 

[kame-sennin]

Occupy Oakland shut down the ports yesterday. Here's a letter from some of the workers:

We are the front-line workers who haul container rigs full of imported and exported goods to and from the docks and warehouses every day.

We have been elected by committees of our co-workers at the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle, Tacoma, New York and New Jersey to tell our collective story. We have accepted the honor to speak up for our brothers and sisters about our working conditions despite the risk of retaliation we face. One of us is a mother, the rest of us fathers. Between the five of us we have 11children and one more baby on the way. We have a combined 46 years of experience driving cargo from our shores for America’s stores.

We are inspired that a non-violent democratic movement that insists on basic economic fairness is capturing the hearts and minds of so many working people. Thank you “99 Percenters” for hearing our call for justice. We are humbled and overwhelmed by recent attention. Normally we are invisible.

Today’s demonstrations will impact us. While we cannot officially speak for every worker who shares our occupation, we can use this opportunity to reveal what it’s like to walk a day in our shoes for the 110,000 of us in America whose job it is to be a port truck driver. It may be tempting for media to ask questions about whether we support a shutdown, but there are no easy answers. Instead, we ask you, are you willing to listen and learn why a one-word response is impossible?

We love being behind the wheel. We are proud of the work we do to keep America’s economy moving. But we feel humiliated when we receive paychecks that suggest we work part time at a fast-food counter. Especially when we work an average of 60 or more hours a week, away from our families.

There is so much at stake in our industry. It is one of the nation’s most dangerous occupations. We don’t think truck driving should be a dead-end road in America. It should be a good job with a middle-class paycheck like it used to be decades ago.

We desperately want to drive clean and safe vehicles. Rigs that do not fill our lungs with deadly toxins, or dirty the air in the communities we haul in.

Poverty and pollution are like a plague at the ports. Our economic conditions are what led to the environmental crisis.

You, the public, have paid a severe price along with us.

Why? Just like Wall Street doesn’t have to abide by rules, our industry isn’t bound to regulation. So the market is run by con artists. The companies we work for call us independent contractors, as if we were our own bosses, but they boss us around. We receive Third World wages and drive sweatshops on wheels. We cannot negotiate our rates. (Usually we are not allowed to even see them.) We are paid by the load, not by the hour. So when we sit in those long lines at the terminals, or if we are stuck in traffic, we become volunteers who basically donate our time to the trucking and shipping companies. That’s the nice way to put it. We have all heard the words “modern-day slaves” at the lunch stops.

There are no restrooms for drivers. We keep empty bottles in our cabs. Plastic bags too. We feel like dogs. An Oakland driver was recently banned from the terminal because he was spied relieving himself behind a container. Neither the port, nor the terminal operators or anyone in the industry thinks it is their responsibility to provide humane and hygienic facilities for us. It is absolutely horrible for drivers who are women, who risk infection when they try to hold it until they can find a place to go.

The companies demand we cut corners to compete. It makes our roads less safe. When we try to blow the whistle about skipped inspections, faulty equipment, or falsified logs, then we are “starved out.” That means we are either fired outright, or more likely, we never get dispatched to haul a load again.

It may be difficult to comprehend the complex issues and nature of our employment. For us too. When businesses disguise workers like us as contractors, the Department of Labor calls it misclassification. We call it illegal. Those who profit from global trade and goods movement are getting away with it because everyone is doing it. One journalist took the time to talk to us this week and she explains it very well to outsiders. We hope you will read the enclosed article “How Goldman Sachs and Other Companies Exploit Port Truck Drivers.”

But the short answer to the question: Why are companies like SSA Marine, the Seattle-based global terminal operator that runs one of the West Coast’s major trucking carriers, Shippers’ Transport Express, doing this? Why would mega-rich Maersk, a huge Danish shipping and trucking conglomerate that wants to drill for more oil with Exxon Mobil in the Gulf Coast conduct business this way too?

To cheat on taxes, drive down business costs, and deny us the right to belong to a union, that’s why.

The typical arrangement works like this: Everything comes out of our pockets or is deducted from our paychecks. The truck or lease, fuel, insurance, registration, you name it. Our employers do not have to pay the costs of meeting emissions-compliant regulations; that is our financial burden to bear. Clean trucks cost about four to five times more than what we take home in a year. A few of us haul our company’s trucks for a tiny fraction of what the shippers pay per load instead of an hourly wage. They still call us independent owner-operators and give us a 1099 rather than a W-2.

We have never recovered from losing our basic rights as employees in America. Every year it literally goes from bad to worse to the unimaginable. We were ground zero for the government’s first major experiment into letting big business call the shots. Since it worked so well for the CEOs in transportation, why not the mortgage and banking industry too?

Even the few of us who are hired as legitimate employees are routinely denied our legal rights under this system. Just ask our co-workers who haul clothing brands like Guess?, Under Armour, and Ralph Lauren’s Polo. The carrier they work for in Los Angeles is called Toll Group and is headquartered in Australia. At the busiest time of the holiday shopping season, 26 drivers were axed after wearing Teamster T-shirts to work. They were protesting the lack of access to clean, indoor restrooms with running water. The company hired an anti-union consultant to intimidate the drivers. Down Under, the same company bargains with 12,000 of our counterparts in good faith.

Despite our great hardships, many of us cannot — or refuse to, as some of the most well-intentioned suggest — “just quit.” First, we want to work and do not have a safety net. Many of us are tied to one-sided leases. But more importantly, why should we have to leave? Truck driving is what we do, and we do it well.

We are the skilled, specially-licensed professionals who guarantee that Target, Best Buy, and Wal-Mart are all stocked with just-in-time delivery for consumers. Take a look at all the stuff in your house. The things you see advertised on TV. Chances are a port truck driver brought that special holiday gift to the store you bought it.

We would rather stick together and transform our industry from within. We deserve to be fairly rewarded and valued. That is why we have united to stage convoys, park our trucks, marched on the boss, and even shut down these ports.

It’s like our hero Dutch Prior, a Shipper’s/SSA Marine driver, told CBS Early Morning this month: “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.”

The more underwater we are, the more our restlessness grows. We are being thoughtful about how best to organize ourselves and do what is needed to win dignity, respect, and justice.

Nowadays greedy corporations are treated as “people” while the politicians they bankroll cast union members who try to improve their workplaces as “thugs.”

But we believe in the power and potential behind a truly united 99%. We admire the strength and perseverance of the longshoremen. We are fighting like mad to overcome our exploitation, so please, stick by us long after December 12. Our friends in the Coalition for Clean & Safe Ports created a pledge you can sign to support us here.

We drivers have a saying, “We may not have a union yet, but no one can stop us from acting like one.”

The brothers and sisters of the Teamsters have our backs. They help us make our voices heard. But we need your help too so we can achieve the day where we raise our fists and together declare: “No one could stop us from forming a union.”

Thank you.

In solidarity,

Leonardo Mejia
SSA Marine/Shippers Transport Express
Port of Long Beach
10-year driver

Yemane Berhane
Ports of Seattle & Tacoma
6-year port driver

Xiomara Perez
Toll Group
Port of Los Angeles
8-year driver

Abdul Khan
Port of Oakland
7-year port driver

Ramiro Gotay
Ports of New York & New Jersey
15-year port driver

http://cleanandsafeports.org/blog/2...rica’s-port-truck-drivers-on-occupy-the-ports

 

[cooljeanius]

Occupy Oakland shut down the ports yesterday. Here's a letter from some of the workers:



http://cleanandsafeports.org/blog/2...rica’s-port-truck-drivers-on-occupy-the-ports

Separate GAF thread: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=455311&highlight=occupy+ports