On September 22 2014 10:29 Gnarly wrote:
Baal, do you know what happens when someone starts eating up at your market share? You lose money. And that person? They make money. The profit doesn't come from the customer, it comes from the competition. Monopolies are really good at making money...
how can you fail to understand basic logic for fucks sake.
corporations are giving money away, yours included not just monopoly, there is no benefit in there whatsoever for corporation, the only benefit its the public (the ones receiving free money), so what you are doing its simply redistribution of money from corporations to the public, and its somewhat what the government already does with taxes, and what you are saying is that a super welfare tax payed exclusively by the companies will help them thrive... smart lol.
You're the one who fails to understand that when automation is pretty much fully in every place of business, no one will be able to work because humans, at that point, will become inefficient. You're saying businesses will survive by paying their... robots and then having those same... robots... buy things from them? Cause if not, then who the fuck is going to do the consuming? People without jobs?
Makes sense, maybe you should be Fed Chairman?
New jobs always gets created. For example, now that we have computers, IT has exploded in all directions from networking to troubleshooting.
Businesses who replace humans with robots, it also creates a job for those who maintain robots. We can live in a world where all electronic devices are banned if they replace humans on a job, but that would lead us to be very inefficient.
E.g. ATMs, Time Puncher(When people clock in and out of work), switchboard operator, etc.
New jobs do get created as technology increases. Social media work also exploded with the recent years.
[in my opinion]
I think there's too much of people being fed that spending spending spending is always a good thing. If demand decreases, it means the general public doesn't really like the product out and that the companies need to figure out the niche in the market. For example, when gas prices increased in the US, all these companies were advertising extremely high MPG cars thus increasing car efficiency and as a byproduct helping the environment.
[/my opinion]
1
Jubert69 United States. Sep 23 2014 11:37. Posts 3191
On September 23 2014 04:18 Stroggoz wrote:
Baal, Jubert69, You guys have it wrong about deregulation. Deregulation and the rise of shadow banking saw the rise of monopoly finance and the result was increased financial stability, and financial crises have gone way up because if this, and it was the direct cause of the 2008 crises. This is something that even the economics profession concedes. I won't go on any more about shadow banking but, that is a corporation that has turned into an investment bank without regulators realizing it(or pretending not to notice), and thus it becomes a big bank that is never regulated in the first place
One of the major regulations was put into place to prevent commercial and investment banks from merging and becoming large monoplies, such as citigroup. Actually the 'golden age of capitalism'(1945-71) was the age of high growth, and had heavy regulation on banks, which forced them to keep small. Also, competition without regulation naturally leads to monopolies. Companies know they can make larger profits by repeatedly merging into monopolies to beat the competition.
The energy sector is another perfect example of where deregulation has gone wrong. In New Zealand, the state used to run their electricity company at a loss, and it produced a cheap source of energy for everyone in the country. Then it was turned into a very little regulated privatized oligopoly, now electricity prices have gone way up. When neoclassical economics was bought to New Zealand, they called it 'inefficient'. Well that's not an economical term, it's ideological. The company ran at a loss, it was inefficient from that point of view. But from the point of view of the rest of the population it was very efficient at keeping electricity prices cheap. Anyway, in America you have much worse examples like ENRON.
As for the other sectors i havn't studied them too much. The sector i have studied the most is the media. I write essays for university press on this subject in fact.
Also, Google is not a good company, they spy on people and share that info with the government. Their accomplishments could have been achieved without doing this. This company wouldn't have done this if their stakeholders had a say in the decision making process. But they don't, because it is a tyranny. Perhaps some of you don't notice the bad effects of spying, but it is used effectively to keep people from challenging the status quo. Not to mention it simply just violates elementary human rights.
If there's one thing i agree with baal on it's that the vast majority of monopolies are aided by the state. But's not because of regulations, it's because once they are deregulated, they can make large profits, keep those profits,and when it fails get the taxpayer to bail them out so they can continue to make huge profits. That's pretty much how the modern tribute system works.
I respectfully disagree here. I don't think regulations have much to do with banks themselves, but mostly the largest US Bank... the Federal Reserve. They just loan out stupid amounts of money to the private banks and expect the economy to just grow rapidly. The federal reserve has no regulations. Chairman Bernake can just give billions of dollars to banks to loan out if he feels like it. Since he's on a Keynesian side, he's quite generous when it comes to loaning out money.
Banks in a free market do NOT need to be regulated because if THEY screw up by giving loans people cannot pay back, they go bankrupt. Here in the US, banks failing are supported by the government.
Regardless if google is a good company or not, I bet if you dig deep enough into any corporation, you'll find dirt on anyone.
As for your New Zealand energy example, if the country runs electricity on a loss, it's being paid by someone. Either through taxation or inflation(Indirect form of taxation). Semantics are key here. Just because something is cheaper doesn't mean you're saving money. There could be a FREE electric company that runs at a loss, but is paid purely through inflation so no one has a bill. Now where people are going to be affected is the poor people who have to foot the bill for increased prices on necessities.
0
Gnarly United States. Sep 23 2014 17:31. Posts 1723
On September 22 2014 10:29 Gnarly wrote:
Baal, do you know what happens when someone starts eating up at your market share? You lose money. And that person? They make money. The profit doesn't come from the customer, it comes from the competition. Monopolies are really good at making money...
how can you fail to understand basic logic for fucks sake.
corporations are giving money away, yours included not just monopoly, there is no benefit in there whatsoever for corporation, the only benefit its the public (the ones receiving free money), so what you are doing its simply redistribution of money from corporations to the public, and its somewhat what the government already does with taxes, and what you are saying is that a super welfare tax payed exclusively by the companies will help them thrive... smart lol.
You're the one who fails to understand that when automation is pretty much fully in every place of business, no one will be able to work because humans, at that point, will become inefficient. You're saying businesses will survive by paying their... robots and then having those same... robots... buy things from them? Cause if not, then who the fuck is going to do the consuming? People without jobs?
Makes sense, maybe you should be Fed Chairman?
New jobs always gets created. For example, now that we have computers, IT has exploded in all directions from networking to troubleshooting.
Businesses who replace humans with robots, it also creates a job for those who maintain robots. We can live in a world where all electronic devices are banned if they replace humans on a job, but that would lead us to be very inefficient.
E.g. ATMs, Time Puncher(When people clock in and out of work), switchboard operator, etc.
New jobs do get created as technology increases. Social media work also exploded with the recent years.
[in my opinion]
I think there's too much of people being fed that spending spending spending is always a good thing. If demand decreases, it means the general public doesn't really like the product out and that the companies need to figure out the niche in the market. For example, when gas prices increased in the US, all these companies were advertising extremely high MPG cars thus increasing car efficiency and as a byproduct helping the environment.
[/my opinion]
>IT
You do realize the IT field is being automated, right?
>maintain robots
Because robots can't maintain themselves/other robots?
>social media work
$0.05 per shill, some work...
Diversify or fossilize!
1
Jubert69 United States. Sep 23 2014 23:03. Posts 3191
On September 22 2014 10:29 Gnarly wrote:
Baal, do you know what happens when someone starts eating up at your market share? You lose money. And that person? They make money. The profit doesn't come from the customer, it comes from the competition. Monopolies are really good at making money...
how can you fail to understand basic logic for fucks sake.
corporations are giving money away, yours included not just monopoly, there is no benefit in there whatsoever for corporation, the only benefit its the public (the ones receiving free money), so what you are doing its simply redistribution of money from corporations to the public, and its somewhat what the government already does with taxes, and what you are saying is that a super welfare tax payed exclusively by the companies will help them thrive... smart lol.
You're the one who fails to understand that when automation is pretty much fully in every place of business, no one will be able to work because humans, at that point, will become inefficient. You're saying businesses will survive by paying their... robots and then having those same... robots... buy things from them? Cause if not, then who the fuck is going to do the consuming? People without jobs?
Makes sense, maybe you should be Fed Chairman?
New jobs always gets created. For example, now that we have computers, IT has exploded in all directions from networking to troubleshooting.
Businesses who replace humans with robots, it also creates a job for those who maintain robots. We can live in a world where all electronic devices are banned if they replace humans on a job, but that would lead us to be very inefficient.
E.g. ATMs, Time Puncher(When people clock in and out of work), switchboard operator, etc.
New jobs do get created as technology increases. Social media work also exploded with the recent years.
[in my opinion]
I think there's too much of people being fed that spending spending spending is always a good thing. If demand decreases, it means the general public doesn't really like the product out and that the companies need to figure out the niche in the market. For example, when gas prices increased in the US, all these companies were advertising extremely high MPG cars thus increasing car efficiency and as a byproduct helping the environment.
[/my opinion]
>IT
You do realize the IT field is being automated, right?
>maintain robots
Because robots can't maintain themselves/other robots?
>social media work
$0.05 per shill, some work...
Pokerstars are automated tables. Online poker shouldn't exist because then dealers wouldn't have jobs, right?
What do you mean IT field is being automated? There's more jobs in IT right now than there were 20 years ago. With new technology emerging, faster processing, it requires a lot more upkeep. Cell phones were pretty much nonexistent 20 years ago. App developers didn't exist because they didn't have platforms to work off of.
Social media work is $$ if you know what you are doing. There's many jobs now that were created due to social media. Look up any medium to large size business. There's always a dedicated person/team running it.
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Sep 23 2014 23:44. Posts 5296
On September 23 2014 04:18 Stroggoz wrote:
Baal, Jubert69, You guys have it wrong about deregulation. Deregulation and the rise of shadow banking saw the rise of monopoly finance and the result was increased financial stability, and financial crises have gone way up because if this, and it was the direct cause of the 2008 crises. This is something that even the economics profession concedes. I won't go on any more about shadow banking but, that is a corporation that has turned into an investment bank without regulators realizing it(or pretending not to notice), and thus it becomes a big bank that is never regulated in the first place
One of the major regulations was put into place to prevent commercial and investment banks from merging and becoming large monoplies, such as citigroup. Actually the 'golden age of capitalism'(1945-71) was the age of high growth, and had heavy regulation on banks, which forced them to keep small. Also, competition without regulation naturally leads to monopolies. Companies know they can make larger profits by repeatedly merging into monopolies to beat the competition.
The energy sector is another perfect example of where deregulation has gone wrong. In New Zealand, the state used to run their electricity company at a loss, and it produced a cheap source of energy for everyone in the country. Then it was turned into a very little regulated privatized oligopoly, now electricity prices have gone way up. When neoclassical economics was bought to New Zealand, they called it 'inefficient'. Well that's not an economical term, it's ideological. The company ran at a loss, it was inefficient from that point of view. But from the point of view of the rest of the population it was very efficient at keeping electricity prices cheap. Anyway, in America you have much worse examples like ENRON.
As for the other sectors i havn't studied them too much. The sector i have studied the most is the media. I write essays for university press on this subject in fact.
Also, Google is not a good company, they spy on people and share that info with the government. Their accomplishments could have been achieved without doing this. This company wouldn't have done this if their stakeholders had a say in the decision making process. But they don't, because it is a tyranny. Perhaps some of you don't notice the bad effects of spying, but it is used effectively to keep people from challenging the status quo. Not to mention it simply just violates elementary human rights.
If there's one thing i agree with baal on it's that the vast majority of monopolies are aided by the state. But's not because of regulations, it's because once they are deregulated, they can make large profits, keep those profits,and when it fails get the taxpayer to bail them out so they can continue to make huge profits. That's pretty much how the modern tribute system works.
I respectfully disagree here. I don't think regulations have much to do with banks themselves, but mostly the largest US Bank... the Federal Reserve. They just loan out stupid amounts of money to the private banks and expect the economy to just grow rapidly. The federal reserve has no regulations. Chairman Bernake can just give billions of dollars to banks to loan out if he feels like it. Since he's on a Keynesian side, he's quite generous when it comes to loaning out money.
Banks in a free market do NOT need to be regulated because if THEY screw up by giving loans people cannot pay back, they go bankrupt. Here in the US, banks failing are supported by the government.
Regardless if google is a good company or not, I bet if you dig deep enough into any corporation, you'll find dirt on anyone.
As for your New Zealand energy example, if the country runs electricity on a loss, it's being paid by someone. Either through taxation or inflation(Indirect form of taxation). Semantics are key here. Just because something is cheaper doesn't mean you're saving money. There could be a FREE electric company that runs at a loss, but is paid purely through inflation so no one has a bill. Now where people are going to be affected is the poor people who have to foot the bill for increased prices on necessities.
Well, the problem with money printing is that it is not enough to get countries out of large recesssions, there needs to extra demand stimulus from somewhere else. It has worked well at recovering an economy in the past bubbles such as the dot.com bubble, and other smaller ones. It didn't work well in the Japanese long recession during the 90's. In fact Japan is an interesting example. They tried it once, it seemed to stave off a deep depression but didn't fix the economy. They tried it again and the same thing happened. Then they tried it while also building a large amount of bridges everywhere, and they got out of their depression.
When it comes to money printing in 2008, it managed to stave off a deep depression, but not get the country out of it. Now the FED pushes money into banks to drive down interest rates. Lower interest rates, and people are going to spend instead of saving their money-this is good for increasing aggregate demand. The problem is that you can only push interest rates down to 0. Once they hit 0 banks are going to stop lending money all together, since they have nothing to gain from it. Now i think there happen to me much better ways of reviving an economy than money printing, specially since banks are no longer interesting in investing in the productive economy. But this still doesn't stop the fact that if the FED lent no money, there would have been little to no increase in aggregate demand and the country would be in a deep depression. the money printing and very small stimulus package from obama was just enough to maintain the current economic system, and keep it at a rate of weak growth. You can compare this to a country like China which recovered from the depression in no time with a huge stimulus package that was 70% of their gdp, if i recall correctly. Americas stimulus package was less than a $trillion, which is tiny, less than 10% of their gdp.
and yeah, the electricity sector was paid for by taxpayers. It was run in a way as to provide as cheap electricity as possible to everyone. Whereas the private oligopoly fixes prices so that electricity is expensive for everyone, and the poor lose the most there. Cheap electricity paid for by taxpayers outweighed the costs to people that have to pay large amounts for it. And taxpayers have had to pay for bail outs to the electricity sector pretty soon after it was turned into a corporation. Like i said, the large corporations are mostly funded by taxpayers, the same as state assets. They just do it differently, through bailouts and such. Anyway i think you agree with me in some way on that part.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
0
Gnarly United States. Sep 24 2014 11:44. Posts 1723
On September 22 2014 10:29 Gnarly wrote:
Baal, do you know what happens when someone starts eating up at your market share? You lose money. And that person? They make money. The profit doesn't come from the customer, it comes from the competition. Monopolies are really good at making money...
how can you fail to understand basic logic for fucks sake.
corporations are giving money away, yours included not just monopoly, there is no benefit in there whatsoever for corporation, the only benefit its the public (the ones receiving free money), so what you are doing its simply redistribution of money from corporations to the public, and its somewhat what the government already does with taxes, and what you are saying is that a super welfare tax payed exclusively by the companies will help them thrive... smart lol.
You're the one who fails to understand that when automation is pretty much fully in every place of business, no one will be able to work because humans, at that point, will become inefficient. You're saying businesses will survive by paying their... robots and then having those same... robots... buy things from them? Cause if not, then who the fuck is going to do the consuming? People without jobs?
Makes sense, maybe you should be Fed Chairman?
New jobs always gets created. For example, now that we have computers, IT has exploded in all directions from networking to troubleshooting.
Businesses who replace humans with robots, it also creates a job for those who maintain robots. We can live in a world where all electronic devices are banned if they replace humans on a job, but that would lead us to be very inefficient.
E.g. ATMs, Time Puncher(When people clock in and out of work), switchboard operator, etc.
New jobs do get created as technology increases. Social media work also exploded with the recent years.
[in my opinion]
I think there's too much of people being fed that spending spending spending is always a good thing. If demand decreases, it means the general public doesn't really like the product out and that the companies need to figure out the niche in the market. For example, when gas prices increased in the US, all these companies were advertising extremely high MPG cars thus increasing car efficiency and as a byproduct helping the environment.
[/my opinion]
>IT
You do realize the IT field is being automated, right?
>maintain robots
Because robots can't maintain themselves/other robots?
>social media work
$0.05 per shill, some work...
Pokerstars are automated tables. Online poker shouldn't exist because then dealers wouldn't have jobs, right?
What do you mean IT field is being automated? There's more jobs in IT right now than there were 20 years ago. With new technology emerging, faster processing, it requires a lot more upkeep. Cell phones were pretty much nonexistent 20 years ago. App developers didn't exist because they didn't have platforms to work off of.
Social media work is $$ if you know what you are doing. There's many jobs now that were created due to social media. Look up any medium to large size business. There's always a dedicated person/team running it.
While IT may have experienced a boom, we're getting to the point where automation is becoming increasingly more common. However, just because there may have been some jobs opening up in the IT field doesn't mean that jobs in other sectors aren't disappearing... Have you looked at farming labor? We almost have that field completely automated.
On September 22 2014 10:29 Gnarly wrote:
Baal, do you know what happens when someone starts eating up at your market share? You lose money. And that person? They make money. The profit doesn't come from the customer, it comes from the competition. Monopolies are really good at making money...
how can you fail to understand basic logic for fucks sake.
corporations are giving money away, yours included not just monopoly, there is no benefit in there whatsoever for corporation, the only benefit its the public (the ones receiving free money), so what you are doing its simply redistribution of money from corporations to the public, and its somewhat what the government already does with taxes, and what you are saying is that a super welfare tax payed exclusively by the companies will help them thrive... smart lol.
You're the one who fails to understand that when automation is pretty much fully in every place of business, no one will be able to work because humans, at that point, will become inefficient. You're saying businesses will survive by paying their... robots and then having those same... robots... buy things from them? Cause if not, then who the fuck is going to do the consuming? People without jobs?
Makes sense, maybe you should be Fed Chairman?
New jobs always gets created. For example, now that we have computers, IT has exploded in all directions from networking to troubleshooting.
Businesses who replace humans with robots, it also creates a job for those who maintain robots. We can live in a world where all electronic devices are banned if they replace humans on a job, but that would lead us to be very inefficient.
E.g. ATMs, Time Puncher(When people clock in and out of work), switchboard operator, etc.
New jobs do get created as technology increases. Social media work also exploded with the recent years.
[in my opinion]
I think there's too much of people being fed that spending spending spending is always a good thing. If demand decreases, it means the general public doesn't really like the product out and that the companies need to figure out the niche in the market. For example, when gas prices increased in the US, all these companies were advertising extremely high MPG cars thus increasing car efficiency and as a byproduct helping the environment.
[/my opinion]
>IT
You do realize the IT field is being automated, right?
>maintain robots
Because robots can't maintain themselves/other robots?
>social media work
$0.05 per shill, some work...
Pokerstars are automated tables. Online poker shouldn't exist because then dealers wouldn't have jobs, right?
What do you mean IT field is being automated? There's more jobs in IT right now than there were 20 years ago. With new technology emerging, faster processing, it requires a lot more upkeep. Cell phones were pretty much nonexistent 20 years ago. App developers didn't exist because they didn't have platforms to work off of.
Social media work is $$ if you know what you are doing. There's many jobs now that were created due to social media. Look up any medium to large size business. There's always a dedicated person/team running it.
While IT may have experienced a boom, we're getting to the point where automation is becoming increasingly more common. However, just because there may have been some jobs opening up in the IT field doesn't mean that jobs in other sectors aren't disappearing... Have you looked at farming labor? We almost have that field completely automated.
Curious, if you think there is an issue with robots taking over, I'm interested in what your solution to the problem is. Should we ban all technology that has the ability to take over a human job?
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Sep 24 2014 16:39. Posts 2226
no his solution as he stated before is that companies pay their customers instead that way the customers have capital to buy their products with, it makes perfect sense if you don't think about it
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
0
Gnarly United States. Sep 24 2014 20:43. Posts 1723
>jewbert
Well, then...
Imagine that, instead of just simply doing a Google search, you actually got paid for it. The reason for this is because Google can sell that data, and they are getting all of that data for free from us. So, instead of just simply shopping around for some shoes, you got paid to go shopping around for shoes, giving companies data about where you were and how long you looked at things and such.
I mean, we're already running on the hamster wheel as it is.
Also, I'm not a ludite. Eventually, we'll be able to merge our consciousness together. Imagine how sick that would be.
Diversify or fossilize!
1
Jubert69 United States. Sep 24 2014 21:43. Posts 3191
Gnarly, we'll have to break down where we are getting divided.
You don't need to use google. There's many other "competition" like yahoo, bing, aol, etc.
Google is offering a "service" to you. The service is paid by you viewing ads which costs you $0, and makes them money. You don't have to use the "service".
There's two things we agree on(and I think Stroggoz too). Corporatism is bad, creates monopolies, makes the rich richer, and poor poorer. Now where we are dividing, I think the freer the market is, the less corporations are going to exist. The more regulated the market is, the more corporations will exist.
1
soberstone United States. Sep 24 2014 23:48. Posts 2662
On September 24 2014 20:43 Jubert69 wrote:
Gnarly, we'll have to break down where we are getting divided.
You don't need to use google. There's many other "competition" like yahoo, bing, aol, etc.
Google is offering a "service" to you. The service is paid by you viewing ads which costs you $0, and makes them money. You don't have to use the "service".
There's two things we agree on(and I think Stroggoz too). Corporatism is bad, creates monopolies, makes the rich richer, and poor poorer. Now where we are dividing, I think the freer the market is, the less corporations are going to exist. The more regulated the market is, the more corporations will exist.
You are butchering the words Corporation's here. Small businesses are often corporations too. But yes, the freer the market, the less monopolies or conglomerates. This is true.
1
Jubert69 United States. Sep 24 2014 23:55. Posts 3191
I stand corrected.
Most media/US automatically attribute Corporation to Monopoly.
0
Gnarly United States. Sep 25 2014 00:30. Posts 1723
wow you are SO fucking dead wrong.
during the 80s, during the height of financial trading, the banks were numerous, but were kept small because of regulations.
in a free market, only the strongest survive
Diversify or fossilize!
1
soberstone United States. Sep 25 2014 00:36. Posts 2662
What people fail to understand is that the public sector in education, energy distribution, healthcare, etc. - IS the ultimate monopoly, the worst kind, the most inefficient kind, the most corrupt kind, the most unaccountable kind, the most harmful kind, and the most prevalent kind. It's been proven time and time again throughout history in the case of countries, states, cities, etc - and yet we continue to make the same mistake over and over again.
Capitalism is not without flaws in that the invisible hand can dissapear via private monopolies, but when you get people saying that 'profit motive' is a myth, and that the government can do a better job than the free market, I cringe with anger and laugh cynically. No amount of lengthy, misleading statistics and studies can disprove the basic human nature and theory behind the triumphs of capitalism compared to any other system of economic governance in the history of the world.
Higher taxes stagnate the economy and business growth while the money that goes to the government is wasted on failed programs due to no motivation to actually be efficient. There is little to no upside in Progessive, big govt. theory and practice.
On September 23 2014 04:18 Stroggoz wrote:
Baal, Jubert69, You guys have it wrong about deregulation. Deregulation and the rise of shadow banking saw the rise of monopoly finance and the result was increased financial stability, and financial crises have gone way up because if this, and it was the direct cause of the 2008 crises. This is something that even the economics profession concedes. I won't go on any more about shadow banking but, that is a corporation that has turned into an investment bank without regulators realizing it(or pretending not to notice), and thus it becomes a big bank that is never regulated in the first place
Wrong, the banking cartels exist because of the state aid, and the F&F and Lehman brothers that started the real state market bubble was caused because of direct intervention of the state guaranteeing a profit from sub-prime lending creating a moral hazard, also the state bailouts saved all the inefficient shitty companies that should have gone out of bussiness like GM long ago but were saved with the publics money which is absolutely ridiculous.
One of the major regulations was put into place to prevent commercial and investment banks from merging and becoming large monoplies, such as citigroup. Actually the 'golden age of capitalism'(1945-71) was the age of high growth, and had heavy regulation on banks, which forced them to keep small. Also, competition without regulation naturally leads to monopolies. Companies know they can make larger profits by repeatedly merging into monopolies to beat the competition.
lol wat, that goes against the most basic knowledge of the free market, big efficient companies =/= monopoly, if a company is able to give a superior product and with less price than any other competition, then good for them, they will naturally dominate the market until somebody comes with a new idea.
The energy sector is another perfect example of where deregulation has gone wrong. In New Zealand, the state used to run their electricity company at a loss, and it produced a cheap source of energy for everyone in the country. Then it was turned into a very little regulated privatized oligopoly, now electricity prices have gone way up. When neoclassical economics was bought to New Zealand, they called it 'inefficient'. Well that's not an economical term, it's ideological. The company ran at a loss, it was inefficient from that point of view.
A state-handled company is almost always terribly inefficient because it operates outside of the laws of the free market, the same reason why the prices were low, its because they dont have to make a profit so they can subsidize electricity, but ultimately you are already paying for expensive electricity through taxation, the problem is that when the State sells the company to private investors that in theory should lead to a tax cut but obviously the government will never do that so now you are paying the same tax you were indirectly paying for subsidized energy but you arent even getting it, and the price of the private company.
Also, Google is not a good company, they spy on people and share that info with the government. Their accomplishments could have been achieved without doing this. This company wouldn't have done this if their stakeholders had a say in the decision making process. But they don't, because it is a tyranny. Perhaps some of you don't notice the bad effects of spying, but it is used effectively to keep people from challenging the status quo. Not to mention it simply just violates elementary human rights.
Google hasnt spied on anybody, the government through coercion, bullying and threats of imprisonment twisted its arm for information, the immoral ones there were the government not google. in fact google refused to tap into the Chinese market (which meant billions of dollars) because they didnt agree to give information from Chinese government dissidents, and that is fucking remarkable, that a corporation had more moral integrity than what most individuals would is amazing
If you wanted to make a case against such things you should have used Facebook and sure, many corporations will do shitty things for profit like Facebook but its in the consumers powers to punish it, Facebook has faced resistance when he does shit like that and its up to us to either punish them or not, if the consumer isnt bothered enough to choose an alternative and decided facebook product is so good its worth it then the free market has spoken.
On September 22 2014 10:29 Gnarly wrote:
Baal, do you know what happens when someone starts eating up at your market share? You lose money. And that person? They make money. The profit doesn't come from the customer, it comes from the competition. Monopolies are really good at making money...
how can you fail to understand basic logic for fucks sake.
corporations are giving money away, yours included not just monopoly, there is no benefit in there whatsoever for corporation, the only benefit its the public (the ones receiving free money), so what you are doing its simply redistribution of money from corporations to the public, and its somewhat what the government already does with taxes, and what you are saying is that a super welfare tax payed exclusively by the companies will help them thrive... smart lol.
You're the one who fails to understand that when automation is pretty much fully in every place of business, no one will be able to work because humans, at that point, will become inefficient. You're saying businesses will survive by paying their... robots and then having those same... robots... buy things from them? Cause if not, then who the fuck is going to do the consuming? People without jobs?
Makes sense, maybe you should be Fed Chairman?
LOL are you serious? apparently over night robots will take over, I shouldnt even dignify these posts with an answer but I cant help myself.
The automation process increases production efficiency dropping prices and goods are more easily available to the public, mindless jobs are replaced with more skilled ones as society, technology, education and knowledge advances.
I cant believe that old automation argument still exists today and to somebody of your age its amazing lol
On September 22 2014 10:29 Gnarly wrote:
Baal, do you know what happens when someone starts eating up at your market share? You lose money. And that person? They make money. The profit doesn't come from the customer, it comes from the competition. Monopolies are really good at making money...
how can you fail to understand basic logic for fucks sake.
corporations are giving money away, yours included not just monopoly, there is no benefit in there whatsoever for corporation, the only benefit its the public (the ones receiving free money), so what you are doing its simply redistribution of money from corporations to the public, and its somewhat what the government already does with taxes, and what you are saying is that a super welfare tax payed exclusively by the companies will help them thrive... smart lol.
You're the one who fails to understand that when automation is pretty much fully in every place of business, no one will be able to work because humans, at that point, will become inefficient. You're saying businesses will survive by paying their... robots and then having those same... robots... buy things from them? Cause if not, then who the fuck is going to do the consuming? People without jobs?
Makes sense, maybe you should be Fed Chairman?
New jobs always gets created. For example, now that we have computers, IT has exploded in all directions from networking to troubleshooting.
Businesses who replace humans with robots, it also creates a job for those who maintain robots. We can live in a world where all electronic devices are banned if they replace humans on a job, but that would lead us to be very inefficient.
E.g. ATMs, Time Puncher(When people clock in and out of work), switchboard operator, etc.
New jobs do get created as technology increases. Social media work also exploded with the recent years.
[in my opinion]
I think there's too much of people being fed that spending spending spending is always a good thing. If demand decreases, it means the general public doesn't really like the product out and that the companies need to figure out the niche in the market. For example, when gas prices increased in the US, all these companies were advertising extremely high MPG cars thus increasing car efficiency and as a byproduct helping the environment.
[/my opinion]
>IT
You do realize the IT field is being automated, right?
>maintain robots
Because robots can't maintain themselves/other robots?
>social media work
$0.05 per shill, some work...
Pokerstars are automated tables. Online poker shouldn't exist because then dealers wouldn't have jobs, right?
What do you mean IT field is being automated? There's more jobs in IT right now than there were 20 years ago. With new technology emerging, faster processing, it requires a lot more upkeep. Cell phones were pretty much nonexistent 20 years ago. App developers didn't exist because they didn't have platforms to work off of.
Social media work is $$ if you know what you are doing. There's many jobs now that were created due to social media. Look up any medium to large size business. There's always a dedicated person/team running it.
While IT may have experienced a boom, we're getting to the point where automation is becoming increasingly more common. However, just because there may have been some jobs opening up in the IT field doesn't mean that jobs in other sectors aren't disappearing... Have you looked at farming labor? We almost have that field completely automated.
Curious, if you think there is an issue with robots taking over, I'm interested in what your solution to the problem is. Should we ban all technology that has the ability to take over a human job?
Whats funny is that what he says makes some kind of sense in a very distant future, many hundreds of years from now when robots take over all of manual labor we might possibly live in a utopian society where money is not even needed, I think the 2nd part of Zeitgeist purposes something like this, I think its flawed but maybe its what Gnarly is thinking lol, what is funny is that he is projecting a futuristic social structure into fucking Mc Donalds robots
