sup brah
 
if you like it get your egghead buddies interested they seem to have a likeness to this place
 

What drives the super rich to become richer? When  they reach a point of wealth were basically every conceivable need is covered and would be for the rest of their lives even if they stopped, why do they continue to bother?

I personally think its all because of adversity. 99.99% of those people are born into priveledge and have no understanding on what it is like to deal with adversity or overcome adversity. They have their ignorant, often times bigoted viewpoints and are not put into a position or environment to second think about their bullshit. So, those people aren't necessarily doing evil or being evil they're just so out of touch with the world they think they're doing good or justice, either for themselves, their own, or even with good intentions.
 
I mean look at successful people now that have made it, that have had to deal with adversity and once they get to the super rich point they start giving that shit back because theres nothing else to do with it. Unless you're some kind of power mongering monster but I think thats more of a cop-out for the underprivledged.
 
Good examples of people that reached super rich and are giving back are: Oprah, Bill Gates, Lou Dobbs and Lil wayne
 
Lil wayne tries but is a little misguided I think. He's building alot of youth centers and youth programs around the new orleans areas but he still tends to act like an ass with his money. I'm blaming it on his youthfullness though I bet in the next five years he'll start turning into a fucking humanitarian mark my words.

wow it's treg

I get what point you're trying to make (its a good one but you're looking at it from mostly an intellectual viewpoint) the way you're talking is from a perspective that is entirely market based. The market is effected in that way because the technology is out there making the means easier.

well no, the point I was making, which is maybe worthless, is that the "technology" is relatively available only because it gives some competitive economic edge. otherwise, it's just information. eg the concept of GPS is information, but the use of GPS is based upon capital. a person from a poor country can look up GPS and know all about it and how it works, but without the capital that they lackl, they cannot actually use it. that starts to explain why the term technology is insufficient when we're talking about capitalism. the idea that (and not to imply you said it, I'm only using this as an example) one can simply introduce technology to an impoverished country or nation is the concept of modernization, which nearly everyone believes in without even thinking about it, but is totally incorrect

the rest of that paragraph was really talking about industrialization. I really want to talk to you about the story of industrialization someday, there are some nuances you might not know. like this:

Imagine if infact the right wing business tycoons in this country were allowed to get their way. To make it harder for the poor to seek a proper education and training and for that to be almost exclusive to the priviledged few. This has and is happening in an unrealized and undeveloped fashion (in the south mostly (right to work)) technology just hasn't jumped that far ahead yet.

has been going on for centuries. and there's so much to talk about in-between, like ebenezer howard and all the stuff that's pretty much failed up to this point

And honestly outsourcing jobs to poorer countries isn't percieved as "human slave-labor" to those country-men. Infact alot of them revieve more monetary rewards and benefits that they would never see in their own countries that haven't really developed as far as workers rights and civil rights. To us it seems like human slave labor because we realize that they still aren't getting jack shit compared to what they should be. But to them they're content if not more so.

I know this, but:

Its not really the evil businessman reaping the labor of the poor 3rd world as much as the poor 3rd world isn't self aware.

it really is, and there are people in those countries who are aware of it, but they can't do anything about it.

why are those countries poor? it's almost universally because the people were ravaged by colonialism and the land robbed robbed of its resources, or because the people were forced onto resource-poor land by artificial boundaries created by world powers acting in their own interests. that's why labor there is cheap and exploitable, that's why people call it slavery.

4 things:
1) Not everything that is natural is good. Nor are the old ways of things.

4) "social alienation of people from aspects of their "human nature"" How is human nature defined in this context? Isn't "human Nature" something that hasn't exactly been completely understood anyway?

the point isn't whether it's good or bad, which up to interpretation anyway. it's about the distress/alienation that is caused by parting from nature

I don't think it matters what specifically is human nature, I think the general point is that it's not whatever we've been talking about. the robotization of the workforce symbolizes the alienation of human beings from nature, as they are forced to act like machines to survive within the capitalist system

It's not really that complex or a matter that hinges on the ethereal qualities present within our reality. In fact, it can be explained rather simply by math.

People who are rich get rich by their ability to exploit the poor. The only way for rich people to get more money is for poor people to earn money that is then given to rich people. The more money a rich person has, the more poor people have worked in order for him to gain that money.

Any economic system is going to affect the culture of the people who operate under it, and any economic system is defined by what the goal is for anyone operating under that system. Capitalism is, and always has been a system that's only goal is purely obtaining capital(that means money). The success of any entity operating inside that system is solely defined by the sheer amount of money that single entity can generate.

Given both of these facts are unavoidably true based on the pure logic behind that specific situation, then it is also unavoidably true that capitalism, at its heart, is a system that puts the most value on the sole ability to effectively exploit poor people.

You can defend the context of this act, or you can justifiably argue how this type of situation is ultimately unavoidable. But regardless of why or how, in order to personally support capitalism as a viable economic system, you have to agree with the idea that poor people are meant to be exploited, and must share in that goal in order to gain any quantifiable level of success within it. (which precisely is where someone should go with the "fundamental human nature" argument in order to validate this kind of stance)

capitalism isn't fucked up because of alienation though. it's fucked up because it incorrectly valuates/allocates social action, isn't fault tolerant, and is overall extremely vulnerable to being reconfigured by special interest groups. there is no nature to be separated from, but there is a lot of cultural imperialism. forcing people to do incredibly repetitive tasks for long hours in poor working conditions at low pay isn't bad because it makes them like machines, it's bad because it makes them sick, stressed and miserable. machines are fucking great at sudoku but people still love playing it. rather, the feeling of being culturally and socially reconfigured to be a human resource for the capitalist is a bunch of shit with or without the presence of machines.

not that I particularly disagree with the sentiment expressed by anyone here. i just got opinions on the phrasing of the problem and they came out my fingers.

you're right. the machines comparison was only really out there because of the vonnegut book farren was talking about.

I think this "alienation" is a significant part of what's bad about capitalism tho. but I've been looking into the food industry a lot for the project I'm working on, so I'm probably particularly entrenched in that mode of thought right now

speaking of which, farren, I think you'd like the documentary food inc.

I second the Food Inc recommendation.

I think that alienation is an interesting concept but I have a feeling that Marx oversimplified a bunch of things into the alienation of labour to fit his value-based analysis of capitalism. So much has happened since he wrote that I feel like it's useful to reinterpret and deconstruct his ideas. So I agree that a lot of what's wrong with capitalism can be seen as alienation, but I also think that it's probably better to deal with it in specifics instead because alienation of the labours of office workers isn't really all that similar to exploitation of sweat shop workers. The other thing is that it's hinged on labour and labour is difficult to pin down, which is why I'd prefer to look at it in terms of effects on the totality of social action instead.

eg the concept of GPS is information, but the use of GPS is based upon capital.

to clarify about GPS

I'm talking about as a means of navigation not for personal use. For instance pretty much all commercial airplanes anywhere cannot operate without GPS, same with shipping.

If a ships gps fucks out they either have to fix it or get someone to fix it and find their way to port to do that using old means of navigation. Like using the stars and coastal navigation which is what I'm gonna be learning about soon for my license.

Even poorer countries now unless they're tribal poor, if they have a shipping or aerospace industry of any sort they aren't allowed to operate without GPS by international law but like I was getting at earlier nowadays alot of equipment isn't being made without that stuff already hardwired in. Imagine if a gigantic solar flare from hell knocked out the three (italy is launching a fourth one soon) of our satellites?

alot of shit would fall apart for awhile right then.

THIS JUST IN: TERRORIST ALIENS DESTROY GPS SATELLITES WORLD ECONOMY PLUMMETING
 
like even pilots know how to land and maybe get short distances without gps (I think) but none of our international traveling shits like that would be able to operate on a level that could sustain the status quo at any rate. Least I don't think so.
 
Atleast it would take alot longer to get anywhere and alot of the newer gen that are shying away from old navigation methods would have a terrible time till they got decent at it.

 

I really want to talk to you about the story of industrialization someday, there are some nuances you might not know. like this

make topics this stuff is really interesting and I like learning about it and I'm sure I'm not the only one that doesn't know too much about it.
 
I'll check Food Inc. out too.

why are those countries poor? it's almost universally because the people were ravaged by colonialism and the land robbed robbed of its resources, or because the people were forced onto resource-poor land by artificial boundaries created by world powers acting in their own interests. that's why labor there is cheap and exploitable, that's why people call it slavery.

I dunno dude, look at mexico and now brazil. I'm speaking from the perspective the fuel industry though.

Mexico manages its own oil fields and like I mentioned awhile back they've got a good income as far as that goes. But the people that own the fields and that run them are corrupt as shit and keep the profits for themselves or sell them to the united states. I recently found out that most of the reason they do that is because they can't refine their own oil and they use the US to do that for them so we kind of got them by the balls. They have a couple refineries I think but not nearly enough to cover production.

Brazil is doing the same thing. Its their natural resources and that shit belongs to the brazillian gov't (I think they operate nearly the same way as mexico and pemex but I haven't been there yet). They can't drill for it or build rigs though so they hire international companies to do it. But once they pay to have the platforms built and producing the product is theirs.

Now I see the problem with their governments not distributing the wealth. Maybe those governments that were originally founded were founded by some fucked up european colonists or US corporate interests but NOW its all up to them and they're pretty much just repeating the cycle on their own.

I don't think oil companies are buying out those countries politicians like one might speculate because they really don't have to. Both those places are plenty fucked up on their own and you see those same companies doing same business stateside via the same methods, as far as environmental policies and labor management. That shit doesn't change no matter where we go.

Same goes for Nigeria, except its a way more dangerous place and you have to factor piracy and terrorism into that. Which is why many companies won't work there.
 
 
 
The EDC post was really good and this:

machines are fucking great at sudoku but people still love playing it.

is funny

capitalism isn't fucked up because of alienation though. it's fucked up because it incorrectly valuates/allocates social action, isn't fault tolerant, and is overall extremely vulnerable to being reconfigured by special interest groups. there is no nature to be separated from, but there is a lot of cultural imperialism. forcing people to do incredibly repetitive tasks for long hours in poor working conditions at low pay isn't bad because it makes them like machines, it's bad because it makes them sick, stressed and miserable. machines are fucking great at sudoku but people still love playing it. rather, the feeling of being culturally and socially reconfigured to be a human resource for the capitalist is a bunch of shit with or without the presence of machines.

not that I particularly disagree with the sentiment expressed by anyone here. i just got opinions on the phrasing of the problem and they came out my fingers.

ugh.

go on.

the problem is alienation. there is no such thing as "correct" allocation or valuation of social action, that's the kinda gross shit that comes from cyberneticians and social engineers

i'm not saying that alienation isn't a problem, i'm saying that it's a consequence of other problems, and a general description of effects. any attempt at an economic system also constitutes an implicit attempt to valuate/allocate social action. the creation of institutions consists of social engineering. if you think that i'm advocating invasive centralised social social engineering, i'm not. i'm not saying that we should come along and impose a mechanism for valuating and allocating social action according to my ideals of correctness, I'm being very technical and using correctness as it is used in algorithms: capitalism does not work as it is prescribed to work. it's broken. you're right that it has a systems theory ring to it. i happen to think that a dynamic systems approach to marx's analysis of the commodity-money-commodity cycle is interesting, and i hear it's been used pretty interestingly. most of this is stuff I came up with to interpret marx's labour theory of value to economics students in the face of various criticisms. e.g. difficulty of pinning down concept of labour, non-labour factors in price, whether or not it takes demand into account (economists characterise him as not doing this lol.)

maybe there's some deeper problems with what i'm saying here but it would be cool if you would point them out. kind of seems like your present complaint is more aesthetic than analytic.