Too poor for pop culture

[gho3st]

what i get from that is how public housing doesnt work and perpetuates poverty

like i said public housing, section 8 are some the worst shyt ever created.

 

[DEAD7]

Let's also keep in mind that our government was designed how you envision it THEN, through what I believe to be a commonality shared by all man made systems, people fuked it up and started gaming it. To the best of my knowledge all man made groups that were not destroyed because of other outside groups have been destroyed from within, from governments to garage bands. As I said earlier it's our nature to focus on ME ME ME, it's when we rise above that and choose to be more than monkeys fighting over who has more bananas do we as groups start to really accomplish things.

Freeing up of the market would only allow places like Walmart to further exploit minorities, ironically enough to their own detriment. Why do I say this, well because it's what we do.

out of curiosity what's your stance on monopolies? Good, bad, should not be allowed to exist?

In a free market, a monopoly could only be maintained by offering the best product at the best price.

Its simply not possible to be the only supplier of something when there is nothing stopping some one else from supplying it. For example Standard Oil:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil

In 1904, Standard controlled 91 percent of production and 85 percent of final sales. Most of its output was kerosene, of which 55 percent was exported around the world. After 1900 it did not try to force competitors out of business by underpricing them.[27] The federal Commissioner of Corporations studied Standard's operations from the period of 1904 to 1906[28] and concluded that "beyond question... the dominant position of the Standard Oil Co. in the refining industry was due to unfair practices—to abuse of the control of pipe-lines, to railroad discriminations, and to unfair methods of competition in the sale of the refined petroleum products".[29] Due to competition from other firms, their market share had gradually eroded to 70 percent by 1906 which was the year when the antitrust case was filed against Standard, and down to 64 percent by 1911 when Standard was ordered broken up[30] and at least 147 refining companies were competing with Standard including Gulf, Texaco, and Shell.[31] It did not try to monopolize the exploration and pumping of oil (its share in 1911 was 11 percent).

"The evidence is, in fact, absolutely conclusive that the Standard Oil Co. charges altogether excessive prices where it meets no competition, and particularly where there is little likelihood of competitors entering the field, and that, on the other hand, where competition is active, it frequently cuts prices to a point which leaves even the Standard little or no profit, and which more often leaves no profit to the competitor, whose costs are ordinarily somewhat higher."

The red is never mentioned when discussing how monopolies work or standard oil. Competition drive prices down, often to the point of near zero profit. Lack of competition (as we have now) is the problem. Its also worth noting the "monopoly" was breaking naturally before govt. stepped in. As all monopolies do.

I dont think there is anything inherently wrong with monopolies and each one should be judged own its own merits or lack there of.




"To the best of my knowledge all man made groups that were not destroyed because of other outside groups have been destroyed from within, from governments to garage bands"
another argument against big govt. why entrust so much power into a small group of people, when we know they will crumble? By keeping it small you limit the collateral dmg. By expanding it you create a situation where govt. failure, takes down defense, education, healthcare, and whatever else liberals think govt. should control.Which I believe is everything. Its literally putting all your eggs in the govt. basket.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

In a free market, a monopoly could only be maintained by offering the best product at the best price.

Its simply not possible to be the only supplier of something when there is nothing stopping some one else from supplying it. For example Standard Oil:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil





The red is never mentioned when discussing how monopolies work or standard oil. Competition drive prices down, often to the point of near zero profit. Lack of competition (as we have now) is the problem. Its also worth noting the "monopoly" was breaking naturally before govt. stepped in. As all monopolies do.

I dont think there is anything inherently wrong with monopolies and each one should be judged own its own merits or lack there of.



"To the best of my knowledge all man made groups that were not destroyed because of other outside groups have been destroyed from within, from governments to garage bands"
another argument against big govt. why entrust so much power into a small group of people, when we know they will crumble? By keeping it small you limit the collateral dmg. By expanding it you create a situation where govt. failure, takes down defense, education, healthcare, and whatever else liberals think govt. should control.Which I believe is everything. Its literally putting all your eggs in the govt. basket.

Werent you just claiming Comcast buying TWC, which would result in a monopoly, was good for the free market?

And if we took power away from govt, that power wouldn't be redistributed among everyone equally, it would just shift over to big business. If the consolidation of power is bad, it's bad no matter who is doing the consolidation- even if its all the big business people you continually deep throat at every given opportunity. Govt isnt perfect but unless you have a solution that doesn't revolve around meaningless parroting of "free market principles", I dont see how taking power from a group that is somewhat accountable to the general population, and turning that power over to a group with zero accountability to the general population is a good thing.

 

[DEAD7]

Werent you just claiming Comcast buying TWC, which would result in a monopoly, was good for the free market?

And if we took power away from govt, that power wouldn't be redistributed among everyone equally, it would just shift over to big business. If the consolidation of power is bad, it's bad no matter who is doing the consolidation- even if its all the big business people you continually deep throat at every given opportunity. Govt isnt perfect but unless you have a solution that doesn't revolve around meaningless parroting of "free market principles", I dont see how taking power from a group that is somewhat accountable to the general population, and turning that power over to a group with zero accountability to the general population is a good thing.

Govt power ≠ market power.

...and accountability cant be found anywhere currently, but I'd argue consumers have more control over market entities than citizens currently do over govt.(unless you are talking about govt. granted corporate privileges).

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

I'd argue consumers have more control over market entities than citizens currently do over govt.(unless you are talking about govt. granted corporate privileges).

Expand on this. I can elect the mayor of my town and governor of my state. But if I want cable TV, my only option is TWC. Dish is out of the question because if the weather is at all fukked up, no service, which is no go for me as I work online. So how do I have more control over, say, my cable provider, than the elected officials where I live?

 

[DEAD7]

Expand on this. I can elect the mayor of my town and governor of my state. But if I want cable TV, my only option is TWC. Dish is out of the question because if the weather is at all fukked up, no service, which is no go for me as I work online. So how do I have more control over, say, my cable provider, than the elected officials where I live?

How do you have more control under a monopoly is a bit different than simply "market entities" in general but lets take the monopoly. Boycotting by the majority(which I assume we are discussing since you referenced electing some one) can easily sink a company. Boycotting govt. isn't even an option, and Govt. cant go out of business... I think Cheney summed it up best with "So". Could you imagine if the face of a company made a statement like that in the face of public concerns

They are two completely different animals, hence

Govt power ≠ market power.

There is this ongoing insinuation around here(which you too just made) that the market is some how on par with govt.(power wise) which I dont understand at all... If they are, and I'm just ignorant to it, please enlighten me. Give me an example of it...

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

How do you have more control under a monopoly is a bit different than simply "market entities" in general but lets take the monopoly. Boycotting by the majority(which I assume we are discussing since you referenced electing some one) can easily sink a company. Boycotting govt. isn't even an option, and Govt. cant go out of business... I think Cheney summed it up best with "So". Could you imagine if the face of a company made a statement like that in the face of public concerns

They are two completely different animals, hence





There is this ongoing insinuation around here(which you too just made) that the market is some how on par with govt.(power wise) which I dont understand at all... If they are, and I'm just ignorant to it, please enlighten me. Give me an example of it...

If I am a business owner who is dependent on an internet connection, how can I "boycott" the only provider in my area and still make a living?

And statements are one thing... actions are another. Companies disregard the public regularly and have teams of folks who handle the spin and PR of it all for them.

And the only one making the insinuation that the govt and market are on par. Market doesnt enforce laws or maintain public facilities etc, so the idea that one should be able to opt out of the govt like they opt out of cell phone service is ridiculous but typical for you. Dont try and flip your bullshyt onto me.

 

[DEAD7]

And the only one making the insinuation that the govt and market are on par. Market doesnt enforce laws or maintain public facilities etc, so the idea that one should be able to opt out of the govt like they opt out of cell phone service is ridiculous but typical for you. Dont try and flip your bullshyt onto me.

They are two completely different animals

Your entire positions hinges on the market entity being the only option available... but i'm going to ignore that and question the following.

And if we took power away from govt, that power wouldn't be redistributed among everyone equally, it would just shift over to big business.If the consolidation of power is bad, it's bad no matter who is doing the consolidation

If your not making the insinuation that they are equal in any way(which it sounds like you are), could you explain what you meant by this then?
What power is transferred? How is this power wielded? etc.

 

[Brown_Pride]

In a free market, a monopoly could only be maintained by offering the best product at the best price.

Its simply not possible to be the only supplier of something when there is nothing stopping some one else from supplying it. For example Standard Oil:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil





The red is never mentioned when discussing how monopolies work or standard oil. Competition drive prices down, often to the point of near zero profit. Lack of competition (as we have now) is the problem. Its also worth noting the "monopoly" was breaking naturally before govt. stepped in. As all monopolies do.

I dont think there is anything inherently wrong with monopolies and each one should be judged own its own merits or lack there of.



"To the best of my knowledge all man made groups that were not destroyed because of other outside groups have been destroyed from within, from governments to garage bands"
another argument against big govt. why entrust so much power into a small group of people, when we know they will crumble? By keeping it small you limit the collateral dmg. By expanding it you create a situation where govt. failure, takes down defense, education, healthcare, and whatever else liberals think govt. should control.Which I believe is everything. Its literally putting all your eggs in the govt. basket.

as @GinaThatAintNoDamnPuppy! has said you're trying to advocate a transfer of power form one group to another less slightly accountable group.

The only reason the shift of power RIGHT NOW doesn't appear to be that drastic is that corporations basically run the government right now anyway...which ironically enough is exactly what you want only less legitimate.

My entire thesis is that both systems are fuked by virtue of humans being fuked. That being the great equalizer i'd rather place my stock with the system that has SOME alliance to me vs one that has ONLY an allegiance to $$$. When you really boil things down a pure free market is destructive by nature because it is human nature minus any altruistic ideals. And to put it bluntly humans are savages, you want to provide a venue the allows humans to excel and profit off of that...which they would no doubt, but at what expense?

And as has been stated you can't boycott the only thing available when you need it.

 

[DEAD7]

as @GinaThatAintNoDamnPuppy! has said you're trying to advocate a transfer of power form one group to another less slightly accountable group.

The only reason the shift of power RIGHT NOW doesn't appear to be that drastic is that corporations basically run the government right now anyway...which ironically enough is exactly what you want only less legitimate.

My entire thesis is that both systems are fuked by virtue of humans being fuked. That being the great equalizer i'd rather place my stock with the system that has SOME alliance to me vs one that has ONLY an allegiance to $$$. When you really boil things down a pure free market is destructive by nature because it is human nature minus any altruistic ideals. And to put it bluntly humans are savages, you want to provide a venue the allows humans to excel and profit off of that...which they would no doubt, but at what expense?

And as has been stated you can't boycott the only thing available when you need it.

2 things, 1) I'm not calling for a pure free market 2) Why are we using monopolies as if they are remotely common? Both of you are taking my position to the extreme... I'd take govt. to the extreme but i'm sure i'd be called on it immediately. I don't mind you doing this though. Its how all opponents of shrinking govt. approach the issue.

That said, this power shift you both mention has yet to be explained... I contend that Govt power ≠ market power, and any transfer of "power" would be trivial... meaningless even.
This is where you jump to lawlessness, and 4yr old children in car factories...

Opponents of a freer market are literally just afraid... and point to a time when nearly every aspect of society was f*cked in some way as support for their fears.

I agree with you, a "pure" free market and unbridled capitalism can be destructive, and humans are savages, but that savage nature, is why I want to limit the power of any one group. You're thesis though is based on the false assumption that a corrupt market is worse than a corrupt govt. and that govt is more accountable, when it isn't. Sure you can change the actors but that's about it.
Diving further I'd even argue that the actors are meaningless and govt. has been working towards govt.'s end since the beginning. Growth and control. As it reflects our unrepentant nature.

Let me also say this I don't think minorities have a real shot at rising and overcoming in a constrained heavily regulated market, which has been designed to exclude us. The free market has been cleverly painted as anti black, when its really our best option.
Its a brilliant move by those in power(whites)...

 

[Brown_Pride]

2 things, 1) I'm not calling for a pure free market

Understood

2) Why are we using monopolies as if they are remotely common? Both of you are taking my position to the extreme... I'd take govt. to the extreme but i'm sure i'd be called on it immediately. I don't mind you doing this though. Its how all opponents of shrinking govt. approach the issue.

We started talking about monopolies because if we look at history that's what started to happen to key industries (and arguably never stopped). I asked because I was curious as to your perspective on them and their role, if any, in your free market world. You can take government to the extreme if you'd like, i'm sure we'll ultimately end up there in reality until revolution, if history is correct at least that's the ultimate end.

That said, this power shift you both mention has yet to be explained... I contend that Govt power ≠ market power, and any transfer of "power" would be trivial... meaningless even.[\quote]

The transfer of power is already taking shape in corporatism, which you yourself have said id s problem. How do you suppose that will pan out when corporations are completely in control? You think it's going to get better?

This is where you jump to lawlessness, and 4yr old children in car factories...

which again you fail to admit was a part of american history with little regulation. What would stop that now considering we still do buy products made by the hands of children...just in different countries. Corporations do that because they can pay pennies on the dollar overseas, if they could do that here they would and worse yet you'd support that move.

Opponents of a freer market are literally just afraid... and point to a time when nearly every aspect of society was f*cked in some way as support for their fears.

and why was it fuked? Regulations (WHEN DONE CORRECTLY) work, in most cases we call those things LAWS.

The irony of the entire argument from your perspective is that you blame government because it's corrupt and want free market to set it free BUT you fail to realize THAT IT WAS FREEMARKET IDEALS THAT CORRUPTED IT. You just want to go all in.

I agree with you, a "pure" free market and unbridled capitalism can be destructive, and humans are savages, but that savage nature, is why I want to limit the power of any one group.[\quote] no you don't, at least not really. Again looking at history money places people in power and generally that's only held by a few people. At least now we have SOME control of our own fate.

You're thesis though is based on the false assumption that a corrupt market is worse than a corrupt govt. and that govt is more accountable, when it isn't. Sure you can change the actors but that's about it.

People are corrupt, not systems. Systems are flawed. Corrupt people exploit flawed systems. That is the human condition.

The system of government has built in processes to protect the people who vote...though flawed.

The system of capitalism has built in processes to protect share owners (a very small part of the population)

Diving further I'd even argue that the actors are meaningless and govt. has been working towards govt.'s end since the beginning. Growth and control. As it reflects our unrepentant nature.

Again you fail to realize the importance of the actors, which is the downfall of your whole ideaology, it doesn't factor in the most important thing PEOPLE.

Let me also say this I don't think minorities have a real shot at rising and overcoming in a constrained heavily regulated market, which has been designed to exclude us. The free market has been cleverly painted as anti black, when its really our best option.
Its a brilliant move by those in power(whites)...

Considering that a "free market" brought us slavery and a "government" ended it your argument is BS. Also, your beloved corporations could hire and fire responsibly but they don't, if anythign government has tried to force them to be fair.

 

[DEAD7]

Considering that a "free market" brought us slavery and a "government" ended it your argument is BS. Also, your beloved corporations could hire and fire responsibly but they don't, if anythign government has tried to force them to be fair.

Slavery existed for thousands of years prior, and is one of if not the oldest institution still in existence. Its existed under capitalism and socialism... where does the idea its a creation of american capitalism come from?

We started talking about monopolies because if we look at history that's what started to happen to key industries (and arguably never stopped). I asked because I was curious as to your perspective on them and their role, if any, in your free market world. You can take government to the extreme if you'd like, i'm sure we'll ultimately end up there in reality until revolution, if history is correct at least that's the ultimate end.

I posted links showing Standard Oil, the most infamous monopoly breaking down naturally, and providing a net benefit to society. I'd be more than happy to look at evidence to the contrary.

The transfer of power is already taking shape in corporatism, which you yourself have said id s problem. How do you suppose that will pan out when corporations are completely in control? You think it's going to get better?

The 'power' wielded by corporations in corporatism, is the power of the state itself. They control govt. power(the only real power). By removing this power, what power is left? It still has not been explained what lawful power market entities have in the absence of the state.

which again you fail to admit was a part of american history with little regulation. What would stop that now considering we still do buy products made by the hands of children...just in different countries. Corporations do that because they can pay pennies on the dollar overseas, if they could do that here they would and worse yet you'd support that move.

I refuse to believe that you believe Americans would buy lets say Apple products if american children were being forced to work in harsh condition with little pay to produce them... That scenario as real as it was then, it absurd now.
If you truly believe we could return to the conditions back then, we will have to agree to disagree.

and why was it fuked? Regulations (WHEN DONE CORRECTLY) work, in most cases we call those things LAWS.
The irony of the entire argument from your perspective is that you blame government because it's corrupt and want free market to set it free BUT you fail to realize THAT IT WAS FREEMARKET IDEALS THAT CORRUPTED IT. You just want to go all in.

A different set of morals/values played a bigger role than any regulation(s).

... and I'm saying govt. gives the human condition teeth.

People are corrupt, not systems. Systems are flawed. Corrupt people exploit flawed systems. That is the human condition.

The system of government has built in processes to protect the people who vote...though flawed.

The system of capitalism has built in processes to protect share owners (a very small part of the population)

Capitalism is just voluntary trade, the protections of shareholders is chartered and enforced by government. Name a protection and I'll be more than happy to provide you factual evidence as to how govt. enables it.

If we are(and i believe we are) weighing corrupt govt. against a corrupt market, I think its unquestionably corrupt govt. that does the most harm... and if we agree that corruption is guaranteed. Favoring a market approach as the lesser evil makes sense no?


What is it I'm missing if no? I'm willing to question my own opinion, just point me in the right direction.

 

[Brown_Pride]

Slavery existed for thousands of years prior, and is one of if not the oldest institution still in existence. Its existed under capitalism and socialism... where does the idea its a creation of american capitalism come from?


I posted links showing Standard Oil, the most infamous monopoly breaking down naturally, and providing a net benefit to society. I'd be more than happy to look at evidence to the contrary.


The 'power' wielded by corporations in corporatism, is the power of the state itself. They control govt. power(the only real power). By removing this power, what power is left? It still has not been explained what lawful power market entities have in the absence of the state.


I refuse to believe that you believe Americans would buy lets say Apple products if american children were being forced to work in harsh condition with little pay to produce them... That scenario as real as it was then, it absurd now.
If you truly believe we could return to the conditions back then, we will have to agree to disagree.




A different set of morals/values played a bigger role than any regulation(s).

... and I'm saying govt. gives the human condition teeth.


Capitalism is just voluntary trade, the protections of shareholders is chartered and enforced by government. Name a protection and I'll be more than happy to provide you factual evidence as to how govt. enables it.

If we are(and i believe we are) weighing corrupt govt. against a corrupt market, I think its unquestionably corrupt govt. that does the most harm... and if we agree that corruption is guaranteed. Favoring a market approach as the lesser evil makes sense no?


What is it I'm missing if no? I'm willing to question my own opinion, just point me in the right direction.

Monday

 

[UserNameless]

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/too_poor_for_pop_culture/

Shyt kinda suspect to me...

The wording, language... it feels contrived, manufactured, inauthentic. Similar to non-black writers penning lines for a black sitcom.

 

[Brown_Pride]

Slavery existed for thousands of years prior, and is one of if not the oldest institution still in existence. Its existed under capitalism and socialism... where does the idea its a creation of american capitalism come from?

It's my contention that slavery is a symptom of unregulated power. Part of you wants laws the other part doesn't want regulation...they are the same thing. The question still stands what laws should we keep and which do we get rid of, and what do you do when the powers that be learn how to work loop holes so that the law is ineffective? Or worse yet when the powers that be start making the laws and regulations?

I posted links showing Standard Oil, the most infamous monopoly breaking down naturally, and providing a net benefit to society. I'd be more than happy to look at evidence to the contrary.

you should read that entire wiki, not just cherry pick the arguments that support your idea. There's a reason they were forced to break up, there's a reason Standard Oil is still highly debated. This is an area where we'd again fundamentally disagree. I will say this. Seeing as the goal of a company is to make money the best situation for a company to do that is when there is no competition. At this point the company can gouge prices with little to no repercussions, particularly in industries with hard start up costs, and that's before you take into account the inevitable idea that a company with a monopoly would try to protect that monopoly by lobbying for barriers into industry through regulation; i'll point out that the regulations isn't the issue in this case, rather it's the ability for a company to sway regulation in the first place.

The 'power' wielded by corporations in corporatism, is the power of the state itself. They control govt. power(the only real power). By removing this power, what power is left? It still has not been explained what lawful power market entities have in the absence of the state.

that's because we've never had a 100% market driven SOCIETY...nor should we.
What is power? The ability to direct or influence the behavior or actions of people or course of events (loosely defined). Money can and does influence people's behavior, their actions and the course of events... MONEY=POWER. Unregulated markets provide an environment for people to make as much POWER as they want and then use that power to make more power.

I refuse to believe that you believe Americans would buy lets say Apple products if american children were being forced to work in harsh condition with little pay to produce them...

Why do they buy them when they know children make them in other countries? Why did American's buy things in the 1900 when they knew kids were making them?

That scenario as real as it was then, it absurd now.
If you truly believe we could return to the conditions back then, we will have to agree to disagree.

what would stop them? If EVERYTHING was made that way because it was cheaper what choice would you have? Pay more for your piece of mind? Like I said, most people know most clothes and purses and shyt like that comes from the handy work of some kid or abused worker somewhere...they just don't care.

A different set of morals/values played a bigger role than any regulation(s).

... and I'm saying govt. gives the human condition teeth.

Capitalism is just voluntary trade, the protections of shareholders is chartered and enforced by government. Name a protection and I'll be more than happy to provide you factual evidence as to how govt. enables it.

If we are(and i believe we are) weighing corrupt govt. against a corrupt market, I think its unquestionably corrupt govt. that does the most harm... and if we agree that corruption is guaranteed. Favoring a market approach as the lesser evil makes sense no?

what corrupts government in oh 99.9999% of the cases? Think real hard WHEN is government compromised? It's when someone can make a buck and the best way they can do that is to corrupt an official.
Again i'll say government isn't wrong, it's broken and it's the very thing your championing that broke it.

What is it I'm missing if no? I'm willing to question my own opinion, just point me in the right direction.

Take money out of politics, now imagine what you have left, are you ok with how that would operate? Now look at who's injecting money into politics and why; then you should have a reason to question your opinion.