Marx as an economist is one of the few to provide a very broad overview of the concept as it applies to modern capitalism.
Marx was a drunken idiot whose economic "theories" didn't have so much as a means to correctly communicate value. Booms and busts happen when powerful players in the market spot a way to sidestep regulation, whether because the phenomenon was new as with the dot bomb, or because regulation was deliberately removed as with Glass-Steagall which led directly to the most recent recession.
Still though, the fact that every country which embraces regulated capitalism has experienced a steady improvement in standards of living and wealth would have stuck in old Karl's craw.
I'm not sure why anyone thinks the Christian Bible is any different, a far as I'm aware the early church was inundated with testaments and apocalypses, prophets running around willy-nilly and whatnot, they just picked the ones they liked best.
That our agricultural system needs to continue to function efficiently and at high capacity is a matter of national security, really, and that is the reason those subsidies exist - to keep farmers in business in lean years.
Farming subsidies exist to keep the famers competitive every year.
If using cheap foreign labor helps that goal then we tacitly encourage it. If only the tech sector worked the same way, most of the jobs might actually stand a chance of staying in the US. As it is, most will be gone inside of 20 years.
So, you're saying cheap foreign labour will keep jobs in the US? There's no world in which this makes sense. Also I note you didn't address the lengthy exposition on successful Japanese protectionism I included. I can find plenty of other examples if you like. Protectionism done injudiciously doesn't work, but managed properly it's one hell of an arrow in the national quiver.
And what do you think farming subsidies in developed countries are but protectionism? The Common Agricultural Policy in Europe has been rocking for almost sixty years now, and similar policies are in place in the US as far as I'm aware. These exist so you don't have to rely on whichever third world despot can whip his citizens the hardest for your basic food supply, but essentially they're strategic economic protectionism. Here's a good example of successful protectionism.
1. The Japanese government has used a plethora of constantly evolving regulations to keep the combined share of all non-Japanese automakers to just 4 percent of the Japanese market. The share never varies, whether the yen is strong or weak. (The yen is up nearly 50 percent against the dollar in the last five years.) 2. The Detroit corporations, in common with all major automakers, make many cars in Europe configured for Britain’s drive-on-the-left roads, and by extension for Japan’s. They also make countless components and assemblies that have been shut out of Japan for no other reason than that they are not made there. 3. Even Volkswagen, which sells broadly as many cars around the world as Toyota, has been allocated—that is the right word—just 1 percent of the Japanese market; by contrast Toyota’s share is close to 40 percent. (Volkswagen is lucky, incidentally: Hyundai’s share is 0.02 percent and Daewoo’s 0.003 percent, and this in a country where close to 1 percent of the people are ethnic Koreans.)...
Perhaps the most graphic evidence of Tokyo’s true policy has been the story of the Renault-Nissan alliance. Originally established in 1999 and consolidated in subsequent years, this odd-couple partnership ostensibly gave Paris-based Renault control of Yokohama-based Nissan. In a powerful symbol of Japan’s ostensible acquiescence to American-style globalization, Renault’s Carlos Ghosn was even installed as simultaneous chief executive of both companies.
Given that Renault enjoyed a fundamental advantage in lower French wages and was more than a match for Nissan managerially, many observers expected it to make big inroads in the Japanese market. After all, the Nissan distribution chain—Japan’s second largest—was now ostensibly Ghosn’s to reshape. As reported by the BBC in 2005, the two companies were “expected to go through a process of rapid integration.” In particular they hoped to achieve savings through “jointly owned distribution subsidiaries.”
To the extent that the companies have cooperated on distribution, however, this has been confined entirely to markets beyond Japan. In the Japanese home market, Nissan has kept its distribution system strictly off-limits to Renault. The result is that, far from increasing, Renault’s Japanese market share has dropped from a negligible 0.08 percent in 1999 to a totally insulting 0.04 percent in 2009, the latest year for which figures are available. Indeed, to the extent that the company’s brand is known at all on Japanese roads, it is as a minor brand of Taiwanese-made bicycles!
And this is just the beginning of Renault’s woes. Judged by growth in total global sales, Renault has consistently been a hopeless also-ran, whereas Nissan has been a star performer. (Renault’s global sales are up less than 15 percent since the first full year of the partnership, whereas Nissan’s have zoomed nearly 78 percent. Nissan’s success has been attributable not least to increasing inroads in Renault’s home turf of Western Europe.)
after participating in the destruction of most of the American workforce
As far as I'm aware most of the American workforce is still working. Even if it wasn't you'd have to explain exactly how tech workers destroyed their jobs.
Unfortunately protectionism never works
Protectionism works great quite a lot of the time, it's how China manages its economy along with currency manipulation which is pretty much the same thing.
This to me is by far the most worrying development of recent years, especially when combined with the incendiary tidal wave of spontaneous twitter and social media lynch mobs out there. Say the wrong thing, get taken out of context, or be mistaken from someone else and millions of strangers will make it their mission to ruin your life. Kids for example do stupid and immoral things, not neccessarily criminal, maybe just risible. Today their juvenile mistakes can be broadcast instantly to a self propelled global audience, made part of the culture and part of the permanent record.
This is no way a good thing.
We need to have a right to privacy with exceptions made for rare situations, and even then erased as soon as possible. Unfortunately I dont think that will be possible ever again, the opposing forces of cheap ubiquitous recording equipment and viral social media are unstoppable, despite having created a surveillance network beyond the dreams of the worst totalitarians.
Hahaha yeah beat me to it, what a legendary movie. Still though on a more sober note what does this mean? Are women less likely to cheat or do they simply have more readily available partners at hand? I mean I can order my groceries online but there's a supermarket two minutes away so I never bother.
Markets work fine if properly regulated. The problem in this situation was the lack of regulation, and indeed outright corruption. No system will work properly in such an environment.
Yes I know what a flagship is, the summary should read "flagship space probes" like the aticle does since flagships aren't, to my knowledge, of a uniform size.
Scalzi hasn't sold two and a half thousand books? Two and a half thousand, this is a very interesting number to me. I mean, it's the same number of people who signed the Sarkeesian letter. This bears further investigation.
Your vast ignorance on these matters is best highlighted by your comment "No fault divorce works both ways and can give a man a quick way out if he is being treated as a financial investment", which of course followed the passive aggressive personal attack and was followed by continuing dimunitives in a desperate attempt at damage control.
I'm not in favour of holding third parties responsible, they didn't sign anything, although I can see how my comment might be construed as such. Given that mutual fidelity is an assumed if not explicit part of the marriage contract, why shouldn't adultery factor into divorce proceedings? Nice touch with the whole "it's your fault if your partner cheats" thing though.
Oh you mean stuff you made up and assumed without bothering to find out first? You realise you can still have divorce on tap while applying penalties in seperation proceedings for things like adultery, male or female? As it stands many of the assumed obligations in a marriage (and do not start accusing me of gender role enforcement for pity's sake, that's not what I'm referring to) have little to no legal standing which to my mind isn't simply unjust, it's bad contract law.
Ok, now the posts about the puppies are making a bit of sense.
Disagreement becomes hate whenever you're dealing with an extreme leftist. Don't gulag me bro.
No fault divorce works both ways
Gosh maybe that's why I said "a man or woman" above. So having set up that strawman you proceed to tackle it with all your might.
can give a man a quick way out if he is being treated as a financial investment
You really have no idea what happens to men in the family courts, do you. I mean this comment is flat out nonsensical.
Accusations and counter accusations really fucked things up for a lot of people back in the day
And they still do, especailly when it comes to children. Seriously you've no idea what you're talking about here, so I suggest you educate yourself before sticking your oar in.
Furthermore, such laws are plainly totalitarian, they misplace responsibility
As opposed to say no fault divorce where a man or woman can come home and find their partner merrily engaged in a foursome and it has no legal standing? Come off it. You're why marriage is collapsing hard, it has become a contract wherein there are no penalties for acting in bad faith and no matter what happens it's usually the man who gets the shit end of the stick.
When will men stop being treated as financial investments?
Slashdot Mirror
Marx as an economist is one of the few to provide a very broad overview of the concept as it applies to modern capitalism.
Marx was a drunken idiot whose economic "theories" didn't have so much as a means to correctly communicate value. Booms and busts happen when powerful players in the market spot a way to sidestep regulation, whether because the phenomenon was new as with the dot bomb, or because regulation was deliberately removed as with Glass-Steagall which led directly to the most recent recession.
Still though, the fact that every country which embraces regulated capitalism has experienced a steady improvement in standards of living and wealth would have stuck in old Karl's craw.
Yeah it's almost like they cheated.
I'm not sure why anyone thinks the Christian Bible is any different, a far as I'm aware the early church was inundated with testaments and apocalypses, prophets running around willy-nilly and whatnot, they just picked the ones they liked best.
The reason that Japan and China are now competing with us is the fact that they have low priced labor
Japan's labour is anything but low priced.
which is non-complex and required little skill
What? We're talking about Japan here?
I would be Batman.
That our agricultural system needs to continue to function efficiently and at high capacity is a matter of national security, really, and that is the reason those subsidies exist - to keep farmers in business in lean years.
Farming subsidies exist to keep the famers competitive every year.
If using cheap foreign labor helps that goal then we tacitly encourage it. If only the tech sector worked the same way, most of the jobs might actually stand a chance of staying in the US. As it is, most will be gone inside of 20 years.
So, you're saying cheap foreign labour will keep jobs in the US? There's no world in which this makes sense. Also I note you didn't address the lengthy exposition on successful Japanese protectionism I included. I can find plenty of other examples if you like. Protectionism done injudiciously doesn't work, but managed properly it's one hell of an arrow in the national quiver.
Well technically you can, but if you don't you leave yourself exposed to enemies and competitors who will pay the piper to go after you.
And what do you think farming subsidies in developed countries are but protectionism? The Common Agricultural Policy in Europe has been rocking for almost sixty years now, and similar policies are in place in the US as far as I'm aware. These exist so you don't have to rely on whichever third world despot can whip his citizens the hardest for your basic food supply, but essentially they're strategic economic protectionism. Here's a good example of successful protectionism.
...
1. The Japanese government has used a plethora of constantly evolving regulations to keep the combined share of all non-Japanese automakers to just 4 percent of the Japanese market. The share never varies, whether the yen is strong or weak. (The yen is up nearly 50 percent against the dollar in the last five years.)
2. The Detroit corporations, in common with all major automakers, make many cars in Europe configured for Britain’s drive-on-the-left roads, and by extension for Japan’s. They also make countless components and assemblies that have been shut out of Japan for no other reason than that they are not made there.
3. Even Volkswagen, which sells broadly as many cars around the world as Toyota, has been allocated—that is the right word—just 1 percent of the Japanese market; by contrast Toyota’s share is close to 40 percent. (Volkswagen is lucky, incidentally: Hyundai’s share is 0.02 percent and Daewoo’s 0.003 percent, and this in a country where close to 1 percent of the people are ethnic Koreans.)
Perhaps the most graphic evidence of Tokyo’s true policy has been the story of the Renault-Nissan alliance. Originally established in 1999 and consolidated in subsequent years, this odd-couple partnership ostensibly gave Paris-based Renault control of Yokohama-based Nissan. In a powerful symbol of Japan’s ostensible acquiescence to American-style globalization, Renault’s Carlos Ghosn was even installed as simultaneous chief executive of both companies.
Given that Renault enjoyed a fundamental advantage in lower French wages and was more than a match for Nissan managerially, many observers expected it to make big inroads in the Japanese market. After all, the Nissan distribution chain—Japan’s second largest—was now ostensibly Ghosn’s to reshape. As reported by the BBC in 2005, the two companies were “expected to go through a process of rapid integration.” In particular they hoped to achieve savings through “jointly owned distribution subsidiaries.”
To the extent that the companies have cooperated on distribution, however, this has been confined entirely to markets beyond Japan. In the Japanese home market, Nissan has kept its distribution system strictly off-limits to Renault. The result is that, far from increasing, Renault’s Japanese market share has dropped from a negligible 0.08 percent in 1999 to a totally insulting 0.04 percent in 2009, the latest year for which figures are available. Indeed, to the extent that the company’s brand is known at all on Japanese roads, it is as a minor brand of Taiwanese-made bicycles!
And this is just the beginning of Renault’s woes. Judged by growth in total global sales, Renault has consistently been a hopeless also-ran, whereas Nissan has been a star performer. (Renault’s global sales are up less than 15 percent since the first full year of the partnership, whereas Nissan’s have zoomed nearly 78 percent. Nissan’s success has been attributable not least to increasing inroads in Renault’s home turf of Western Europe.)
after participating in the destruction of most of the American workforce
As far as I'm aware most of the American workforce is still working. Even if it wasn't you'd have to explain exactly how tech workers destroyed their jobs.
Unfortunately protectionism never works
Protectionism works great quite a lot of the time, it's how China manages its economy along with currency manipulation which is pretty much the same thing.
This is gibberish. Clarify your poisition.
This to me is by far the most worrying development of recent years, especially when combined with the incendiary tidal wave of spontaneous twitter and social media lynch mobs out there. Say the wrong thing, get taken out of context, or be mistaken from someone else and millions of strangers will make it their mission to ruin your life. Kids for example do stupid and immoral things, not neccessarily criminal, maybe just risible. Today their juvenile mistakes can be broadcast instantly to a self propelled global audience, made part of the culture and part of the permanent record.
This is no way a good thing.
We need to have a right to privacy with exceptions made for rare situations, and even then erased as soon as possible. Unfortunately I dont think that will be possible ever again, the opposing forces of cheap ubiquitous recording equipment and viral social media are unstoppable, despite having created a surveillance network beyond the dreams of the worst totalitarians.
Hahaha yeah beat me to it, what a legendary movie. Still though on a more sober note what does this mean? Are women less likely to cheat or do they simply have more readily available partners at hand? I mean I can order my groceries online but there's a supermarket two minutes away so I never bother.
Exposed and still kicking. It's over. You lost. Get very used to that feeling.
Yeah enough is enough, a line has been crossed.
It works fine in countries where corruption isn't rampant, oddly enough.
Markets work fine if properly regulated. The problem in this situation was the lack of regulation, and indeed outright corruption. No system will work properly in such an environment.
Yes I know what a flagship is, the summary should read "flagship space probes" like the aticle does since flagships aren't, to my knowledge, of a uniform size.
What size is a flagship?
Scalzi hasn't sold two and a half thousand books? Two and a half thousand, this is a very interesting number to me. I mean, it's the same number of people who signed the Sarkeesian letter. This bears further investigation.
Your vast ignorance on these matters is best highlighted by your comment "No fault divorce works both ways and can give a man a quick way out if he is being treated as a financial investment", which of course followed the passive aggressive personal attack and was followed by continuing dimunitives in a desperate attempt at damage control.
I guess I'm done here.
I'm not in favour of holding third parties responsible, they didn't sign anything, although I can see how my comment might be construed as such. Given that mutual fidelity is an assumed if not explicit part of the marriage contract, why shouldn't adultery factor into divorce proceedings? Nice touch with the whole "it's your fault if your partner cheats" thing though.
Oh you mean stuff you made up and assumed without bothering to find out first? You realise you can still have divorce on tap while applying penalties in seperation proceedings for things like adultery, male or female? As it stands many of the assumed obligations in a marriage (and do not start accusing me of gender role enforcement for pity's sake, that's not what I'm referring to) have little to no legal standing which to my mind isn't simply unjust, it's bad contract law.
Ok, now the posts about the puppies are making a bit of sense.
Disagreement becomes hate whenever you're dealing with an extreme leftist. Don't gulag me bro.
No fault divorce works both ways
Gosh maybe that's why I said "a man or woman" above. So having set up that strawman you proceed to tackle it with all your might.
can give a man a quick way out if he is being treated as a financial investment
You really have no idea what happens to men in the family courts, do you. I mean this comment is flat out nonsensical.
Accusations and counter accusations really fucked things up for a lot of people back in the day
And they still do, especailly when it comes to children. Seriously you've no idea what you're talking about here, so I suggest you educate yourself before sticking your oar in.
A Hugo award winner, incidentally.
Hahahaha! Ahhh, jeez.
Furthermore, such laws are plainly totalitarian, they misplace responsibility
As opposed to say no fault divorce where a man or woman can come home and find their partner merrily engaged in a foursome and it has no legal standing? Come off it. You're why marriage is collapsing hard, it has become a contract wherein there are no penalties for acting in bad faith and no matter what happens it's usually the man who gets the shit end of the stick.
When will men stop being treated as financial investments?