Basically, it's in there because (in the comics) Doc Ock's life work was to create a working fusion reactor, and his super-villany started because of a mishap during one of his experiments. It'd be a lot harder to adapt his origin story to more modern scientific ideas than it was with Spiderman.
Actually, the point of capitalism is to own the means of production, so that you can exploit workers and make a profit on their labors. That way, you can acquire more capital to leverage against the workers.
You're probably thinking of the free market, which is a bit different.
"Pure" capitalism features efficiency (a good thing) but it also has many features which (we) liberals think are bad.
Not really. Theoretical pure capitalism creates efficiency, but only when certain premises are assumed (perfect information, many buyers and sellers of everything, etc). As you point out, in the real world "pure" capitalism leads to monopolies, which cause massive inefficiency. Similarly, advertising creates disinformation and prevents there from being perfect information available.
Heh, how naive. People, and juries, are easily swayed by emotional appeals. If the prosecutor can get the jury afraid of what would happen if this dangerous person is released to the public (never mind that there's not enough evidence to know if he's even the right person), or that the person is horrible enough to deserve prison whether they committed this particular crime or not, he's done for unless he can afford a good attorney. Public defenders have often put up no defense whatsoever or even fallen asleep during the trial.
You make it sound as though his punishment was extremely unjust, which it wasnt. A DNA sample is hardly the end of the world, and technically grafiting someones property is and should be illegal.
How about this then: making it much more difficult to get any kind of job, ever. Every job application requires that you say whether you are a felon or not.
Or how about being monitored at all times? What if they started requiring all felons to wear ankle bracelets at all times?
I don't understand your point. Just because it can go below 5% doesn't mean that's optimal. When it drops below that, there is generally a labor shortage.
Not a shortage of labor, a shortage of cheap labor. Companies don't have the option to treat their employees quite as badly as normal.
I'm going to have to disagree with your claim that 5% unemployment is "optimal". Optimal for cheap labor conservatives, maybe, but not for anybody else.
This page discusses the issue in depth. An excerpt:
Unemployment was 23 percent when FDR took office in 1933. It dropped to 2.5 percent by time the next Republican was in the White House in 1953. It climbed back to 6.5 percent by the end of the Eisenhower administration. It dropped to 3.5 percent by the time LBJ left office. It climbed over 5 percent shortly after Nixon took office, and stayed there for 27 years, until Clinton brought it down to 4.5 percent early in his second term.
You might want to reconsider Cuba in your example. The US is the one with the embargo against them, not the other way around. And North Korea does plenty of stuff internally that stunts its economy, such as slavery, torture and murder of dissidents.
Why try to produce oranges or sugar, which can be produced at a far lower cost in tropical countries? Why keep the obsolete steel mills in the "rust belt"?
Maybe because in an emergency, we might not have as much access to offshore resources. For instance, if there's a war, we might need a lot of steel in a hurry.
Every dollar spent in subsidies is a dollar removed from another, more efficient, activity.
Not necessarily. Correcting for externalities increases efficiency. Plus, pure capitalism eventually goes to efficiency (excluding factors like monopolies, collusion and disinformation). In the mean time, enormous harm is done.
Of course, these arguments are more or less accepted by many/. geeks when it comes to steel or farming.
It's a bad idea to completely rid ourselves of any industry, for the afforementioned reasons.
Then the companies move to China, where workers have no such rights. If they get uppity, they just pay off the government to have another Tienamen Square.
Assuming of course we actually have a free market. We don't. A free market assumes many buyers and sellers of the same product and perfect information; when you have just a few sellers of a product and disinformation in the form of advertising, you have something that does not at all resemble a free market.
Fine, but be prepared to pay at least twice what you now pay for a lot of your consumer goods, including your PC, TV, clothes and most of what you can buy so cheaply at the mall or Wallmart.
Let's see... pay current prices for stuff and have no hope of getting a job, or pay twice as much and have much better job prospects...
Guess which one most people will pick?
Reminds me of GURPS cinematic rules. Since real people can't take several punches or kicks and keep going, you can bend the rules for heros a bit if you want.
Unemployment isn't based on the number of people who are on unemployment benefits. The do a phone poll like they do for other government statistics. However, people who are unemployed but have stopped looking (because they've found there's nothing out there) aren't counted, which I'm sure contributes to the decline.
Of course, the drop in wages is certainly a valid complaint.
You make the flawed assumption that the price of gasoline will remain constant.
Any rise in demand for biodiesel will cause a corresponding drop in demand for gasoline (meaning the people who switch to biodiesel will no longer buy gasoline). Hence, the price of gasoline will drop, unless there is a monopoly in place. And of course, the cost of biodiesel will go up as demand goes up, and eventually the two will meet, meaning that the price of fuel for everybody who isn't currently exploiting the biodiesel market will be lower than the current price.
There are a lot of jobs that can never, ever be offshored. The service industry, repairmen, delivery, custom installs, construction, etc.
Yes, and I'm sure that with the hordes of people out of work, those jobs will pay just enough to allow the employee to barely survive, and unable to accumulate any capital. Strike that idea.
The crazy thing about money is that it creates more money.
Ok, let's say, for the sake of argument, that the average family has $5000 stocked away (I know, absurd, but we'll go with it). Let's say that they could make a historically absurd %50 average gain through their investments. That means that, at the end of year one, they'll have $7500.
Now, in the mean time... how exactly are they supposed to survive?
Also, note that in the end the market ALWAYS goes up.
And yet the real wages of the poorest 20% of the population has gone down for a few decades.
Who do you think shareholders are?? The people business is accountable to!
Exactly. A very, very tiny percentage of the population owns the vast majority of stock out there. That means that they are the ones who say what goes, and the rest of the people can suck it.
I saw an interesting post a while ago about how it's fine if everything gets outsourced, because we can all just invest in those companies and make money without doing work!
Except, where are you going to get the capital to do that? From working? Nope, the jobs are offshored, so that's a no go.
That's how the rich do it, and that's what other people can do, to, with a little research.
So you're saying that each of the several hundred million people living in the US can buy up enough stock with their meager wealth to get enough income for the rest of their lives? You're dreaming.
Which means....*gasp*...PEOPLE have power! PEOPLE can change things! PEOPLE can get promoted, and elected, and through HARD WORK can change their world into something they like better.
Except with business, it's just some people who have the power. They can change things in ways that affect other people, except those others have no say in the matter. With the government, on the other hand, there's at least some accountability to all the people, in the form of elections.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically, it's in there because (in the comics) Doc Ock's life work was to create a working fusion reactor, and his super-villany started because of a mishap during one of his experiments. It'd be a lot harder to adapt his origin story to more modern scientific ideas than it was with Spiderman.
Actually, the point of capitalism is to own the means of production, so that you can exploit workers and make a profit on their labors. That way, you can acquire more capital to leverage against the workers.
You're probably thinking of the free market, which is a bit different.
I thought it was a natural gas pipeline.
Not really. Theoretical pure capitalism creates efficiency, but only when certain premises are assumed (perfect information, many buyers and sellers of everything, etc). As you point out, in the real world "pure" capitalism leads to monopolies, which cause massive inefficiency. Similarly, advertising creates disinformation and prevents there from being perfect information available.
Heh, how naive. People, and juries, are easily swayed by emotional appeals. If the prosecutor can get the jury afraid of what would happen if this dangerous person is released to the public (never mind that there's not enough evidence to know if he's even the right person), or that the person is horrible enough to deserve prison whether they committed this particular crime or not, he's done for unless he can afford a good attorney. Public defenders have often put up no defense whatsoever or even fallen asleep during the trial.
Or how about being monitored at all times? What if they started requiring all felons to wear ankle bracelets at all times?
Does the penalty fit the crime?
It will also teach you that your ability to manipulate other people is more important than your ability to do anything else.
Try this instead: your company tells you to vote for candidate A or you're fired.
So was slavery, does that make it moral?
Then the companies move to China, where workers have no such rights. If they get uppity, they just pay off the government to have another Tienamen Square.
Assuming of course we actually have a free market. We don't. A free market assumes many buyers and sellers of the same product and perfect information; when you have just a few sellers of a product and disinformation in the form of advertising, you have something that does not at all resemble a free market.
Reminds me of GURPS cinematic rules. Since real people can't take several punches or kicks and keep going, you can bend the rules for heros a bit if you want.
Don't forget the slightly different endings where you get Dave killed, but still finish the game.
Yep. There's one walkthru on GameFaqs.com that lists each playthru with only one other character.
Unemployment isn't based on the number of people who are on unemployment benefits. The do a phone poll like they do for other government statistics. However, people who are unemployed but have stopped looking (because they've found there's nothing out there) aren't counted, which I'm sure contributes to the decline.
Of course, the drop in wages is certainly a valid complaint.
Pay attention. It was around $500 per month, and $5000 per year.
Even worse: consider the job ads that companies would publish: "Must have 80 years of Java experience."
You make the flawed assumption that the price of gasoline will remain constant.
Any rise in demand for biodiesel will cause a corresponding drop in demand for gasoline (meaning the people who switch to biodiesel will no longer buy gasoline). Hence, the price of gasoline will drop, unless there is a monopoly in place. And of course, the cost of biodiesel will go up as demand goes up, and eventually the two will meet, meaning that the price of fuel for everybody who isn't currently exploiting the biodiesel market will be lower than the current price.
Sounds good to me.
Now, in the mean time... how exactly are they supposed to survive? And yet the real wages of the poorest 20% of the population has gone down for a few decades.