Halo 2 Forum > Off-topic > Debate Forum
 
 
Display Modes Thread Tools
davobrosia
Ask Z for $50
davobrosia's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 22,593
Subtract from davobrosia's ReputationAdd to davobrosia's Reputation davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to davobrosia
#21
09-11-2013
Default

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/...eck_cycle.html

Quote:
When data reveals widespread patterns of behavior in society (e.g. paycheck cycle), then something in the society creates that behavior. If many poor parents can't manage their families' (no sic) meals, it suggests failure in social services or education.
Quote:
In other words, the systematic treatment of poor people as a unexpected result of the system is the very part of the system that maintains the poverty.
Spoiler!
wingless
delirious
wingless's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Jet City
Posts: 14,901
Subtract from wingless's ReputationAdd to wingless's Reputation wingless IS OVER 9000 wingless IS OVER 9000 wingless IS OVER 9000 wingless IS OVER 9000 wingless IS OVER 9000 wingless IS OVER 9000 wingless IS OVER 9000 wingless IS OVER 9000 wingless IS OVER 9000 wingless IS OVER 9000 wingless IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to wingless
#22
09-11-2013
Default

So, the proposed solution would be to...do what? Sustainability in the communities where everyone is living day to day seems to be something that would be the most important, but when education ceases to become an emphasis/priority from other cognitive strains what do?
zyphex
Level 25
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 888
Subtract from zyphex's ReputationAdd to zyphex's Reputation zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to zyphex
#23
09-11-2013
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PM
you're a retarded faggot
And you're a dumb fucking bigot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davobrosia View Post
Don't threadshit my fucking threads.


zyphex, what you point out is a seemingly valid concern. If your criticism is valid and true (I haven't read the study thoroughly enough), my response would be that poverty's consuming limited cognitive resources may induce a negative externality on the population as a whole, undermining the liberating power of free enterprise (I truly believe this is a true thing--see here for a brief rundown*).
That is a valid argument if you are saying there is a cost associated with poverty (...of course, for every benefit of a social system or policy, there are associated costs...no free lunch, etc.), but I'm not sure that the use of the term externality is correct, or even that the "externality", or cost, is unambiguously not compensated for by other benefits (of course, I’m here assuming a free market system, rather than the cronyist system we live under today, since the existence of an externality is associated with market, rather than government, failure. Under the cronyist system we live under today, there can be other justification for taking from the rich and giving to the poor….not that I’d necessarily be in favor of a government intervention to make up for the flaws of other interventions). If you are talking about a real case of an externality, the existence of this pecuniary externality is likely offset by benefits to other parties (whether it is more than offset, or only partially offset, seems to me unknowable). I say it’s pecuniary because poverty, if portrayed as an externality, would seem to be caused by wages (a price) being “too low” in the industries of low-skilled labor caused by “too many” laborers competing in the same market, or too little demand for the products of unskilled labor.

I don’t think it should really be framed as an externality. But perhaps I’m just unclear on what, in clear terms, the externality is that you are talking about. “Liberating power” isn’t well-defined to me.



Quote:
In other words, it may be beneficial for those with already-entrenched wealth and capital to keep the poor dumb so they have to toil away and don't have any real bargaining power in getting a better lot (because they are not only constantly exhausted and unable to save, but also because shouldering the cognitive load of poverty makes it that much harder to do anything about it)
Not that you assumed it (or any of the things addressed in this paragraph), but this situation would seem more plausible if there were a fixed-pie representing wealth, rather than wealth being dynamic. Also, the wealthy capitalists market to the masses, and if the masses are kept poor, then their market-base stays limited. In addition, a collective/holistic interpretation of “capitalists,” as if this group were made up of homogenous members with the same economic interests (one class, as some would have it), rather than individuals with diverse interests who compete with each other for consumers and for funds, is a fabrication and a flawed simplification which acts to bypass an analysis of competition among the capitalists; competition being the heart of the reason free markets work well and tend to bring prices (including wages) and values towards an equality, with any divergence representing an opportunity for profit or loss which will be quickly be eliminated once these opportunities are realized. (If competition between capitalists is eliminated, consider me against this brand of “capitalism”). Instead, class analysis underplays or ignores interclass competition which produces beneficial results, and instead represents each holistic class competing with each other, and then critiques this situation as exploitative, which, if it weren’t for competition among the capitalists, I would very much assent that it would be, indeed exploitative.


But you said none of this and implied none of this, but these are the premises that I find would make your type of argument convincing. If we are discussing the current situation where government and business work together to restrict competition, I still don’t think they wish to keep the people dumber, overall. I think on issues of economics and philosophy, there is a definite interest to keep people dumber by not stressing these topics in middle school and high school, or having serious discussion in the media. People who think critically about social issues aren’t as apt to eat up propaganda and might actually figure out how the system fucks them. But other than that, I think if anything they have an interest in people becoming good scientists and the like. I think corporations are more apt to seek legal privilege (or equivalently legal barriers for potential competitors) than trying to keep people down who could buy their products, invest in their stocks, or work for them as they work up the ladder. Once again, without the State-apparatus, any corporation deliberately trying to keep people poor will likely fail due to competition among likes or by the forces in the market for education (except for the fact that there isn’t a free market in education). I just think this kind of view can only be plausible if one ignores all competition except for a competition between “capitalists” and “noncapitalists.”



Quote:
but even if you don't grant the truth of this common (anecdotal) account of what it's like to be very poor, it may still be the case that this dampening effect, or permanent cognitive reduction, or poverty-induced reduction in cognitive ability (i.e., possibly mutable and temporary) is bad overall for "The Economy" etc. etc.
Possible, but not unambiguously true.

Quote:
And yeah, they could've used a control group, and a followup may be in the pipeline, or it may have been a funding issue. Hard to say at the moment; I'll check on all that later.
In retrospect, comparing the low-cost financial concern groups with the high-cost financial concern groups can tell us something, but having the extra control groups with no financial concern would make the test better. If I remember, they seem to say the low-cost financial problem didn't really affect either group, but that can't be said without control groups. All that could be said is that there is no statistical difference in how low-cost concerns affected the rich and poor (Edit: Actually, I think the control groups would be needed to say this...you can't know the actual effect of a low-cost concern unless you know how each group tests without any financial concerns being raised. For instance, let's say that without financial concerns, the rich perform statistically better than the poor do. But then there is a low-cost financial concern added in, and the rich's cognitive ability drops more than the poor group, resulting in roughly equal cognitive capacity with low-cost concerns. Even though the cognitive capacities would be equal under this condition, the low-cost concern actually affected the rich a lot more than the poor. Note that I dont believe this would be the case, but it needs ruled out to make the claim that I think the paper does make about the affect (or non-affect) of low financial concerns).

Quote:
*tl;dr: Capitalism is the radical decoding and deterritorialization of the material flows that previous social machines had zealously coded on the earth or the body of the despot. Production is credited to the “body” of capital, but this form of recording works by the substitution of an “axiomatic” for a code: in this context an “axiomatic” means a set of simple principles for the quantitative calculation of the difference between flows (of deterritorialized labor and capital) rather than elaborate rules for the qualitative judgments that map flows onto the socius. Capitalism's command is utterly simple: connect deterritorialized flows of labor and capital and extract a surplus from that connection. Thus capitalism sets loose an enormous productive charge—connect those flows! Faster, faster!—the surpluses of which the institutions of private property try to register as belonging to individuals. Now those individuals are primarily social (as figures of capitalist or laborer) and only secondarily private (family members). Whereas organs of bodies were socially marked in previous regimes (as belonging to the clan and earth, or as belonging to the emperor, as in the jus primae noctis), body organs are privatized under capitalism and attached to persons as members of the family. In Deleuze and Guattari's terms, capitalism's decoded flows are reterritorialized on “persons,” that is, on family members as figures in the Oedipal triangle.
I read the link, but have neither the time nor the ability to properly respond or fully understand what is being said, but I do appreciate you including a summary with the link to help. Sorry I don't have a better response than this.
GT: Zyphex

Last edited by zyphex; 09-11-2013 at 05:26 PM.
PM
1 authentic experience
PM's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Location:  
Posts: 12,409
Subtract from PM's ReputationAdd to PM's Reputation PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000
#24
09-11-2013
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zyphex View Post
That is a valid argument if you are saying there is a cost associated with poverty (...of course, for every benefit of a social system or policy, there are associated costs...no free lunch, etc.), but I'm not sure that the use of the term externality is correct, or even that the "externality", or cost, is unambiguously not compensated for by other benefits (of course, I’m here assuming a free market system, rather than the cronyist system we live under today,
...
i don't even

seriously, i'm not being facetious or anything, i seriously don't even understand how you still think this.

is it that you've literally invested so much in this 'free market' ideology that you can't even for a second think about it reflexively or critically?
'the cronyist system we live in today' isn't even just a direct result of this very ideology, it's the logical extension of it.

looking at the awful, dehumanizing effects of neoliberalism, you say "but thats crony's fault tho thats not reaallly what neoliberalism looks like"
except, it is. it's exactly what neoliberalism looks like. i mean, it doesn't have any other look.

you have mises posters plastered on your bedroom walls like he's hayden panettiere, and you're calling me the bigot?

Quote:
since the existence of an externality is associated with market, rather than government, failure. Under the cronyist system we live under today,
........
Quote:
there can be other justification for taking from the rich and giving to the poor….not that I’d necessarily be in favor of a government intervention to make up for the flaws of other interventions). If you are talking about a real case of an externality, the existence of this pecuniary externality is likely offset by benefits to other parties (whether it is more than offset, or only partially offset, seems to me unknowable).I say it’s pecuniary because poverty, if portrayed as an externality, would seem to be caused by wages (a price) being “too low” in the industries of low-skilled labor caused by “too many” laborers competing in the same market, or too little demand for the products of unskilled labor.

I don’t think it should really be framed as an externality. But perhaps I’m just unclear on what, in clear terms, the externality is that you are talking about. “Liberating power” isn’t well-defined to me.
"In economics, an externality is a cost or benefit that results from an activity or transaction and that affects an otherwise uninvolved party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit"

alright, assuming this is the definition you're operating w. (being an Economist and all), i'm pretty confused as to how you don't think poverty is an externality. maybe you could explain your rationale here?




Quote:
Not that you assumed it (or any of the things addressed in this paragraph), but this situation would seem more plausible if there were a fixed-pie representing wealth, rather than wealth being dynamic. Also, the wealthy capitalists market to the masses, and if the masses are kept poor, then their market-base stays limited.
this really fucking hurts to read.

(1) (2)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy
http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/
etc

you're assuming that this thing you're calling 'the market' has its consumers' best interests at heart. this isn't supported by any actual experience, though, and only even makes sense given that you already buy into the whole belief structure of chicago school economics / neoliberalism / friedmanism

Quote:
In addition, a collective/holistic interpretation of “capitalists,” as if this group were made up of homogenous members with the same economic interests
>implying that 'capitalists' don't all have the same economic interest (producing capital [viz., making money that makes more money])
Quote:
(one class, as some would have it), rather than individuals with diverse interests who compete with each other for consumers and for funds, is a fabrication and a flawed simplification which acts to bypass an analysis of competition among the capitalists; competition being the heart of the reason free markets work well and tend to bring prices (including wages) and values towards an equality, with any divergence representing an opportunity for profit or loss which will be quickly be eliminated once these opportunities are realized. (If competition between capitalists is eliminated, consider me against this brand of “capitalism”). Instead, class analysis underplays or ignores interclass competition which produces beneficial results, and instead represents each holistic class competing with each other, and then critiques this situation as exploitative, which, if it weren’t for competition among the capitalists, I would very much assent that it would be, indeed exploitative.
jesus christ.

i mean, really, jesus fucking christ.

i can't


Quote:
But you said none of this and implied none of this, but these are the premises that I find would make your type of argument convincing. If we are discussing the current situation where government and business work together to restrict competition, I still don’t think they wish to keep the people dumber, overall. I think on issues of economics and philosophy, there is a definite interest to keep people dumber by not stressing these topics in middle school and high school, or having serious discussion in the media. People who think critically about social issues aren’t as apt to eat up propaganda and might actually figure out how the system fucks them. But other than that, I think if anything they have an interest in people becoming good scientists and the like. I think corporations are more apt to seek legal privilege (or equivalently legal barriers for potential competitors) than trying to keep people down who could buy their products, invest in their stocks, or work for them as they work up the ladder. Once again, without the State-apparatus, any corporation deliberately trying to keep people poor will likely fail due to competition among likes or by the forces in the market for education (except for the fact that there isn’t a free market in education). I just think this kind of view can only be plausible if one ignores all competition except for a competition between “capitalists” and “noncapitalists.”





Quote:
Possible, but not unambiguously true.



In retrospect, comparing the low-cost financial concern groups with the high-cost financial concern groups can tell us something, but having the extra control groups with no financial concern would make the test better. If I remember, they seem to say the low-cost financial problem didn't really affect either group, but that can't be said without control groups. All that could be said is that there is no statistical difference in how low-cost concerns affected the rich and poor.
bold is how i understood the article here, anyway. only, also: "however, there is a statistical difference in how high-cost concerns affected the rich and poor"




zyph, my friend, the above discussion aside: why is it that you post walls of text mirroring (in both structure and content) your textbooks, and never seem to say anything at all interesting?

Last edited by PM; 09-11-2013 at 05:12 PM.
davobrosia
Ask Z for $50
davobrosia's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 22,593
Subtract from davobrosia's ReputationAdd to davobrosia's Reputation davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to davobrosia
#25
09-11-2013
Default

Can't post more till tomorrow, but I was using externality as shorthand for a lot of the stuff you unpacked; thinking on it, it's probably not accurate because I was using it in the context of the system in toto, so it doesn't make sense to refer to something external to it. But we both tend to try not to argue semantics anyway.
Spoiler!
zyphex
Level 25
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 888
Subtract from zyphex's ReputationAdd to zyphex's Reputation zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to zyphex
#26
09-11-2013
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davobrosia View Post
Can't post more till tomorrow, but I was using externality as shorthand for a lot of the stuff you unpacked; thinking on it, it's probably not accurate because I was using it in the context of the system in toto, so it doesn't make sense to refer to something external to it. But we both tend to try not to argue semantics anyway.
Charity granted. I did not intend for my concern about whether or not it is a proper externality to take away from the fact that you bring up a point that I think is very much worth considering.
GT: Zyphex
davobrosia
Ask Z for $50
davobrosia's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 22,593
Subtract from davobrosia's ReputationAdd to davobrosia's Reputation davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to davobrosia
#27
09-23-2013
Default

I'll get you a better response this week. Been busy. But so nobody can accuse me of being inconsistent in my ire: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/...nsparency.html

Who could have seen that coming--Liberals being either thieving or incompetent?
Spoiler!
Lucky
Archivist
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Lockout
Posts: 5,070
Subtract from Lucky's ReputationAdd to Lucky's Reputation Lucky IS OVER 9000 Lucky IS OVER 9000 Lucky IS OVER 9000 Lucky IS OVER 9000 Lucky IS OVER 9000 Lucky IS OVER 9000 Lucky IS OVER 9000 Lucky IS OVER 9000 Lucky IS OVER 9000 Lucky IS OVER 9000 Lucky IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to Lucky
#28
09-23-2013
Default



Last edited by Lucky; 09-23-2013 at 06:07 PM. Reason: thx zyphex
Lucky
Archivist
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Lockout
Posts: 5,070
Subtract from Lucky's ReputationAdd to Lucky's Reputation Lucky IS OVER 9000 Lucky IS OVER 9000 Lucky IS OVER 9000 Lucky IS OVER 9000 Lucky IS OVER 9000 Lucky IS OVER 9000 Lucky IS OVER 9000 Lucky IS OVER 9000 Lucky IS OVER 9000 Lucky IS OVER 9000 Lucky IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to Lucky
#29
09-23-2013
Default

zyphex is all 24
zyphex
Level 25
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 888
Subtract from zyphex's ReputationAdd to zyphex's Reputation zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to zyphex
#30
09-23-2013
Default

Spoiler!


I'm guessing you mean that?
GT: Zyphex
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off