Optimus Prime
Electric Beats
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2007
- Messages
- 405
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2010
good point, Judge Reinholdt is presiding.
Van Gogh needed a better publicist, willing to work tirelessly to promote his work at the risk of diminishing his personal fortune, and had that publicist succeded, given the hard work involved, risk invested, and value of work he helped add to humanity, he would have been deserving of his 'relative to modern currency' millions in financial rewards.I personally think Angus Young is one of the most over-rated guitarists of the modern era. And I play guitar, and I listen to classic rock. He's acknowledged ACDC have made the same album 10 or so times; there's some quote out there somewhere about it. Hendrix on the other hand, that's where it's at.
I don't like English, so good work there. But you've just proven what I set out to prove! A long-term benefit to humanity is not going to be economically reflected exactly in what someone earns. Look at Van Gogh. No-one gave a fuck while he was alive; and yet now he's one of the best painters ever, supposedly.
Hey come on man, I can admit when I don't know enough about something to give a reasonable answer - more than most people on these boards. I also remember defending your ass from rabid douchebags at least once on another thread.SylvesterBr said:
But, dude, I don't give a fuck about debating capitalism vs capitalism, because I don't support it. Companies should not exist in the first place, and thus our argument is void. I don't support wage-labour, I don't support usury or profit, or any of that capitalist bullshit than enables the dominion of one man over another.SylvesterBr said:Hierarchy is emergent.
Some people are better at leading than others. Being good at managing a company is more scarce a skill than what is possessed by the labourers. It is harder to find a competent CEo than a competent labourer, and CEOS are capable of adding far more vlaue to a company than any individual labourer could ever hope to.
But let me guess, you believe in the labour theory of value, don't you? hahaha pathetic.
They invest in ventures, which involves risk. You act like profits should be shared equally, but don't you think its only fair the loss is shared equally among the labourers? i.e. if a company loses $1 million and has 1000 employees, they each have their pay docked by $1000?
I'm not a socialist, I'm a syndicalist, a small distinction. The 'free market' helps the rich get richer by cutting wages and benefits to their wage-slaves and the poor get richer by enabling them to work in a sweatshop. The 'free market' lets large oil companies like Halliburton rape Iraq, it lets pharmaceutical companies jack up prices because people have no other option but to pay them.SylvesterBr said:Business men are the ones responsible for our societies high standards of living.
Socialism doesn't work, no matter how romantic the rhetoric supporting it is.
The free market helps people, especially the poor.
What about a propaganda advertising campaign for a product that makes people purchase it even if it's horrible for them? Something almost like smoking, for example?Van Gogh needed a better publicist, willing to work tirelessly to promote his work at the risk of diminishing his personal fortune, and had that publicist succeded, given the hard work involved, risk invested, and value of work he helped add to humanity, he would have been deserving of his 'relative to modern currency' millions in financial rewards.
You're right about the variable recognition of artist and financial return. Who can determine the value an artist delivers to humanity? My point is simple~
1. Great artists such as mozart produce more value than even an exceptional high school teacher, and deserve commensurate rewards.
2. The only way to determine who is and isn't a great artist is by consumer preference. Not all great artists are popular, but all popular artists are great. People only spend their money on artworks that they feel enrich their lives significantly and depart satisfaction to them to a greater degree than they could receive from purchasing the art of any competing artist. Ergo the most purchased art is the most meaningful to the most people.
I just think you should be a touch more thoughtful about being vehemently opposed to some huge economic system when your economics isn't so strong.Hey come on man, I can admit when I don't know enough about something to give a reasonable answer - more than most people on these boards. I also remember defending your ass from rabid douchebags at least once on another thread.
What if people want to work for a company? what if people don't want to take on the financial risk assumed by becoming part of a syndicate?But, dude, I don't give a fuck about debating capitalism vs capitalism, because I don't support it. Companies should not exist in the first place, and thus our argument is void.
On a legitimate free market there would be far too many jobs to pay your employees poorly.The 'free market' helps the rich get richer by cutting wages and benefits to their wage-slaves and the poor get richer by enabling them to work in a sweatshop.
What would you rather?The 'free market' lets large oil companies like Halliburton rape Iraq, it lets pharmaceutical companies jack up prices because people have no other option but to pay them.
Don't try and reason with him taco, he'll steal your soul!I just think you should be a touch more thoughtful about being vehemently opposed to some huge economic system when your economics isn't so strong.
What if people want to work for a company? what if people don't want to take on the financial risk assumed by becoming part of a syndicate?
How would you stop hierarchal frims springing up in a stateless society?
On a legitimate free market there would be far too many jobs to pay your employees poorly.
On a free market there would be far greater income equality.
What would you rather?
Important drugs being extremely expensive, or said drugs not existing at all?
Pharmaceutical companies in (the more so than other places) capitalist America are responsible for the vast majority of the world's medical breakthroughs.
Pharmaceuticals are only expensive because of IP laws- which are a statist thing. The government crushes competition. Generics ye.What would you rather?
Important drugs being extremely expensive, or said drugs not existing at all?
Pharmaceutical companies in (the more so than other places) capitalist America are responsible for the vast majority of the world's medical breakthroughs.
Also, whatever horrible things halliburton is able to do to iraq has a lot more to do with the evil of statism, than it does with the free market.The 'free market' lets large oil companies like Halliburton rape Iraq,
This is where I stopped reading the thread.From an economic perspective I don't know the answer to this, to be honest. However, from a sociological perspective
Pharmaceuticals are only expensive because of IP laws- which are a statist thing. The government crushes competition. Generics ye.
Depends on your stance as a pro or anti-IP libertarian. In either case, copyright protections that increasingly are extending for 70 years or more are retarded.
talking to an engineer is like talking to a kitchen bench, they have no capacity for creative/independent thoughts, all they can do is plug numbers into formula developed by mathematicians.chemical engineering, because it is one of the fucking backbones of modern society
exactly, and engineers are just outdated calculators, they don't invent anything, they follow instructions about how to check chemical levels at waste treatment plants, etc..yeah calculators just magically invent innovative technologies themselves I mean fuck
lol that sounds like an average grad degree im thinkin buddytalking to an engineer is like talking to a kitchen bench, they have no capacity for creative/independent thoughts, all they can do is plug numbers into formula developed by mathematicians.
Society doesn't value engineers today (as reflected in the fact their mean income in 2008/2009 was $69,500), and it's because computers basically do their job now, today's engineers just sit next to the computers and check the outputs for safety reasons.
It's sad to think that so many young people can get swindled down this 'engineering' career path, they think that there gong to be designing robots or creating new chemical products, but in reality they become 'data analyst' at sewage processing plants or 'product standards officer' ay a toothpaste factory assembly line.