Why the f-ck did anyone ask Klaus Schwab the time anyway

[Rob Ray]

They don't. That's why I asked the question. You have swerved it.

They do and they have, in every iteration of capitalism, for very logical reasons outlined by economists from Adam Smith onwards. The question is the problem, because it indicates you either have very little understanding of the subject, or you're too much of an ideologue to accept reality.

I say we would be, ergo, corporations rely on capitalism, but capitalism does not rely corporations.

Corporations pre-date capitalism. Capitalism has had them from its earliest stages, so saying it could or even should work without them is irrelevant. It doesn't, because larger scale co-ordinated production generally outperforms and crushes smaller scale enterprises in mass markets. This is intrinsic to the process, to stop it from happening you'd have to very aggressively intervene in the market to prohibit combination. Which is, I gather, something you'd be against doing as a "libertarian"-minded sort of fellow.

I fear the left hates capitalism, but not corporates, hence why they cheer on corporate censorship.

"The left" is not a monolithic entity but to claim it's pro-corporate is little more than incoherent gabbling. See the above about ideologues.

 

[Pickman's model]

They don't. That's why I asked the question. You have swerved it.
If corporations seized to exist. Are we still left with capitalism?
I say we would be, ergo, corporations rely on capitalism, but capitalism does not rely corporations.
I fear the left hates capitalism, but not corporates, hence why they cheer on corporate censorship.

It is better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than to pipe up as you have and prove yourself one

 

[SpineyNorman]

Besides, didn't the silk road online drug emporium get taken down anyway? I'm sure that online drug trading is still making brisk business, but that's no indication that it's necessarily any more "secure" than buying off a dealer in person. Street dealers get busted all the time but still find plenty of customers.

The admin also tried to do several murders for hire. He was a libertarian fuckwit too though so the assassin he recruited was in fact a copper.

 

[StakerOne]

The not very tightly fastened mask slips.

Fuck right off you thick libertarian cunt.

I would not describe myself as a libertarian.

If a decentralised entity or entities can do the job better than government then all the better.

BUT if a government can do the job best then it should have the job.

That doesn't strike me as libertarian.

For example, I would prefer the NHS over the private fragmented system that exists in the United States....however, if there were a decentralised way that health care could be provided that were to be superior to the NHS, then that would be the way to go.

My mind isn't closed by political ideology or dogma.

 

[StakerOne]

It is better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than to pipe up as you have and prove yourself one

That would exclude one from the persuit of the truth, because to get closer to the truth, you have to learn and one wouldn't learn much if one didn't bounce their belief of the truth off of others.

 

[StakerOne]

Thinking that the question of power can be solved with a bit of code. It's naive, idiotic and dangerous.

I once watched a documentary on the silk road (drug market not the old trade route) and some right libertarian bitcoin twat was talking about PGP and bitcoin and he said it makes the use of force useless because 'force can't solve a math(sic) problem. Completely failing to realise that force can waterboard you until you handover your keys and passwords.

 

[StakerOne]

you thick cunt

How do you actually manage to get friends and family to see things your way?

You seem to have a really short fuse getting highly strung and emotional because someone holds a different PoV.

 

[StakerOne]

Corporations pre-date capitalism. Capitalism has had them from its earliest stages, so saying it could or even should work without them is irrelevant. It doesn't, because larger scale co-ordinated production generally outperforms and crushes smaller scale enterprises in mass markets. This is intrinsic to the process, to stop it from happening you'd have to very aggressively intervene in the market to prohibit combination. Which is, I gather, something you'd be against doing as a "libertarian"-minded sort of fellow.

I'm not a libertarian. I'm not against interventions against monopolies and anti-trust practices, especially in abssence of a viable solution.

Corporates do better than worker's co-ops because workers co-ops haven't really historically had the tools to efficently pool the power of all of the workers.

While corporates have a board, they also tend to have a head figure who is ultimately responsible weilding all the power and making all the decisions.

For example, one day there will be a decentralised version of Uber, where there are no middlemen (or middle people to be more PC!) but one of the biggest obsticals to that are potential anti-trust practices by Google and Apple on their app stores - which is why (for now) we need government intervention as an option.

 

[Pickman's model]

That would exclude one from the persuit of the truth, because to get closer to the truth, you have to learn and one wouldn't learn much if one didn't bounce their belief of the truth off of others.

No it wouldn't.

 

[SpineyNorman]

How do you actually manage to get friends and family to see things your way?

You seem to have a really short fuse getting highly strung and emotional because someone holds a different PoV.

We have a special algorithm for working out consensus among my friends and family. Spits out a position we're all duty bound to hold by smart contracts enforced by the God of the Blockchain.

 

[StakerOne]

We have a special algorithm for working out consensus among my friends and family. Spits out a position we're all duty bound to hold by smart contracts enforced by the God of the Blockchain.

No you're just being sarcastic because you don't have any answers.

 

[StakerOne]

No it wouldn't.

You have a point in so-far that you have to actually research what other people think of your opinions for the purpose of veracity, but that can be difficult when the reply is nothing more than "You're wrong, you thick cunt."

 

[SpineyNorman]

No you're just being sarcastic because you don't have any answers.

Lol answers to what? Your playground cod psychology?

 

[SpineyNorman]

Picture of a scarecrow

 

[Rimbaud]

They don't. That's why I asked the question. You have swerved it.
If corporations seized to exist. Are we still left with capitalism?
I say we would be, ergo, corporations rely on capitalism, but capitalism does not rely corporations.
I fear the left hates capitalism, but not corporates, hence why they cheer on corporate censorship.

The exact opposite is true, capitalism isn't equivalent to market economics, it's a system of production where owners of capital accumulate wealth by extracting surplus value from their employees. I.e. profit comes from the difference between worker's wages and the value that their labour produces. This is what capitalism is.

A non-capitalist market economy is theoretically possible, if every single person was either self employed or organised into a cooperative that would be a market economy but it would not be a capitalist economy.

So if corporations ceased to exist then no, you wouldn't have capitalism.

Also re corporate censorship and "woke"ness. The reasons for this are quite prosaic. Racism doesn't sell, because the world's consumer economy is no longer weighted so heavily towards white people. LGBT and feminist stuff DOES sell in certain markets, and companies cater their marketing to audiences, so they aren't using rainbow marketing in China or Saudi. If it didn't sell then they wouldn't do it.

Also, if you're managing an international corporation, tolerating racism is bad management, because your staff all come from a variety of backgrounds and need to work together. Allowing racism to fester in the work place undermines people's ability to cooperate and prevents the most worthy people from getting promotions. They actually explain their business reasons for doing "woke" things like training on unconscious bases quite explicitly.

 

[Pickman's model]

That would exclude one from the persuit of the truth, because to get closer to the truth, you have to learn and one wouldn't learn much if one didn't bounce their belief of the truth off of others.

this is really really stupid tbh. yeh you have to learn but you don't need to bounce your belief off others, you don't have to have actual dialogue, you can sit and listen, you can read the great works of philosophy, history, literature. you can see silently how your views change when they come into contact with the likes of schopenhauer, nietzsche, hegel etc. this notion that you have to pipe up and piss everyone else off just so you can learn is so fuckwitted it beggars belief, especially since you don't seem to have learned a thing from what's been said to you in reply.

 

[Pickman's model]

You have a point in so-far that you have to actually research what other people think of your opinions for the purpose of veracity, but that can be difficult when the reply is nothing more than "You're wrong, you thick cunt."

but you are wrong and if you're not a thick cunt you're doing a remarkably good impression of one

 

[StakerOne]

but you are wrong and if you're not a thick cunt you're doing a remarkably good impression of one

LOL. Very good.

 

[StakerOne]

The exact opposite is true, capitalism isn't equivalent to market economics, it's a system of production where owners of capital accumulate wealth by extracting surplus value from their employees. I.e. profit comes from the difference between worker's wages and the value that their labour produces. This is what capitalism is.

A non-capitalist market economy is theoretically possible, if every single person was either self employed or organised into a cooperative that would be a market economy but it would not be a capitalist economy.

So if corporations ceased to exist then no, you wouldn't have capitalism.

Also re corporate censorship and "woke"ness. The reasons for this are quite prosaic. Racism doesn't sell, because the world's consumer economy is no longer weighted so heavily towards white people. LGBT and feminist stuff DOES sell in certain markets, and companies cater their marketing to audiences, so they aren't using rainbow marketing in China or Saudi. If it didn't sell then they wouldn't do it.

Also, if you're managing an international corporation, tolerating racism is bad management, because your staff all come from a variety of backgrounds and need to work together. Allowing racism to fester in the work place undermines people's ability to cooperate and prevents the most worthy people from getting promotions. They actually explain their business reasons for doing "woke" things like training on unconscious bases quite explicitly.

It's not that binary though is it? Wokeness and racism are galaxies apart. Also there's a lot of disagreement about what is and isn't racism.

Of course there's loads of stuff to agree on, including the view that racism is bad for business.

Equally however, telling your customers to shop elsewhere just because they find BLM problematic, isn't good for business either.

 

[Rimbaud]

It's not that binary though is it? Wokeness and racism are galaxies apart. Also there's a lot of disagreement about what is and isn't racism.

Of course there's loads of stuff to agree on, including the view that racism is bad for business.

Equally however, telling your customers to shop elsewhere just because they find BLM problematic, isn't good for business either.

What exactly did you mean by lefty-approved corporate censorship if not the broad stroke of "wokeness"?

 

[Rimbaud]

Equally however, telling your customers to shop elsewhere just because they find BLM problematic, isn't good for business either.

Being seen to bend to the will of a handful of racist cranks is probably considered to be higher risk to the brand image and therefore worse for business than losing the business of a handful of racist cranks.

Marketing is smarter than ever and have access to a shit ton of consumer personal data. Don't imagine they haven't calculated the risk. They know who their market is and more likely than not the data shows some whiny cranks aren't their market.

 

[planetgeli]

Also there's a lot of disagreement about what is and isn't racism.

Generally only from racists I find.

 

[krink]

I reckon this bore will be gone before Christmas. I immediately thought it was a banned returner to be honest. Anyway, if we wanted to read this twaddle we have twitter so please, spare us your nonsense.

 

[StakerOne]

Being seen to bend to the will of a handful of racist cranks is probably considered to be higher risk to the brand image and therefore worse for business than losing the business of a handful of racist cranks.

Marketing is smarter than ever and have access to a shit ton of consumer personal data. Don't imagine they haven't calculated the risk. They know who their market is and more likely than not the data shows some whiny cranks aren't their market.

Perhaps, the best thing to do, would be to stay away from politics, especially politics where there is an obvious split in public opinion.
You know, make a product, market it and stay away from completly unrelated politics, then they don't have to "bend" to anyone.

All I want to know is whether the fucking tea was produced ethically and that it tastes good.
That's it. The end.

It's more than just a "handful of whiny cranks" that finds BLM problematic.

Racism is bad. We might disagree with whether racism starts and ends. We can tell when someone has taken things to far in that direction and more and more of us would label that person as racist.

But what would you call someone who for example argues in effect that non-UK born people should enjoy privilages that UK born people don't?

Wokery is considered to be the kinda opposite, so opposite that it could be argued there is some kind counter-racism going on.

I'm not talking about an estate agent that says "...and here we have a wonderful primary bedroom..."

I'm talking about causing disunity and resentment in the workforce by creating safe-spaces for BAME & LGBTQ+ while everyone else is made to feel "different".

I'm talking about corporates abusing a good cause such as anti-racism, to cause resentment and divisions in the workforce, so there is a disunited workforce.

Surely you know of examples of where good causes have been hiacked and taken to far so as to be counter-productive?

Re markerting being smart. Yes they know that right wingers tend to ignore the politics more and are less likely to boycott a brand, at least pound for pound. Left wingers are less tolerant.

But times are changing. More and more right wingers are boycotting more and more.

It's been an awful long time since I've had a tub of Ben & Jerry's.

 

[StakerOne]

I reckon this bore will be gone before Christmas. I immediately thought it was a banned returner to be honest. Anyway, if we wanted to read this twaddle we have twitter so please, spare us your nonsense.

Yawwwwn. I've just put you on ignore so you can't bore me with your twaddle.

 

[StakerOne]

Generally only from racists I find.

Yes. I find that too.

 

[Serge Forward]

Oh do shut up, you pillock.

 

[Rimbaud]

I'm talking about causing disunity and resentment in the workforce by creating safe-spaces for BAME & LGBTQ+ while everyone else is made to feel "different".

Everyone else? Speak for yourself why don't you.

 

[Rimbaud]

It's been an awful long time since I've had a tub of Ben & Jerry's.

Let me guess - you aren't boycotting them for selling their products in illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank but for tweeting Black Lives Matter.

And Incidentally, Ben and Jerry's reported their highest ever revenue last year so it appears that your boycott is indeed just a bunch of irrelevant cranks.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Perhaps, the best thing to do, would be to stay away from politics, especially politics where there is an obvious split in public opinion.
You know, make a product, market it and stay away from completly unrelated politics, then they don't have to "bend" to anyone.

All I want to know is whether the fucking tea was produced ethically and that it tastes good.
That's it. The end.

It's more than just a "handful of whiny cranks" that finds BLM problematic.

Racism is bad. We might disagree with whether racism starts and ends. We can tell when someone has taken things to far in that direction and more and more of us would label that person as racist.

But what would you call someone who for example argues in effect that non-UK born people should enjoy privilages that UK born people don't?

Wokery is considered to be the kinda opposite, so opposite that it could be argued there is some kind counter-racism going on.

I'm not talking about an estate agent that says "...and here we have a wonderful primary bedroom..."

I'm talking about causing disunity and resentment in the workforce by creating safe-spaces for BAME & LGBTQ+ while everyone else is made to feel "different".

I'm talking about corporates abusing a good cause such as anti-racism, to cause resentment and divisions in the workforce, so there is a disunited workforce.

Surely you know of examples of where good causes have been hiacked and taken to far so as to be counter-productive?

Re markerting being smart. Yes they know that right wingers tend to ignore the politics more and are less likely to boycott a brand, at least pound for pound. Left wingers are less tolerant.

But times are changing. More and more right wingers are boycotting more and more.

It's been an awful long time since I've had a tub of Ben & Jerry's.

Ahh I see. You're one of those.