Auron_ said: Baaaaaased, read it again :) My bad. I guess you meant I'm the only one who shouldn't die. XD At first I read that sentence as, "With the exclusion of this one person, the rest of you keep fighting the good fight." I haven't eaten yet today. Need to have breakfast now... I'm astonished I wrote that latest long post on such low fuel. |
SmugSatokoSep 8, 2024 10:41 AM
 |
Reply to SmugSatoko
Auron_ said:
Baaaaaased, read it again :)
Baaaaaased, read it again :)
My bad. I guess you meant I'm the only one who shouldn't die. XD
At first I read that sentence as, "With the exclusion of this one person, the rest of you keep fighting the good fight."
I haven't eaten yet today. Need to have breakfast now... I'm astonished I wrote that latest long post on such low fuel.
| @SmugSatoko I made no point this late into the thread, just expressing my disappointment that most of the thread doesn't seem to grasp that media creation will be affected by taking away exclusive ownership to creative works, or obligating companies to preserve it for your consumption long after it has ceased to be financially viable (such as with Stop Killing Games campaign) Edit: Oh, seems it's resolved. |
 |
| I think if a company sits on their IP for over a decade and just lets something stay out of print, it should no longer be illegal to pirate it. Not like the company's losing money at that point anyway, since the only way to buy the originals would be used pre-owned copies where sales go to other people instead of the original copyright holders. I'm not saying they should lose ownership of the IP entirely, but as long as they're no longer actively making certain shows/movies/games available anymore, it should be fine to download them with impunity. If they want to stop that, put them back up for sale. |
| This thread is hilarious. How can people still naïvely defend capitalism by spreading old anti-communist propaganda? I dislike Stalin as much as any sensible person, but we should stop pretending that a country like America is a success... Homeless people and drug addicts everywhere in the streets, water is more expensive than soda (likewise, "healthy" food—that is just normal food in other countries—is significantly more expensive than junk food), you have no rights to have access to healthcare if you lose your job, etc, etc. And doing anything for the basic rights of the people basically makes you a communist in this country. Intellectual property only makes sense for an artist who is still alive. But editors give 8-10% of their revenues to the authors, how isn't that a form of exploitation? Writers are no better than peasants... Once an artist passes away, the profits editors and labels make on his dead carcass should be given to a common fund to help beginner artists make a living. Obviously, it does makes sense that a widow (or widower) gets a part of those profits, but children should not have to rely on their famous ancestors to do something with their lives. The situation is even worse in academic publishing, since all actors (but a few people working in the administration) do all the work for free, then the journals are sold for a hefty price to the same researchers who acted as editors, referees, and authors... How does it make any sense? It seems that people have lost touch with reality. You pay for a (really bad; why does it crash all the time?) service like Crunchyroll, and if you travel to another country or wait for a couple of years, you become unable to watch some anime that used to be on the catalogue. Once that happens, it is impossible to find the anime anywhere legally (try looking for Neo Ranga). And Crunchyroll only produces mediocre anime, so it would not be a big loss if they disappeared... When it comes to manga, they are sold in Europe for $10-15 per volume, so it is completely unthinkable to expect that people will buy manga before they get a good idea about the specific series. The argument that piracy hurts the industry does not rely on any credible research by the way, for the manga market keeps expanding:  The kids who pirate manga will become otaku who buy figurines for thousands of dollars, so the industry should not be so worried about the evil pirates... @SmugSatoko O Satoko, Satoko, wherefore art thou Satoko? Deny thy capital and refuse thy profit, Or, if thou wilt not, abandon thy smugness, And I'll no longer be a Marxist. |
Meusnier said: This thread is hilarious. How can people still naïvely defend capitalism by spreading old anti-communist propaganda? I dislike Stalin as much as any sensible person, but we should stop pretending that a country like America is a success... The US is responsible for bringing unprecedented prosperity and innovation to the world, precisely because of capitalism and the American values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You haven't made a case for socialism at all. Homeless people and drug addicts everywhere in the streets, Those are the result of leftist policies that are antithetical to American ideals. The majority of areas in the US afflicted by homelessness and drug addiction are Democrat-run cities. water is more expensive than soda Soda is many times more expensive than water. Many towns even have free tap water. (likewise, "healthy" food—that is just normal food in other countries—is significantly more expensive than junk food), According to this study, even in the US, healthy food is more affordable. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/44678/19980_eib96.pdf If you're just comparing random things, it can go either way. Some fruits like bananas are considerably cheaper than most junk food. you have no rights to have access to healthcare if you lose your job, etc, etc. That varies between states. Some have free health care for those with low enough income, among other safety nets for people who lost their job. Additionally, as I have told you before, anyone in America can get access to health care (regardless of insurance, income, etc.) if it's at a public hospital, emergency room, free clinic, or certain other health centers. Whether that would be free or you receive a bill depends on many factors. And doing anything for the basic rights of the people basically makes you a communist in this country. This statement is too ambiguous to respond to. Perhaps describe which alleged rights you are referring to. Intellectual property only makes sense for an artist who is still alive. But editors give 8-10% of their revenues to the authors, how isn't that a form of exploitation? Writers are no better than peasants... Once an artist passes away, the profits editors and labels make on his dead carcass should be given to a common fund to help beginner artists make a living. Obviously, it does makes sense that a widow (or widower) gets a part of those profits, but children should not have to rely on their famous ancestors to do something with their lives. The situation is even worse in academic publishing, since all actors (but a few people working in the administration) do all the work for free, then the journals are sold for a hefty price to the same researchers who acted as editors, referees, and authors... How does it make any sense? It seems that people have lost touch with reality. You pay for a (really bad; why does it crash all the time?) service like Crunchyroll, and if you travel to another country or wait for a couple of years, you become unable to watch some anime that used to be on the catalogue. Once that happens, it is impossible to find the anime anywhere legally (try looking for Neo Ranga). And Crunchyroll only produces mediocre anime, so it would not be a big loss if they disappeared... When it comes to manga, they are sold in Europe for $10-15 per volume, so it is completely unthinkable to expect that people will buy manga before they get a good idea about the specific series. The argument that piracy hurts the industry does not rely on any credible research by the way, for the manga market keeps expanding: The kids who pirate manga will become otaku who buy figurines for thousands of dollars, so the industry should not be so worried about the evil pirates... I don't really have a problem with this part of your post. O Satoko, Satoko, wherefore art thou Satoko? Deny thy capital and refuse thy profit, Or, if thou wilt not, abandon thy smugness, And I'll no longer be a Marxist. Oh gosh, you're making me blush with your poetry.  SmugSatoko said: Also, you're giving me PTSD from my brief tenure at Burger King long ago. Among other things, I cooked burgers on the flame grill, which was simple enough...but then they expected me to quickly make a specialty item I had never heard of, let alone knew how to prepare. When I expressed my discontent over their incompetence, they fired me...but it's their fault for neglecting to train me in the first place. Meusnier said: P.S. I liked reading about your amusing story at the burger place. How can you defend capitalism after being treated so badly at work? Please reply to this question in the relevant thread where I will quote you in a few minutes. In this instance, the problem was merely that particular restaurant. I likely would have quit soon afterward anyway. |
SmugSatokoSep 10, 2024 1:13 AM
|
LoveYourSmile said: The US is responsible for exporting poverty, exploitation and cultural degradation worldwide. The only "good" I can say about that state is that they began with own people. And I'm not even a Marxist lol. You probably just didn't travel enough to compare. What a load of nonsense. The US dramatically increased the economic growth and standard of living of the world, lifting billions out of poverty. It is responsible for innovation and technological development that advanced civilization tremendously. It has protected human rights and liberty more fervently than any other nation, making the world far safer and freer. Calling its immense cultural influence "degradation" is laughable. As for exploitation, you're just throwing around buzzwords unless you wish to elaborate. |
SmugSatokoSep 10, 2024 2:12 AM
|
Reply to Meusnier
This thread is hilarious. How can people still naïvely defend capitalism by spreading old anti-communist propaganda? I dislike Stalin as much as any sensible person, but we should stop pretending that a country like America is a success... Homeless people and drug addicts everywhere in the streets, water is more expensive than soda (likewise, "healthy" food—that is just normal food in other countries—is significantly more expensive than junk food), you have no rights to have access to healthcare if you lose your job, etc, etc. And doing anything for the basic rights of the people basically makes you a communist in this country.
Intellectual property only makes sense for an artist who is still alive. But editors give 8-10% of their revenues to the authors, how isn't that a form of exploitation? Writers are no better than peasants... Once an artist passes away, the profits editors and labels make on his dead carcass should be given to a common fund to help beginner artists make a living. Obviously, it does makes sense that a widow (or widower) gets a part of those profits, but children should not have to rely on their famous ancestors to do something with their lives.
The situation is even worse in academic publishing, since all actors (but a few people working in the administration) do all the work for free, then the journals are sold for a hefty price to the same researchers who acted as editors, referees, and authors... How does it make any sense?
It seems that people have lost touch with reality. You pay for a (really bad; why does it crash all the time?) service like Crunchyroll, and if you travel to another country or wait for a couple of years, you become unable to watch some anime that used to be on the catalogue. Once that happens, it is impossible to find the anime anywhere legally (try looking for Neo Ranga). And Crunchyroll only produces mediocre anime, so it would not be a big loss if they disappeared... When it comes to manga, they are sold in Europe for $10-15 per volume, so it is completely unthinkable to expect that people will buy manga before they get a good idea about the specific series. The argument that piracy hurts the industry does not rely on any credible research by the way, for the manga market keeps expanding:
The kids who pirate manga will become otaku who buy figurines for thousands of dollars, so the industry should not be so worried about the evil pirates...
@SmugSatoko
O Satoko, Satoko, wherefore art thou Satoko?
Deny thy capital and refuse thy profit,
Or, if thou wilt not, abandon thy smugness,
And I'll no longer be a Marxist.
Intellectual property only makes sense for an artist who is still alive. But editors give 8-10% of their revenues to the authors, how isn't that a form of exploitation? Writers are no better than peasants... Once an artist passes away, the profits editors and labels make on his dead carcass should be given to a common fund to help beginner artists make a living. Obviously, it does makes sense that a widow (or widower) gets a part of those profits, but children should not have to rely on their famous ancestors to do something with their lives.
The situation is even worse in academic publishing, since all actors (but a few people working in the administration) do all the work for free, then the journals are sold for a hefty price to the same researchers who acted as editors, referees, and authors... How does it make any sense?
It seems that people have lost touch with reality. You pay for a (really bad; why does it crash all the time?) service like Crunchyroll, and if you travel to another country or wait for a couple of years, you become unable to watch some anime that used to be on the catalogue. Once that happens, it is impossible to find the anime anywhere legally (try looking for Neo Ranga). And Crunchyroll only produces mediocre anime, so it would not be a big loss if they disappeared... When it comes to manga, they are sold in Europe for $10-15 per volume, so it is completely unthinkable to expect that people will buy manga before they get a good idea about the specific series. The argument that piracy hurts the industry does not rely on any credible research by the way, for the manga market keeps expanding:
The kids who pirate manga will become otaku who buy figurines for thousands of dollars, so the industry should not be so worried about the evil pirates...
@SmugSatoko
O Satoko, Satoko, wherefore art thou Satoko?
Deny thy capital and refuse thy profit,
Or, if thou wilt not, abandon thy smugness,
And I'll no longer be a Marxist.
Meusnier said: How can people still naïvely defend capitalism by spreading old anti-communist propaganda? It's pretty simple. The bootlickers never learn. All information just passes over their heads. A part of me suspects this smug weirdo is just trolling at this point, however. I find it hard to believe they're serious. |
 |
My impression after I read this topic: |
No, this isn't my signature. |
Purple_Gh0st24 said: It's pretty simple. The bootlickers never learn. All information just passes over their heads. A part of me suspects this smug weirdo is just trolling at this point, however. I find it hard to believe they're serious. You are the bootlicker. Socialism surrenders everyone's freedom to a tyrannical state. Socialism has been tried dozens of times, and has failed in every country it has been tried. Who is it, again, that never learns? https://www.thecornellreview.org/yes-real-socialism-has-been-tried-and-it-has-failed-every-time/ https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/three-nations-tried-socialism-and-rejected-it https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/1430788/socialism-always-fails-even-so-called-democratic-socialism/ https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/these-are-the-most-telling-failures-socialism https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jul/12/socialism-has-failed-every-place-and-time-it-has-b/ https://www.hoover.org/research/socialism-has-failed-period https://newideal.aynrand.org/the-dishonesty-of-real-socialism-has-never-been-tried/ I stand for liberty, the very opposite of bootlicking. Don't talk about information when you have not presented anything of substance, failing to respond to a single point I made, and refusing to even back up or explain your own claims. Zarutaku said: My impression after I read this topic: Great meme. It seems not everyone here is hopeless. |
SmugSatokoSep 10, 2024 10:54 AM
|
| Capitalism in theory: Business owners make a profit and uses the profits to benefit society. Capitalism in practice: Business owners make a profit and have others pay for their expenses. The appeals to capitalism romanticize the concept. It's a hard sell to people who experience differently under the economic system. And the capitalism vs. socialism comparisons pit the theoretical benefits of capitalism against the worst consequences of trying to implement socialism. Hardly an apples-to-apples comparison. Socialism, after all, promises an utopia too, in theory. Oh, do I need to say that it ain't a dichotomy? Before I get accused of being off-topic. Do you see where capitalism in practice (i.e. the irresponsible kind) lead to? Maintaining access for free is just not in a corporation's self-interest. If I can make $1.1B in profit by not preserving my IP, why should I settle for $1B? |
mo_laveSep 10, 2024 2:23 PM
mo_lave said: Capitalism in theory: Business owners make a profit and uses the profits to benefit society. Capitalism in practice: Business owners make a profit and have others pay for their expenses. The appeals to capitalism romanticize the concept. It's a hard sell to people who experience differently under the economic system. And the capitalism vs. socialism comparisons pit the theoretical benefits of capitalism against the worst consequences of trying to implement socialism. Hardly an apples-to-apples comparison. Socialism, after all, promises an utopia too, in theory. Not true. I've been talking all along about the real world benefits. With capitalism, profit is made by providing products and services that benefit people enough that they are willing to pay for them. All that profit would not be able to be made without benefiting society. As for having others pay for their expenses, you'll need to clarify what you mean. |
|
Reply to SmugSatoko
mo_lave said:
Capitalism in theory: Business owners make a profit and uses the profits to benefit society.
Capitalism in practice: Business owners make a profit and have others pay for their expenses.
The appeals to capitalism romanticize the concept. It's a hard sell to people who experience differently under the economic system. And the capitalism vs. socialism comparisons pit the theoretical benefits of capitalism against the worst consequences of trying to implement socialism. Hardly an apples-to-apples comparison. Socialism, after all, promises an utopia too, in theory.
Capitalism in theory: Business owners make a profit and uses the profits to benefit society.
Capitalism in practice: Business owners make a profit and have others pay for their expenses.
The appeals to capitalism romanticize the concept. It's a hard sell to people who experience differently under the economic system. And the capitalism vs. socialism comparisons pit the theoretical benefits of capitalism against the worst consequences of trying to implement socialism. Hardly an apples-to-apples comparison. Socialism, after all, promises an utopia too, in theory.
Not true. I've been talking all along about the real world benefits.
With capitalism, profit is made by providing products and services that benefit people enough that they are willing to pay for them. All that profit would not be able to be made without benefiting society.
As for having others pay for their expenses, you'll need to clarify what you mean.
| @SmugSatoko With capitalism, profit is made by providing products and services that benefit people enough that they are willing to pay for them. All that profit would not be able to be made without benefiting society. Netflix is profitable. Why do they increase prices still? Why did they have to insist on one account = one household? In what way those two benefit society? As for having others pay for their expenses, you'll need to clarify what you mean. Privatizing profits and socializing losses in the most capitalistic country in the world. Somehow, if you're big enough in the economy, you're entitled to government handouts (bailouts, too big too fail) if things go south. |
mo_lave said: Netflix is profitable. Why do they increase prices still? Why did they have to insist on one account = one household? In what way those two benefit society? There are all sorts of reasons businesses increase prices, beyond sheer greed. Sometimes they have to in order to avoid going out of business, especially with supply chain complications since 2020. If you want to learn about why more successful businesses like Netflix increase prices, the answers are a Google search away. The reasons range from providing more content and features to inflation and taxes. If you want to purchase all the movies and series on a streaming service so you can own them instead, be prepared to pay thousands of times more than a streaming subscription. It should go without saying that making all that available to rent for an affordable monthly price benefits society. It's generous for them to allow access for an entire household with a single account. They're not a charity. The bottom line is, if you do not like a business or what they offer, you are not obligated to give them your money. Privatizing profits and socializing losses in the most capitalistic country in the world. Somehow, if you're big enough in the economy, you're entitled to government handouts (bailouts, too big too fail) if things go south. Socializing losses (which I entirely oppose) is not capitalism at all. You see, the United States (along with most countries) is a mixed economy, not only capitalism. Some other countries are more capitalistic. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/25-most-capitalist-nations-world-141825768.html https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/capitalist-countries So if you oppose socializing losses like I do, it would appear you are more in favor of free market capitalism than you let on. |
SmugSatokoSep 10, 2024 3:21 PM
|
Reply to SmugSatoko
mo_lave said:
Netflix is profitable. Why do they increase prices still? Why did they have to insist on one account = one household? In what way those two benefit society?
Netflix is profitable. Why do they increase prices still? Why did they have to insist on one account = one household? In what way those two benefit society?
There are all sorts of reasons businesses increase prices, beyond sheer greed. Sometimes they have to in order to avoid going out of business, especially with supply chain complications since 2020.
If you want to learn about why more successful businesses like Netflix increase prices, the answers are a Google search away. The reasons range from providing more content and features to inflation and taxes.
If you want to purchase all the movies and series on a streaming service so you can own them instead, be prepared to pay thousands of times more than a streaming subscription. It should go without saying that making all that available to rent for an affordable monthly price benefits society.
It's generous for them to allow access for an entire household with a single account. They're not a charity.
The bottom line is, if you do not like a business or what they offer, you are not obligated to give them your money.
Privatizing profits and socializing losses in the most capitalistic country in the world. Somehow, if you're big enough in the economy, you're entitled to government handouts (bailouts, too big too fail) if things go south.
Socializing losses (which I entirely oppose) is not capitalism at all. You see, the United States (along with most countries) is a mixed economy, not only capitalism. Some other countries are more capitalistic.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/25-most-capitalist-nations-world-141825768.html
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/capitalist-countries
So if you oppose socializing losses like I do, it would appear you are more in favor of free market capitalism than you let on.
If you want to learn about why more successful businesses like Netflix increase prices, the answers are a Google search away. The reasons range from providing more content and features to inflation and taxes. https://help.netflix.com/en/node/62990 As we continue to add more TV shows and movies and introduce new product features, our plans and prices may change. We also may adjust plans and pricing to respond to local market changes, such as changes to local taxes or inflation. That's the official statement. Let's see what others say https://www.reddit.com/r/netflix/comments/1ctw3td/netflix_has_increased_prices_for_what/?rdt=35633 Top-voted comment thread. They like money and people keep subscribing/staying subscribed Prices will continue to increase until people start leaving the platform en masse. https://variety.com/2024/digital/news/netflix-price-increase-2024-analyst-1235923872/ Netflix is expected to hike prices on its streaming plans in 2024 — a move that should accelerate its revenue and earnings growth — as it continues to take a bigger bite out of overall TV viewing, according to analysts at UBS Securities. “We expect to see rate increases this year” by Netflix, UBS analysts led by John Hodulik wrote in a Feb. 27 research note. That, along with a ramp-up in revenue from its ad-supported tier and healthy subscriber gains, should push the company’s total revenue growth in 2024 to 15%, per the analysts’ estimates, compared with 7% growth in 2023. https://flixed.io/netflix-price-hikes 2020: Price increases for Standard and Premium subscribers, again By October 2020, almost 2 years later, Netflix increased the prices of its higher two tiers once again. This time, the Standard plan went up a dollar from to $13.99, and the Premium plan went up 2 dollars to $17.99. This was credited to Netflix’s increased investment in original content and the feeling that the higher quality content should be reflected in the pricing. 2022: Immediate price hikes for all subscribers, again In January of 2022, Netflix announced yet another round of price increases for all three of its plans. Basic went up a dollar to $9.99, Standard went up $1.50 to $15.49, and premium went up $2 to $19.99, making it the most expensive on-demand streaming service at the time. The reasoning behind this price hike was the same as the last, a need to pay for new original programming. The service also wanted to be able to compete with an increasingly crowded market, as new services like HBO Max and Peacock had since launched. Standard plan: 7.7% increase from 2019 to 2020, 9.68% increase from 2020 to 2022. For comparison US inflation rates from 2020 to 2022 is 1.4%, 7%, and 6.5% Bottom line, how should I make of it? Because what I'm reading is: "Netflix increases prices because they want more profit." Denmark (!) is more capitalist than the US? I've got some words on that matter, but it's not part of the topic. So if you oppose socializing losses like I do, it would appear you are more in favor of free market capitalism than you let on. I support economic systems that benefit the common person. Media preservation is inherently beneficial to the commoner, in my opinion. |
mo_lave said: Bottom line, how should I make of it? Because what I'm reading is: "Netflix increases prices because they want more profit." Not sure why you're focusing so much on a single business when there are millions of them. But even in your quotes, additional reasons were given, such as paying for new original programming. In a free market, other businesses can compete and offer better alternatives at lower prices. The reason this doesn't always occur is because the market isn't nearly as free as it could be. As it happens, I think there are plenty of video streaming services that are better overall than Netflix, and at lower prices too. There are also lots of free ones supported by ads. Again, if you don't like the price (or don't want the product or service to begin with), don't pay for it. But at least try to understand how generous that price truly is. For the same price people pay to get access to thousands of movies and series now, they would only be able to rent a few movies at most in the not-so-distant past. Such a high value proposition is why so many pay for a subscription. Denmark (!) is more capitalist than the US? I've got some words on that matter, but it's not part of the topic. Some nations in Europe and elsewhere have been determined to have more economic freedom than the US, although this can be measured in different ways. I support economic systems that benefit the common person. No other system has supported the common person more than capitalism. Even the poor in the US have luxuries kings from the past would never dream of. Media preservation is inherently beneficial to the commoner, in my opinion. You may have noticed I am in favor of free archival and distribution of certain media that is no longer sold in the market. |
SmugSatokoSep 10, 2024 5:56 PM
|
Reply to SmugSatoko
mo_lave said:
Bottom line, how should I make of it? Because what I'm reading is: "Netflix increases prices because they want more profit."
Bottom line, how should I make of it? Because what I'm reading is: "Netflix increases prices because they want more profit."
Not sure why you're focusing so much on a single business when there are millions of them. But even in your quotes, additional reasons were given, such as paying for new original programming.
In a free market, other businesses can compete and offer better alternatives at lower prices. The reason this doesn't always occur is because the market isn't nearly as free as it could be.
As it happens, I think there are plenty of video streaming services that are better overall than Netflix, and at lower prices too. There are also lots of free ones supported by ads.
Again, if you don't like the price (or don't want the product or service to begin with), don't pay for it. But at least try to understand how generous that price truly is. For the same price people pay to get access to thousands of movies and series now, they would only be able to rent a few movies at most in the not-so-distant past. Such a high value proposition is why so many pay for a subscription.
Denmark (!) is more capitalist than the US? I've got some words on that matter, but it's not part of the topic.
Some nations in Europe and elsewhere have been determined to have more economic freedom than the US, although this can be measured in different ways.
I support economic systems that benefit the common person.
No other system has supported the common person more than capitalism. Even the poor in the US have luxuries kings from the past would never dream of.
Media preservation is inherently beneficial to the commoner, in my opinion.
You may have noticed I am in favor of free archival and distribution of certain media that is no longer sold in the market.
SmugSatoko said: Not sure why you're focusing so much on a single business when there are millions of them. But even in your quotes, additional reasons were given, such as paying for new original programming. I'm giving a counterexample, and relevant to the topic too, on why capitalism in practice isn't all sunshine and rainbows. By that I mean private ownership is allowed and promoted in the country and government is largely hands-off on economic matters. SmugSatoko said: In a free market, other businesses can compete and offer better alternatives at lower prices. The reason this doesn't always occur is because the market isn't nearly as free as it could be. Counterexample: Exclusives. Netflix, HBO, Disney+, etc. originals. Good luck finding those outside of those streamers, but I'll guess you'll say that ain't true capitalism. But remember, they as corporate entities chose to make them exclusive, not under threat of the state. SmugSatoko said: Again, if you don't like the price (or don't want the product or service to begin with), don't pay for it. But at least try to understand how generous that price truly is. For the same price people pay to get access to thousands of movies and series now, they would only be able to rent a few movies at most in the not-so-distant past. Such a high value proposition is why so many pay for a subscription. And I'm saying that the profit maximalization in capitalism as practiced now means the high value proposition is only temporary and will move towards equilibrium with other options (unless it's the only option, which usually translates to prices increasing as long as the overall profit is maximized. If 1 person will pay 1 trillion to limit Netflix access to them alone, Netflix will allow it). SmugSatoko said: You may have noticed I am in favor of free archival and distribution of certain media that is no longer sold in the market. I wish that were the case too, but we live at a time where libraries would be declared illegal if someone came up with the idea now. |
mo_laveSep 10, 2024 6:12 PM
Reply to mo_lave
SmugSatoko said:
Not sure why you're focusing so much on a single business when there are millions of them. But even in your quotes, additional reasons were given, such as paying for new original programming.
Not sure why you're focusing so much on a single business when there are millions of them. But even in your quotes, additional reasons were given, such as paying for new original programming.
I'm giving a counterexample, and relevant to the topic too, on why capitalism in practice isn't all sunshine and rainbows. By that I mean private ownership is allowed and promoted in the country and government is largely hands-off on economic matters.
SmugSatoko said:
In a free market, other businesses can compete and offer better alternatives at lower prices. The reason this doesn't always occur is because the market isn't nearly as free as it could be.
In a free market, other businesses can compete and offer better alternatives at lower prices. The reason this doesn't always occur is because the market isn't nearly as free as it could be.
Counterexample: Exclusives. Netflix, HBO, Disney+, etc. originals. Good luck finding those outside of those streamers, but I'll guess you'll say that ain't true capitalism. But remember, they as corporate entities chose to make them exclusive, not under threat of the state.
SmugSatoko said:
Again, if you don't like the price (or don't want the product or service to begin with), don't pay for it. But at least try to understand how generous that price truly is. For the same price people pay to get access to thousands of movies and series now, they would only be able to rent a few movies at most in the not-so-distant past. Such a high value proposition is why so many pay for a subscription.
Again, if you don't like the price (or don't want the product or service to begin with), don't pay for it. But at least try to understand how generous that price truly is. For the same price people pay to get access to thousands of movies and series now, they would only be able to rent a few movies at most in the not-so-distant past. Such a high value proposition is why so many pay for a subscription.
And I'm saying that the profit maximalization in capitalism as practiced now means the high value proposition is only temporary and will move towards equilibrium with other options (unless it's the only option, which usually translates to prices increasing as long as the overall profit is maximized. If 1 person will pay 1 trillion to limit Netflix access to them alone, Netflix will allow it).
SmugSatoko said:
You may have noticed I am in favor of free archival and distribution of certain media that is no longer sold in the market.
You may have noticed I am in favor of free archival and distribution of certain media that is no longer sold in the market.
I wish that were the case too, but we live at a time where libraries would be declared illegal if someone came up with the idea now.
mo_lave said: I wish that were the case too, but we live at a time where libraries would be declared illegal if someone came up with the idea now. That isn't far off from where we are right now. Libraries don't get the support they deserve. You know, libraries are one of the few social places left where you can just enter, do your thing, and leave without having to spend a single penny. Everything else is gonna cost you. Cafes, restaurants, theatres, gyms, what have you. I fear things will only get worse and libraries will start charging people to sit and read. Hopefully it never comes to that. That aside, why are you feeding the troll?  |
|
Reply to Purple_Gh0st24
mo_lave said:
I wish that were the case too, but we live at a time where libraries would be declared illegal if someone came up with the idea now.
I wish that were the case too, but we live at a time where libraries would be declared illegal if someone came up with the idea now.
That isn't far off from where we are right now. Libraries don't get the support they deserve. You know, libraries are one of the few social places left where you can just enter, do your thing, and leave without having to spend a single penny. Everything else is gonna cost you. Cafes, restaurants, theatres, gyms, what have you. I fear things will only get worse and libraries will start charging people to sit and read. Hopefully it never comes to that.
That aside, why are you feeding the troll?
Purple_Gh0st24 said: That aside, why are you feeding the troll? If SmugSatoko is a troll, then they're not my audience. That would be anyone else who's reading this thread. |
Reply to mo_lave
@SmugSatoko
Netflix is profitable. Why do they increase prices still? Why did they have to insist on one account = one household? In what way those two benefit society?
Privatizing profits and socializing losses in the most capitalistic country in the world. Somehow, if you're big enough in the economy, you're entitled to government handouts (bailouts, too big too fail) if things go south.
With capitalism, profit is made by providing products and services that benefit people enough that they are willing to pay for them. All that profit would not be able to be made without benefiting society.
Netflix is profitable. Why do they increase prices still? Why did they have to insist on one account = one household? In what way those two benefit society?
As for having others pay for their expenses, you'll need to clarify what you mean.
Privatizing profits and socializing losses in the most capitalistic country in the world. Somehow, if you're big enough in the economy, you're entitled to government handouts (bailouts, too big too fail) if things go south.
mo_lave said: Netflix is profitable. Why do they increase prices still? Why did they have to insist on one account = one household? In what way those two benefit society? Netflix benefits society by allowing people to watch movies whenever they want in the comfort of their homes. I would think that's obvious. mo_lave said: socializing losses That sounds oddly like socialism. |
| その目だれの目？ |
mo_lave said: I'm giving a counterexample, and relevant to the topic too, on why capitalism in practice isn't all sunshine and rainbows. By that I mean private ownership is allowed and promoted in the country and government is largely hands-off on economic matters. You just described what a free market is. The relative lack of government intervention can be a wonderful thing because it enables greater innovation that can benefit society in endless ways. Counterexample: Exclusives. Netflix, HBO, Disney+, etc. originals. Good luck finding those outside of those streamers, but I'll guess you'll say that ain't true capitalism. But remember, they as corporate entities chose to make them exclusive, not under threat of the state. It is their right to own things they created. Exclusive content is a major selling point for so many businesses. And I'm saying that the profit maximalization in capitalism as practiced now means the high value proposition is only temporary and will move towards equilibrium with other options What you said here is vague. What do you mean by "move towards equilibrium with other options"? If you mean that competition can decrease the value of what a given business offers...then good! If another business can do it better at a lower price, I'm all for it. You may have meant something else entirely, however. (unless it's the only option, which usually translates to prices increasing as long as the overall profit is maximized. If 1 person will pay 1 trillion to limit Netflix access to them alone, Netflix will allow it). Monopolies are encouraged when businesses can use the power of the state to give themselves unfair advantages. (Or even to bail them out when they fail.) Freer markets with higher competition (and less government involvement) don't suffer from monopolies nearly as badly. I wish that were the case too, but we live at a time where libraries would be declared illegal if someone came up with the idea now. Not in a free market. I wish there was a better word than just capitalism to describe what I advocate. Even libertarianism isn't specific enough, as I disagree with libertarians on some issues. The phrase free market can be misconstrued too, as someone can think that means literally doing anything they want no matter how harmful it is. But I think most people understand that freedom tends to mean relative (rather than absolute) freedom. Purple_Gh0st24 said: That isn't far off from where we are right now. Libraries don't get the support they deserve. You know, libraries are one of the few social places left where you can just enter, do your thing, and leave without having to spend a single penny. I fear things will only get worse and libraries will start charging people to sit and read. Hopefully it never comes to that. If some libraries started charging for entry, free libraries would have an extremely compelling value proposition, so the free ones would compete well in a free market. Everything else is gonna cost you. Cafes, restaurants, theatres, gyms, what have you. Yes, how dare they charge money for food? (And so on.) Everything should be free...shouldn't it? Here's the thing: Nothing is ever free. There is always a price to pay, and when you attempt to restructure society to provide "free" things to everyone, the price is far higher than any monetary amount. That aside, why are you feeding the troll? I am not a troll. Everything I said was genuine. You insult the time and energy I have dedicated to the discussion. You, on the other hand, have made wild assertions and evaded any semblance of substantiating them. For numerous times now, I have pointed out why things you have said are wrong...with no response. The best you can handle is to passive-aggressively claim I'm wrong without ever explaining exactly how I am wrong. It would appear cowardice and libel are the only recourse for one harboring beliefs that reject reality. You can't defend socialism, because it is indefensible. mo_lave said: If SmugSatoko is a troll, then they're not my audience. That would be anyone else who's reading this thread. Well said. I respond to every point I wish to, for the benefit of anyone reading, whether it was written by someone who refuses to reply and support their own arguments, or someone more decent such as yourself who at least tries to talk things out and come to a mutual understanding. Lucifrost said: Netflix benefits society by allowing people to watch movies whenever they want in the comfort of their homes. I would think that's obvious. That sounds oddly like socialism. I enjoy your succinct style of pwnage. Keep at it. |
SmugSatokoSep 10, 2024 8:52 PM
|
Reply to SmugSatoko
mo_lave said:
I'm giving a counterexample, and relevant to the topic too, on why capitalism in practice isn't all sunshine and rainbows. By that I mean private ownership is allowed and promoted in the country and government is largely hands-off on economic matters.
I'm giving a counterexample, and relevant to the topic too, on why capitalism in practice isn't all sunshine and rainbows. By that I mean private ownership is allowed and promoted in the country and government is largely hands-off on economic matters.
You just described what a free market is. The relative lack of government intervention can be a wonderful thing because it enables greater innovation that can benefit society in endless ways.
Counterexample: Exclusives. Netflix, HBO, Disney+, etc. originals. Good luck finding those outside of those streamers, but I'll guess you'll say that ain't true capitalism. But remember, they as corporate entities chose to make them exclusive, not under threat of the state.
It is their right to own things they created. Exclusive content is a major selling point for so many businesses.
And I'm saying that the profit maximalization in capitalism as practiced now means the high value proposition is only temporary and will move towards equilibrium with other options
What you said here is vague. What do you mean by "move towards equilibrium with other options"?
If you mean that competition can decrease the value of what a given business offers...then good! If another business can do it better at a lower price, I'm all for it. You may have meant something else entirely, however.
(unless it's the only option, which usually translates to prices increasing as long as the overall profit is maximized. If 1 person will pay 1 trillion to limit Netflix access to them alone, Netflix will allow it).
Monopolies are encouraged when businesses can use the power of the state to give themselves unfair advantages. (Or even to bail them out when they fail.) Freer markets with higher competition (and less government involvement) don't suffer from monopolies nearly as badly.
I wish that were the case too, but we live at a time where libraries would be declared illegal if someone came up with the idea now.
Not in a free market.
I wish there was a better word than just capitalism to describe what I advocate. Even libertarianism isn't specific enough, as I disagree with libertarians on some issues.
The phrase free market can be misconstrued too, as someone can think that means literally doing anything they want no matter how harmful it is. But I think most people understand that freedom tends to mean relative (rather than absolute) freedom.
Purple_Gh0st24 said:
That isn't far off from where we are right now. Libraries don't get the support they deserve. You know, libraries are one of the few social places left where you can just enter, do your thing, and leave without having to spend a single penny.
That isn't far off from where we are right now. Libraries don't get the support they deserve. You know, libraries are one of the few social places left where you can just enter, do your thing, and leave without having to spend a single penny.
I fear things will only get worse and libraries will start charging people to sit and read. Hopefully it never comes to that.
If some libraries started charging for entry, free libraries would have an extremely compelling value proposition, so the free ones would compete well in a free market.
Everything else is gonna cost you. Cafes, restaurants, theatres, gyms, what have you.
Yes, how dare they charge money for food? (And so on.) Everything should be free...shouldn't it? Here's the thing: Nothing is ever free. There is always a price to pay, and when you attempt to restructure society to provide "free" things to everyone, the price is far higher than any monetary amount.
That aside, why are you feeding the troll?
I am not a troll. Everything I said was genuine. You insult the time and energy I have dedicated to the discussion.
You, on the other hand, have made wild assertions and evaded any semblance of substantiating them. For numerous times now, I have pointed out why things you have said are wrong...with no response. The best you can handle is to passive-aggressively claim I'm wrong without ever explaining exactly how I am wrong. It would appear cowardice and libel are the only recourse for one harboring beliefs that reject reality.
You can't defend socialism, because it is indefensible.
mo_lave said:
If SmugSatoko is a troll, then they're not my audience. That would be anyone else who's reading this thread.
If SmugSatoko is a troll, then they're not my audience. That would be anyone else who's reading this thread.
Well said. I respond to every point I wish to, for the benefit of anyone reading, whether it was written by someone who refuses to reply and support their own arguments, or someone more decent such as yourself who at least tries to talk things out and come to a mutual understanding.
Lucifrost said:
Netflix benefits society by allowing people to watch movies whenever they want in the comfort of their homes. I would think that's obvious.
Netflix benefits society by allowing people to watch movies whenever they want in the comfort of their homes. I would think that's obvious.
That sounds oddly like socialism.
I enjoy your succinct style of pwnage. Keep at it.
SmugSatoko said: If some libraries started charging for entry, free libraries would have an extremely compelling value proposition, so the free ones would compete well in a free market. That makes no sense, as a free library doesn't make any money. |
| その目だれの目？ |
Lucifrost said: That makes no sense, as a free library doesn't make any money. Non-profit organizations can exist in a free market. So in that scenario, there could be premium libraries that charge for entry and perhaps other things, along with free ones. Most people would not want to pay and would continue using the free libraries. The free libraries also always have the option to charge for some optional services, as they already do. All libraries have to be funded somehow. In my state, it's with property taxes. |
|
Reply to SmugSatoko
mo_lave said:
I'm giving a counterexample, and relevant to the topic too, on why capitalism in practice isn't all sunshine and rainbows. By that I mean private ownership is allowed and promoted in the country and government is largely hands-off on economic matters.
I'm giving a counterexample, and relevant to the topic too, on why capitalism in practice isn't all sunshine and rainbows. By that I mean private ownership is allowed and promoted in the country and government is largely hands-off on economic matters.
You just described what a free market is. The relative lack of government intervention can be a wonderful thing because it enables greater innovation that can benefit society in endless ways.
Counterexample: Exclusives. Netflix, HBO, Disney+, etc. originals. Good luck finding those outside of those streamers, but I'll guess you'll say that ain't true capitalism. But remember, they as corporate entities chose to make them exclusive, not under threat of the state.
It is their right to own things they created. Exclusive content is a major selling point for so many businesses.
And I'm saying that the profit maximalization in capitalism as practiced now means the high value proposition is only temporary and will move towards equilibrium with other options
What you said here is vague. What do you mean by "move towards equilibrium with other options"?
If you mean that competition can decrease the value of what a given business offers...then good! If another business can do it better at a lower price, I'm all for it. You may have meant something else entirely, however.
(unless it's the only option, which usually translates to prices increasing as long as the overall profit is maximized. If 1 person will pay 1 trillion to limit Netflix access to them alone, Netflix will allow it).
Monopolies are encouraged when businesses can use the power of the state to give themselves unfair advantages. (Or even to bail them out when they fail.) Freer markets with higher competition (and less government involvement) don't suffer from monopolies nearly as badly.
I wish that were the case too, but we live at a time where libraries would be declared illegal if someone came up with the idea now.
Not in a free market.
I wish there was a better word than just capitalism to describe what I advocate. Even libertarianism isn't specific enough, as I disagree with libertarians on some issues.
The phrase free market can be misconstrued too, as someone can think that means literally doing anything they want no matter how harmful it is. But I think most people understand that freedom tends to mean relative (rather than absolute) freedom.
Purple_Gh0st24 said:
That isn't far off from where we are right now. Libraries don't get the support they deserve. You know, libraries are one of the few social places left where you can just enter, do your thing, and leave without having to spend a single penny.
That isn't far off from where we are right now. Libraries don't get the support they deserve. You know, libraries are one of the few social places left where you can just enter, do your thing, and leave without having to spend a single penny.
I fear things will only get worse and libraries will start charging people to sit and read. Hopefully it never comes to that.
If some libraries started charging for entry, free libraries would have an extremely compelling value proposition, so the free ones would compete well in a free market.
Everything else is gonna cost you. Cafes, restaurants, theatres, gyms, what have you.
Yes, how dare they charge money for food? (And so on.) Everything should be free...shouldn't it? Here's the thing: Nothing is ever free. There is always a price to pay, and when you attempt to restructure society to provide "free" things to everyone, the price is far higher than any monetary amount.
That aside, why are you feeding the troll?
I am not a troll. Everything I said was genuine. You insult the time and energy I have dedicated to the discussion.
You, on the other hand, have made wild assertions and evaded any semblance of substantiating them. For numerous times now, I have pointed out why things you have said are wrong...with no response. The best you can handle is to passive-aggressively claim I'm wrong without ever explaining exactly how I am wrong. It would appear cowardice and libel are the only recourse for one harboring beliefs that reject reality.
You can't defend socialism, because it is indefensible.
mo_lave said:
If SmugSatoko is a troll, then they're not my audience. That would be anyone else who's reading this thread.
If SmugSatoko is a troll, then they're not my audience. That would be anyone else who's reading this thread.
Well said. I respond to every point I wish to, for the benefit of anyone reading, whether it was written by someone who refuses to reply and support their own arguments, or someone more decent such as yourself who at least tries to talk things out and come to a mutual understanding.
Lucifrost said:
Netflix benefits society by allowing people to watch movies whenever they want in the comfort of their homes. I would think that's obvious.
Netflix benefits society by allowing people to watch movies whenever they want in the comfort of their homes. I would think that's obvious.
That sounds oddly like socialism.
I enjoy your succinct style of pwnage. Keep at it.
SmugSatoko said: What you said here is vague. What do you mean by "move towards equilibrium with other options"? In the streaming example, streamers will increase their prices until the average customer (who subscribes to multiple services) will pay roughly the same amount as cable. If I'm the CEO of Netflix, that would be an attractive option for me to earn more. That totally defeats their original selling point as "cheaper than cable". Let's extrapolate their recent actions, what would follow next? Lose the ability to cancel at will? One-year lock-in periods? SmugSatoko said: It is their right to own things they created. Exclusive content is a major selling point for so many businesses. Not just what they created, but also exclusive distribution deals in territories. They're basically saying, "If you want to support the creator, you have to go through us." Besides pirating or buying foreign physical media (don't get me started with geoblocking), there's no other way to legitimately get content if you object to the middle man out of principle. Might as well lose your interest in participating in culture altogether. Wait for those to go to public domain? You'll be long dead before that happens. And that is with me agreeing in principle that they have the right to do what they please with what they created. I'm only dismayed that the default stance is to view customers as wallets to be nickeled and dimed. Fan interaction to express their passion is not welcome if there's no money flowing in to whoever owns the IP. SmugSatoko said: The phrase free market can be misconstrued too, as someone can think that means literally doing anything they want no matter how harmful it is. But I think most people understand that freedom tends to mean relative (rather than absolute) freedom. The idea of relative freedom is why there are regulations. And contrary to what some may think, regulations do not automatically mean it's socialism. The free market in the sense of zero government involvement is as unreachable as the classless society of communism. Supporters may think it's entrepreneurs earning a neat profit as a reward for their hard work. Detractors will say it'll end up as private corporations being a state unto themselves. Yes, how dare they charge money for food? (And so on.) Everything should be free...shouldn't it? Here's the thing: Nothing is ever free. There is always a price to pay, and when you attempt to restructure society to provide "free" things to everyone, the price is far higher than any monetary amount. Charging for food so you can keep providing food is reasonable. I agree nothing is truly free. Consider that for public services, the public can choose to pool their money together via taxes so the government can provide services available to all. Whether the government actually does a good job at it or not is a different question. Emphasis on 'choose'. Open-source projects rely on donations to keep going, and the model works because enough people believe on its mission and goals. That sounds oddly like socialism. In the context of 'privatizing profits and socializing losses', it is a state welfare program for the rich. If there's gonna be a welfare program in place anyway, I'd rather it be for the poor first before the rich. Much of the criticism of capitalism can be summed up as "the employers are not in their best behavior. They do anything they want to get rich no matter how harmful it is." And it is considered a critique of capitalism since, well, the US likes to brand itself as capitalist, whether you agree it's merited or not. In your case, it seems not because you consider it not exhibiting the traits of a free market. One other thing that I notice is what you call "capitalism" is different from what others call "capitalism". |
mo_laveSep 10, 2024 9:31 PM
mo_lave said: In the streaming example, streamers will increase their prices until the average customer (who subscribes to multiple services) will pay roughly the same amount as cable. If I'm the CEO of Netflix, that would be an attractive option for me to earn more. That totally defeats their original selling point as "cheaper than cable". In a free market, there would be competition that would result in lower prices and better products and services. Even with less free markets, progress is inevitable even when it's held back somewhat. Smartphones have technology that would have cost a million dollars decades ago. Sure, there's exclusive content, and people will have to decide whether they want it enough to pay for it. That's a personal decision they are free to make...in a (you guessed it) free market. Don't forget the free streaming services supported by ads. You don't have to pay any money for video streaming if you don't want to. Let's extrapolate their recent actions, what would follow next? Lose the ability to cancel at will? One-year lock-in periods? If you are not allowed to cancel something, that is not a free market. You keep talking about things that are the opposite of a free market, and I'm not sure why. If your concern is that the current market (or the direction you think it's heading) isn't free enough, I would concur. Not just what they created, but also exclusive distribution deals in territories. They're basically saying, "If you want to support the creator, you have to go through us." Besides pirating or buying foreign physical media (don't get me started with geoblocking), there's no other way to legitimately get content if you object to the middle man out of principle. I think eventually, the copyright owners will see that people don't want everything to be so difficult. There are a number of ways for consumers to influence the powers that be. I won't bother writing an article on that, as this thread has already descended into enough tangents. Might as well lose your interest in participating in culture altogether. Wait for those to go to public domain? You'll be long dead before that happens. I can't watch my favorite anime on an American streaming service? All is lost! hehe... Actually, I bought it on Blu-ray. After many years, it became available via streaming too. And that is with me agreeing in principle that they have the right to do what they please with what they created. I'm only dismayed that the default stance is to view customers as wallets to be nickeled and dimed. Lots of businesses offer free content as a way to spark interest, then charge for optional upgrades and the like. I know that's well-known, but thought I'd mention it. Fan interaction to express their passion is not welcome if there's no money flowing in to whoever owns the IP. That attitude varies by the company. Nintendo would be one that embodies your critique. The idea of relative freedom is why there are regulations. And contrary to what some may think, regulations do not automatically mean it's socialism. The free market in the sense of zero government involvement is as unreachable as the classless society of communism. Supporters may think it's entrepreneurs earning a neat profit as a reward for their hard work. Detractors will say it'll end up as private corporations being a state unto themselves. Well, yeah, extremes aren't desirable either way. When I refer to socialism, I mean collective ownership of the means of production (and so on)...which ultimately means the state runs things. Simply having rules is obviously not socialism. Charging for food so you can keep providing food is reasonable. I agree nothing is truly free. Consider that for public services, the public can choose to pool their money together via taxes so the government can provide services available to all. Whether the government actually does a good job at it or not is a different question. Emphasis on 'choose'. In the context of 'privatizing profits and socializing losses', it is a state welfare program for the rich. If there's gonna be a welfare program in place anyway, I'd rather it be for the poor first before the rich.  Open-source projects rely on donations to keep going, and the model works because enough people believe on its mission and goals. On that note, I'm a big fan of crowdfunding. Much of the criticism of capitalism can be summed up as "the employers are not in their best behavior. They do anything they want to get rich no matter how harmful it is." They certainly do not do anything they want without consequences. On a frequent basis, people who own or work for businesses get fined and/or imprisoned when they commit crimes. And it is considered a critique of capitalism since, well, the US likes to brand itself as capitalist, whether you agree it's merited or not. In your case, it seems not because you consider it not exhibiting the traits of a free market. There are degrees of freedom. The US is definitely closer to capitalist than socialist, and it's still among the freer economies. One other thing that I notice is what you call "capitalism" is different from what others call "capitalism". Capitalism involves private ownership of the means of production. (Along with other qualities.) Did I use the word to mean something else? I do talk about the underlying philosophy behind capitalism from time to time. |
|
SmugSatoko said: Meusnier said: This thread is hilarious. How can people still naïvely defend capitalism by spreading old anti-communist propaganda? I dislike Stalin as much as any sensible person, but we should stop pretending that a country like America is a success... The US is responsible for bringing unprecedented prosperity and innovation to the world, precisely because of capitalism and the American values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You haven't made a case for socialism at all. Homeless people and drug addicts everywhere in the streets, Those are the result of leftist policies that are antithetical to American ideals. The majority of areas in the US afflicted by homelessness and drug addiction are Democrat-run cities. water is more expensive than soda Soda is many times more expensive than water. Many towns even have free tap water. (likewise, "healthy" food—that is just normal food in other countries—is significantly more expensive than junk food), According to this study, even in the US, healthy food is more affordable. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/44678/19980_eib96.pdf If you're just comparing random things, it can go either way. Some fruits like bananas are considerably cheaper than most junk food. you have no rights to have access to healthcare if you lose your job, etc, etc. That varies between states. Some have free health care for those with low enough income, among other safety nets for people who lost their job. Additionally, as I have told you before, anyone in America can get access to health care (regardless of insurance, income, etc.) if it's at a public hospital, emergency room, free clinic, or certain other health centers. Whether that would be free or you receive a bill depends on many factors. And doing anything for the basic rights of the people basically makes you a communist in this country. This statement is too ambiguous to respond to. Perhaps describe which alleged rights you are referring to. France did not need America to be a haven on Earth in the 1920s. Exporting war in the name of cultural imperialism is what America does the best. I have only visited blue states, so I would not know, but even what you call "leftist policies" are still part of the standard framework of capitalism. America values letting your neighbour starve to death while you are eating a triple-bacon cheese burger XXXL worth 5000 Kcal. Tap water is disgusting in America and probably full of carcinogenic chemicals. This is not Iceland... But you cannot have a decent diet if you only eat bananas. Most of American food is banned in Europe for using dangerous chemicals, and I need no study to see that the the obesity pandemic (two-third of the population are overweight and a third of the population is obese) is mainly caused by the over-consumption of junk food, which is something else that the United States have successfully exported. Even if it varies between state, you can expect that without an insurance, you could pay +$100,000 if you were hospitalised, or just brought to the hospital by paramedics. In fact, there is a person on MAL who told a story about getting into a bicycle accident and refusing to be taken in fear of having to pay exorbitant fees... You would not see this behaviour in most European countries. I was alluding to things like free healthcare. I don't really have a problem with this part of your post. Finally, we agree on something! Oh gosh, you're making me blush with your poetry. It was a pastiche of a famous passage of Romeo and Juliet! Purple_Gh0st24 said: Meusnier said: How can people still naïvely defend capitalism by spreading old anti-communist propaganda? It's pretty simple. The bootlickers never learn. All information just passes over their heads. A part of me suspects this smug weirdo is just trolling at this point, however. I find it hard to believe they're serious. America is clearly still stuck in the "Red Scare" mindset. Look at Trump, his only argument against Kamala is that she is a "Marxist," how pathetic... I also thought so, but it seems that many Americans consider any alternative to the atrocity their country has become as a critique against their holy belief in capitalism... And it is obvious that this model of society is not viable, but it is easier to make fun of commies than to address the many issues created by this soul-crushing system. Either way, you are probably losing your time trying to win against someone who has manifestly too much time on his hands. You are not American, so you should know better. The excessive American capitalism (pollution, exploitation, etc) is not the nec plus ultra of the human spirit... LoveYourSmile said: @Meusnier Dura veritas, sed veritas. I oddly missed seeing you in this doomed section of the forum. Thanks! I try to only log in every one or two weeks, unless I am caught in a never-ending argument with middle-aged men cosplaying as smug anime teenage girls online. @SmugSatoko The US is responsible for exporting poverty, exploitation and cultural degradation worldwide. The only "good" I can say about that state is that they began with own people. And I'm not even a Marxist lol. You probably just didn't travel enough to compare. Great post. You do not have to be a Marxist to notice the obvious limitations of the American Way of Life. To be fair, I immediately become a Marxist whenever I see Satoko posting, and a damned capitalist whenever I read people who spread historical fables on the USSR and China... |
MeusnierSep 10, 2024 11:13 PM
Reply to SmugSatoko
mo_lave said:
I'm giving a counterexample, and relevant to the topic too, on why capitalism in practice isn't all sunshine and rainbows. By that I mean private ownership is allowed and promoted in the country and government is largely hands-off on economic matters.
I'm giving a counterexample, and relevant to the topic too, on why capitalism in practice isn't all sunshine and rainbows. By that I mean private ownership is allowed and promoted in the country and government is largely hands-off on economic matters.
You just described what a free market is. The relative lack of government intervention can be a wonderful thing because it enables greater innovation that can benefit society in endless ways.
Counterexample: Exclusives. Netflix, HBO, Disney+, etc. originals. Good luck finding those outside of those streamers, but I'll guess you'll say that ain't true capitalism. But remember, they as corporate entities chose to make them exclusive, not under threat of the state.
It is their right to own things they created. Exclusive content is a major selling point for so many businesses.
And I'm saying that the profit maximalization in capitalism as practiced now means the high value proposition is only temporary and will move towards equilibrium with other options
What you said here is vague. What do you mean by "move towards equilibrium with other options"?
If you mean that competition can decrease the value of what a given business offers...then good! If another business can do it better at a lower price, I'm all for it. You may have meant something else entirely, however.
(unless it's the only option, which usually translates to prices increasing as long as the overall profit is maximized. If 1 person will pay 1 trillion to limit Netflix access to them alone, Netflix will allow it).
Monopolies are encouraged when businesses can use the power of the state to give themselves unfair advantages. (Or even to bail them out when they fail.) Freer markets with higher competition (and less government involvement) don't suffer from monopolies nearly as badly.
I wish that were the case too, but we live at a time where libraries would be declared illegal if someone came up with the idea now.
Not in a free market.
I wish there was a better word than just capitalism to describe what I advocate. Even libertarianism isn't specific enough, as I disagree with libertarians on some issues.
The phrase free market can be misconstrued too, as someone can think that means literally doing anything they want no matter how harmful it is. But I think most people understand that freedom tends to mean relative (rather than absolute) freedom.
Purple_Gh0st24 said:
That isn't far off from where we are right now. Libraries don't get the support they deserve. You know, libraries are one of the few social places left where you can just enter, do your thing, and leave without having to spend a single penny.
That isn't far off from where we are right now. Libraries don't get the support they deserve. You know, libraries are one of the few social places left where you can just enter, do your thing, and leave without having to spend a single penny.
I fear things will only get worse and libraries will start charging people to sit and read. Hopefully it never comes to that.
If some libraries started charging for entry, free libraries would have an extremely compelling value proposition, so the free ones would compete well in a free market.
Everything else is gonna cost you. Cafes, restaurants, theatres, gyms, what have you.
Yes, how dare they charge money for food? (And so on.) Everything should be free...shouldn't it? Here's the thing: Nothing is ever free. There is always a price to pay, and when you attempt to restructure society to provide "free" things to everyone, the price is far higher than any monetary amount.
That aside, why are you feeding the troll?
I am not a troll. Everything I said was genuine. You insult the time and energy I have dedicated to the discussion.
You, on the other hand, have made wild assertions and evaded any semblance of substantiating them. For numerous times now, I have pointed out why things you have said are wrong...with no response. The best you can handle is to passive-aggressively claim I'm wrong without ever explaining exactly how I am wrong. It would appear cowardice and libel are the only recourse for one harboring beliefs that reject reality.
You can't defend socialism, because it is indefensible.
mo_lave said:
If SmugSatoko is a troll, then they're not my audience. That would be anyone else who's reading this thread.
If SmugSatoko is a troll, then they're not my audience. That would be anyone else who's reading this thread.
Well said. I respond to every point I wish to, for the benefit of anyone reading, whether it was written by someone who refuses to reply and support their own arguments, or someone more decent such as yourself who at least tries to talk things out and come to a mutual understanding.
Lucifrost said:
Netflix benefits society by allowing people to watch movies whenever they want in the comfort of their homes. I would think that's obvious.
Netflix benefits society by allowing people to watch movies whenever they want in the comfort of their homes. I would think that's obvious.
That sounds oddly like socialism.
I enjoy your succinct style of pwnage. Keep at it.
SmugSatoko said: I am not a troll. Everything I said was genuine. I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt and assume you're telling the truth here. If you really are, I'm sorry for saying you're a troll. Too many trolls on similar topics have made it harder to tell when one is being sincere (it's not impossible, mind, it just takes extra scrutiny). Anyway, if you're not a troll, I suppose you do deserve at least an explanation as to why I avoided you (other than thinking you were one, since you know... don't feed trolls). What you've said has already been argued against in numerous spaces throughout literature, the Internet, and elsewhere. All the things I could argue have already been argued. I just have nothing to add. Likewise, all that you have argued throughout this thread has already been argued. Were I a patient man, I could humour you and take up the offer for some amateur debate, but I lack the patience and interest for that. Grew out of it. The whole debate-bro phase was more of a teenage thing. There are more important things in life than arguing with random nobodies you can't even be sure actually exist. Sorry. Generative AI shit is pretty much killing me inside. There's a genocide happening right now, the world's on fire, I'm much too suffocated with everything to give you the time and attention you want. Hopefully, others here will be able to satisfy those needs of yours. Enjoy your amateur debates. |
|
Meusnier said: France did not need America to be a haven on Earth in the 1920s. Exporting war in the name of cultural imperialism is what America does the best. The US provides military defense for many countries. If you want to call that imperialism, fair enough...but it's better than letting a nation like China dominate the world. I have only lived in blue states, so I would not know, but even what you call "leftist policies" are still part of the standard framework of capitalism. How are these policies (which you could alternately call liberal) inherent to capitalism? You have a bad habit of saying vague things. A significant portion of the homeless population suffers from mental illness. Mental institutions were largely phased out, so now those people are less likely to get the help they need. Many are also addicted to dangerous drugs, as you noticed. In conservative cities, homelessness is effectively outlawed to an extent by disallowing vagrancy, public drug use, and crime in general. Liberal cities, on the other hand, have comparatively lax rules in that regard...and whaddaya know, they're full of homeless people! There's nothing in "the standard framework of capitalism" about eradicating mental facilities, encouraging rampant drug use, etc. Obviously there are other causes of homelessness, like a lack of affordable housing in some areas...but I think that's another thing a freer market could alleviate, considering the excessive regulations currently surrounding the housing market. America values letting your neighbour starve to death. It is exceedingly rare for someone to starve to death here. Tap water is disgusting in America and probably full of carcinogenic chemicals. This is not Island... I abhor tap water. As far as plain water goes, I drink bottled spring water. Minerals are what give water its taste. I hate the taste of purified water that has most of the minerals removed. But you cannot have a decent diet if you only eat bananas. It was just an example. The study I linked goes into detail. Most of American food is banned in Europe for using dangerous chemicals, You're exaggerating. It's only certain ingredients, not the majority of all food. and I need no study to see that the the obesity pandemic (two-third of the population are overweight and a third of the population is obese) is mainly caused by the over-consumption of junk food, which is something else that the United States have successfully exported. The way obesity is measured (BMI) is faulty. My brother is supposedly obese...but in reality, he's not even close to fat, let alone so fat it threatens his health. There aren't nearly as many fatties as propaganda would have you believe. https://www.npr.org/2009/07/04/106268439/top-10-reasons-why-the-bmi-is-bogus Even if it varies between state, you can expect that without an insurance, you could pay +$100,000 if you were hospitalised, Medicaid is retroactive by a few months, so you can receive care, then apply for health benefits afterward and owe nothing. (If you're in the right state, that is.) or just brought to the hospital by paramedics. That usually costs under a thousand dollars. In fact, there is a person on MAL who told a story about getting into a bicycle accident and refusing to be taken in fear of having to pay exorbitant fees... You would not see this behaviour in most European countries. If there was a free market instead, competition could drive down prices. I was alluding to things like free healthcare. You do not (and cannot) have a right to receive things from others for free. https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/government-and-business/individual-rights/health-care-is-not-a-right/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1126951/ It was a pastiche of a famous passage of Romeo and Juliet! I knew that when I was very young, don't worry. America is clearly still stuck in the "red scare" mindset. I also thought so, but it seems that many Americans consider any alternative to the atrocity their country has become as a critique against their holy belief in capitalism... And it is obvious that this model of society is not viable, but it is easier to make fun of commies than to address the many issues created by this soul-crushing system. Hey, we're fine with solving problems...but we're not giving up our rights for anyone. Either way, you are probably losing your time trying to win against someone who has manifestly too much time on his hands. As they confessed below, they aren't interested in a debate or explaining their own claims. You are not American, so you should know better. The excessive American capitalism (pollution, exploitation, etc) is not the nec plus ultra of the human spirit... The meme contrasted capitalism with socialism. If you are advocating the latter, the least you could do is make a case for it by explaining why society should be socialist, and provide evidence it would work when it failed every other time it has been tried. As for pollution and exploitation, socialism had plenty of that in its history. Thanks! I try to only log in every one or two weeks, unless I am caught in a never-ending argument with middle-aged men cosplaying as smug anime teenage girls online. I haven't reached middle age yet! Three more years until I'm 40... Meusnier said: Great post. You do not have to be a Marxist to notice the obvious limitations of the American Way of Life . Did you not see my response? Here it is again. SmugSatoko said: What a load of nonsense. The US dramatically increased the economic growth and standard of living of the world, lifting billions out of poverty. It is responsible for innovation and technological development that advanced civilization tremendously. It has protected human rights and liberty more fervently than any other nation, making the world far safer and freer. Calling its immense cultural influence "degradation" is laughable. As for exploitation, you're just throwing around buzzwords unless you wish to elaborate. Purple_Gh0st24 said: I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt and assume you're telling the truth here. If you really are, I'm sorry for saying you're a troll. Too many trolls on similar topics have made it harder to tell when one is being sincere (it's not impossible, mind, it just takes extra scrutiny). Anyway, if you're not a troll, I suppose you do deserve at least an explanation as to why I avoided you (other than thinking you were one, since you know... don't feed trolls). What you've said has already been argued against in numerous spaces throughout literature, the Internet, and elsewhere. All the things I could argue have already been argued. I just have nothing to add. Likewise, all that you have argued throughout this thread has already been argued. Were I a patient man, I could humour you and take up the offer for some amateur debate, but I lack the patience and interest for that. Grew out of it. The whole debate-bro phase was more of a teenage thing. There are more important things in life than arguing with random nobodies you can't even be sure actually exist. Sorry. Generative AI shit is pretty much killing me inside. There's a genocide happening right now, the world's on fire, I'm much too suffocated with everything to give you the time and attention you want. Hopefully, others here will be able to satisfy those needs of yours. Enjoy your amateur debates. Well, that's a shame. I was looking forward to an explanation for the things you took the time to post about...(I'm especially curious about this alleged genocide)...but I guess you expect everyone to just blindly believe you... |
SmugSatokoSep 11, 2024 12:40 AM
|
Meusnier said: You are not American, so you should know better. The excessive American capitalism (pollution, exploitation, etc) is not the nec plus ultra of the human spirit... I think the concept of capitalism is a good one, but it needs certain boundaries to avoid harmful side effects. |
No, this isn't my signature. |
Reply to SmugSatoko
Meusnier said:
France did not need America to be a haven on Earth in the 1920s. Exporting war in the name of cultural imperialism is what America does the best.
France did not need America to be a haven on Earth in the 1920s. Exporting war in the name of cultural imperialism is what America does the best.
The US provides military defense for many countries. If you want to call that imperialism, fair enough...but it's better than letting a nation like China dominate the world.
I have only lived in blue states, so I would not know, but even what you call "leftist policies" are still part of the standard framework of capitalism.
How are these policies (which you could alternately call liberal) inherent to capitalism? You have a bad habit of saying vague things.
A significant portion of the homeless population suffers from mental illness. Mental institutions were largely phased out, so now those people are less likely to get the help they need. Many are also addicted to dangerous drugs, as you noticed.
In conservative cities, homelessness is effectively outlawed to an extent by disallowing vagrancy, public drug use, and crime in general. Liberal cities, on the other hand, have comparatively lax rules in that regard...and whaddaya know, they're full of homeless people!
There's nothing in "the standard framework of capitalism" about eradicating mental facilities, encouraging rampant drug use, etc.
Obviously there are other causes of homelessness, like a lack of affordable housing in some areas...but I think that's another thing a freer market could alleviate, considering the excessive regulations currently surrounding the housing market.
America values letting your neighbour starve to death.
It is exceedingly rare for someone to starve to death here.
Tap water is disgusting in America and probably full of carcinogenic chemicals. This is not Island...
I abhor tap water. As far as plain water goes, I drink bottled spring water.
Minerals are what give water its taste. I hate the taste of purified water that has most of the minerals removed.
But you cannot have a decent diet if you only eat bananas.
It was just an example. The study I linked goes into detail.
Most of American food is banned in Europe for using dangerous chemicals,
You're exaggerating. It's only certain ingredients, not the majority of all food.
and I need no study to see that the the obesity pandemic (two-third of the population are overweight and a third of the population is obese) is mainly caused by the over-consumption of junk food, which is something else that the United States have successfully exported.
The way obesity is measured (BMI) is faulty. My brother is supposedly obese...but in reality, he's not even close to fat, let alone so fat it threatens his health. There aren't nearly as many fatties as propaganda would have you believe.
https://www.npr.org/2009/07/04/106268439/top-10-reasons-why-the-bmi-is-bogus
Even if it varies between state, you can expect that without an insurance, you could pay +$100,000 if you were hospitalised,
Medicaid is retroactive by a few months, so you can receive care, then apply for health benefits afterward and owe nothing. (If you're in the right state, that is.)
or just brought to the hospital by paramedics.
That usually costs under a thousand dollars.
In fact, there is a person on MAL who told a story about getting into a bicycle accident and refusing to be taken in fear of having to pay exorbitant fees... You would not see this behaviour in most European countries.
If there was a free market instead, competition could drive down prices.
I was alluding to things like free healthcare.
You do not (and cannot) have a right to receive things from others for free.
https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/government-and-business/individual-rights/health-care-is-not-a-right/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1126951/
It was a pastiche of a famous passage of Romeo and Juliet!
I knew that when I was very young, don't worry.
America is clearly still stuck in the "red scare" mindset. I also thought so, but it seems that many Americans consider any alternative to the atrocity their country has become as a critique against their holy belief in capitalism... And it is obvious that this model of society is not viable, but it is easier to make fun of commies than to address the many issues created by this soul-crushing system.
Hey, we're fine with solving problems...but we're not giving up our rights for anyone.
Either way, you are probably losing your time trying to win against someone who has manifestly too much time on his hands.
As they confessed below, they aren't interested in a debate or explaining their own claims.
You are not American, so you should know better. The excessive American capitalism (pollution, exploitation, etc) is not the nec plus ultra of the human spirit...
The meme contrasted capitalism with socialism. If you are advocating the latter, the least you could do is make a case for it by explaining why society should be socialist, and provide evidence it would work when it failed every other time it has been tried.
As for pollution and exploitation, socialism had plenty of that in its history.
Thanks! I try to only log in every one or two weeks, unless I am caught in a never-ending argument with middle-aged men cosplaying as smug anime teenage girls online.
I haven't reached middle age yet! Three more years until I'm 40...
Meusnier said:
Great post. You do not have to be a Marxist to notice the obvious limitations of the American Way of Life .
Great post. You do not have to be a Marxist to notice the obvious limitations of the American Way of Life .
Did you not see my response? Here it is again.
SmugSatoko said:
What a load of nonsense. The US dramatically increased the economic growth and standard of living of the world, lifting billions out of poverty. It is responsible for innovation and technological development that advanced civilization tremendously. It has protected human rights and liberty more fervently than any other nation, making the world far safer and freer. Calling its immense cultural influence "degradation" is laughable. As for exploitation, you're just throwing around buzzwords unless you wish to elaborate.
What a load of nonsense. The US dramatically increased the economic growth and standard of living of the world, lifting billions out of poverty. It is responsible for innovation and technological development that advanced civilization tremendously. It has protected human rights and liberty more fervently than any other nation, making the world far safer and freer. Calling its immense cultural influence "degradation" is laughable. As for exploitation, you're just throwing around buzzwords unless you wish to elaborate.
Purple_Gh0st24 said:
I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt and assume you're telling the truth here. If you really are, I'm sorry for saying you're a troll. Too many trolls on similar topics have made it harder to tell when one is being sincere (it's not impossible, mind, it just takes extra scrutiny). Anyway, if you're not a troll, I suppose you do deserve at least an explanation as to why I avoided you (other than thinking you were one, since you know... don't feed trolls). What you've said has already been argued against in numerous spaces throughout literature, the Internet, and elsewhere. All the things I could argue have already been argued. I just have nothing to add. Likewise, all that you have argued throughout this thread has already been argued.
Were I a patient man, I could humour you and take up the offer for some amateur debate, but I lack the patience and interest for that. Grew out of it. The whole debate-bro phase was more of a teenage thing. There are more important things in life than arguing with random nobodies you can't even be sure actually exist. Sorry. Generative AI shit is pretty much killing me inside. There's a genocide happening right now, the world's on fire, I'm much too suffocated with everything to give you the time and attention you want. Hopefully, others here will be able to satisfy those needs of yours. Enjoy your amateur debates.
I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt and assume you're telling the truth here. If you really are, I'm sorry for saying you're a troll. Too many trolls on similar topics have made it harder to tell when one is being sincere (it's not impossible, mind, it just takes extra scrutiny). Anyway, if you're not a troll, I suppose you do deserve at least an explanation as to why I avoided you (other than thinking you were one, since you know... don't feed trolls). What you've said has already been argued against in numerous spaces throughout literature, the Internet, and elsewhere. All the things I could argue have already been argued. I just have nothing to add. Likewise, all that you have argued throughout this thread has already been argued.
Were I a patient man, I could humour you and take up the offer for some amateur debate, but I lack the patience and interest for that. Grew out of it. The whole debate-bro phase was more of a teenage thing. There are more important things in life than arguing with random nobodies you can't even be sure actually exist. Sorry. Generative AI shit is pretty much killing me inside. There's a genocide happening right now, the world's on fire, I'm much too suffocated with everything to give you the time and attention you want. Hopefully, others here will be able to satisfy those needs of yours. Enjoy your amateur debates.
Well, that's a shame. I was looking forward to an explanation for the things you took the time to post about...(I'm especially curious about this alleged genocide)...but I guess you expect everyone to just blindly believe you...
SmugSatoko said: I'm especially curious about this alleged genocide There are several, but the one that's mainly on my mind right now is Israel's ongoing genocide against Palestinians. "oCToBEr 7!" I hear the NPCs cry. Yeah... no. Nothing justifies genocide. Even then, this has been happening long before that incident. It goes back to the 1940s. Usually when this topic is brought up people try to justify it by saying how "evil" and "bad" Islam is (all without a hint of self-awareness, as Christianity is just as bad), but that's not going to fly here. I'm an atheist so I'm the last person to defend religion (about the most you'll get from me is a lukewarm "let people practice their chosen faiths as long as they don't bother me"). That's besides the fact babies don't choose to be of any religious faith. They're fucking babies. Killing them is atrocious! Alas, I'll avoid this particular topic for now since I don't want to completely derail the topic of this thread. |
|
TheGEORGIO said: I don't care much for arguing with someone throating a system that is clearly leading to more exploitation today than benefits for the general population, but I just have to point out how soy it is to cite youtube videos as an argument I don't care much for arguing with someone who makes claims (like saying the downsides of capitalism outweigh the benefits, without even proposing a solution) and refuses to back them up, but I just have to point out how soy it is to not even read the damn thread to see I've been making pages upon pages of arguments in my own words. Socialism and anarchism are as soyboy as it gets...and your inability to refute a single thing I said just bolsters that. Purple_Gh0st24 said: There are several, but the one that's mainly on my mind right now is Israel's ongoing genocide against Palestinians. "oCToBEr 7!" I hear the NPCs cry. Yeah... no. Nothing justifies genocide. Even then, this has been happening long before that incident. It goes back to the 1940s. Usually when this topic is brought up people try to justify it by saying how "evil" and "bad" Islam is (all without a hint of self-awareness, as Christianity is just as bad), but that's not going to fly here. I'm an atheist so I'm the last person to defend religion (about the most you'll get from me is a lukewarm "let people practice their chosen faiths as long as they don't bother me"). That's besides the fact babies don't choose to be of any religious faith. They're fucking babies. Killing them is atrocious! Alas, I'll avoid this particular topic for now since I don't want to completely derail the topic of this thread. "Israel is not committing genocide — the destruction of any national, racial, ethnic, or religious group. Israel is seeking the destruction of Hamas, a terror group that states its intent to destroy the state of Israel in its founding charter. Israel's campaign in Gaza is an act of self-defense, and the Jewish state goes to great lengths to prevent civilian casualties." https://www.ajc.org/news/5-reasons-why-the-events-in-gaza-are-not-genocide https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/09/us-has-seen-no-evidence-that-israel-has-committed-genocide-austin-says-00151241 https://www.aei.org/op-eds/israel-is-not-committing-genocide-in-gaza/ If you want to frame a conflict that has been going on since the 1800s as genocide, your bar is pretty low. |
SmugSatokoSep 11, 2024 11:23 AM
|
TheGEORGIO said: I do happen to think I am less soy than a man in his late 30s with an anime girl profile pic who spends a significant portion of his free time writing blocks of responses defending capitalism and imperialism on a myanimelist forum post about media preservation So "less soy" that you can't refute a single thing I said. GG. |
|
Reply to SmugSatoko
mo_lave said:
In the streaming example, streamers will increase their prices until the average customer (who subscribes to multiple services) will pay roughly the same amount as cable. If I'm the CEO of Netflix, that would be an attractive option for me to earn more.
That totally defeats their original selling point as "cheaper than cable".
In the streaming example, streamers will increase their prices until the average customer (who subscribes to multiple services) will pay roughly the same amount as cable. If I'm the CEO of Netflix, that would be an attractive option for me to earn more.
That totally defeats their original selling point as "cheaper than cable".
In a free market, there would be competition that would result in lower prices and better products and services. Even with less free markets, progress is inevitable even when it's held back somewhat. Smartphones have technology that would have cost a million dollars decades ago.
Sure, there's exclusive content, and people will have to decide whether they want it enough to pay for it. That's a personal decision they are free to make...in a (you guessed it) free market.
Don't forget the free streaming services supported by ads. You don't have to pay any money for video streaming if you don't want to.
Let's extrapolate their recent actions, what would follow next? Lose the ability to cancel at will? One-year lock-in periods?
If you are not allowed to cancel something, that is not a free market.
You keep talking about things that are the opposite of a free market, and I'm not sure why. If your concern is that the current market (or the direction you think it's heading) isn't free enough, I would concur.
Not just what they created, but also exclusive distribution deals in territories. They're basically saying, "If you want to support the creator, you have to go through us." Besides pirating or buying foreign physical media (don't get me started with geoblocking), there's no other way to legitimately get content if you object to the middle man out of principle.
I think eventually, the copyright owners will see that people don't want everything to be so difficult. There are a number of ways for consumers to influence the powers that be. I won't bother writing an article on that, as this thread has already descended into enough tangents.
Might as well lose your interest in participating in culture altogether. Wait for those to go to public domain? You'll be long dead before that happens.
I can't watch my favorite anime on an American streaming service? All is lost! hehe... Actually, I bought it on Blu-ray. After many years, it became available via streaming too.
And that is with me agreeing in principle that they have the right to do what they please with what they created. I'm only dismayed that the default stance is to view customers as wallets to be nickeled and dimed.
Lots of businesses offer free content as a way to spark interest, then charge for optional upgrades and the like. I know that's well-known, but thought I'd mention it.
Fan interaction to express their passion is not welcome if there's no money flowing in to whoever owns the IP.
That attitude varies by the company. Nintendo would be one that embodies your critique.
The idea of relative freedom is why there are regulations. And contrary to what some may think, regulations do not automatically mean it's socialism. The free market in the sense of zero government involvement is as unreachable as the classless society of communism. Supporters may think it's entrepreneurs earning a neat profit as a reward for their hard work. Detractors will say it'll end up as private corporations being a state unto themselves.
Well, yeah, extremes aren't desirable either way.
When I refer to socialism, I mean collective ownership of the means of production (and so on)...which ultimately means the state runs things. Simply having rules is obviously not socialism.
Charging for food so you can keep providing food is reasonable.
I agree nothing is truly free. Consider that for public services, the public can choose to pool their money together via taxes so the government can provide services available to all. Whether the government actually does a good job at it or not is a different question. Emphasis on 'choose'.
I agree nothing is truly free. Consider that for public services, the public can choose to pool their money together via taxes so the government can provide services available to all. Whether the government actually does a good job at it or not is a different question. Emphasis on 'choose'.
In the context of 'privatizing profits and socializing losses', it is a state welfare program for the rich. If there's gonna be a welfare program in place anyway, I'd rather it be for the poor first before the rich.
Open-source projects rely on donations to keep going, and the model works because enough people believe on its mission and goals.
On that note, I'm a big fan of crowdfunding.
Much of the criticism of capitalism can be summed up as "the employers are not in their best behavior. They do anything they want to get rich no matter how harmful it is."
They certainly do not do anything they want without consequences. On a frequent basis, people who own or work for businesses get fined and/or imprisoned when they commit crimes.
And it is considered a critique of capitalism since, well, the US likes to brand itself as capitalist, whether you agree it's merited or not. In your case, it seems not because you consider it not exhibiting the traits of a free market.
There are degrees of freedom. The US is definitely closer to capitalist than socialist, and it's still among the freer economies.
One other thing that I notice is what you call "capitalism" is different from what others call "capitalism".
Capitalism involves private ownership of the means of production. (Along with other qualities.) Did I use the word to mean something else? I do talk about the underlying philosophy behind capitalism from time to time.
| @SmugSatoko SmugSatoko said: Capitalism involves private ownership of the means of production. (Along with other qualities.) Did I use the word to mean something else? I do talk about the underlying philosophy behind capitalism from time to time. From what I understand, your defense of capitalism is how the free market brings about the flourishing of society. When others here criticize capitalism, they're poking holes on how countries actually implement it. It's how different people interpret the word "capitalism" differently. |
mo_lave said: From what I understand, your defense of capitalism is how the free market brings about the flourishing of society. When others here criticize capitalism, they're poking holes on how countries actually implement it. It's how different people interpret the word "capitalism" differently. Fair enough. I agree with many criticisms of what capitalist-oriented countries do. |
|
| What is the point of preserving media for future generations when we literally get NTHE within no more than 10 to 15 years from now? It is not like there will be anymore humans on Earth within another decade or two from now. So why bother preserving any media for non-existant future generations of humans? |
| Here is my Pixiv account of my hentai drawings..... https://www.pixiv.net/en/users/104739065 Here is my blog.... https://theendofindustrialcivilization.blogspot.com/?m=1 |
Reply to DesuMaiden
What is the point of preserving media for future generations when we literally get NTHE within no more than 10 to 15 years from now? It is not like there will be anymore humans on Earth within another decade or two from now. So why bother preserving any media for non-existant future generations of humans?
DesuMaiden said: What is the point of preserving media for future generations when we literally get NTHE within no more than 10 to 15 years from now? It is not like there will be anymore humans on Earth within another decade or two from now. So why bother preserving any media for non-existant future generations of humans? It's about time you showed up! Never change, never change... |
|
| To stay on focus: - What is stopping them from uploading the files to another site? Like ThePirateBay? - Why is media preservation desirable in the first place? - Why is it a bad thing that companies can make a profit? - How is this the fault of private capital, when the state ultimately has complete and final say on the arbitration of conflicts? Archive.org would just tell those companies to kick rocks, if not for the state's aggression. - Anime studios (assuming this is what you are talking about) are hardly the billionaire class. Not even video game studios are quite that level. And certainly not monopolistic, as some people in this thread have brought up. - Intellectual property is largely the protection of not being able to replicate a certain idea, I.E. making your own variant on something. This would fall under copyright law. - Communism is cringe and gay, and piracy has nothing to do with the means of production. So the discussion of communism is largely irrelevant. There are very strong capitalist arguments for piracy, too. - Do you honestly think that these industries could exist, in the capacity that they do today, without the increase in private capital? And if so, why? - Piracy is based. Clearing up the terrible misconceptions about capitalism and libertarianism in this thread: |
DreamWindowSep 15, 2024 2:21 AM
 This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
Reply to DreamWindow
To stay on focus:
- What is stopping them from uploading the files to another site? Like ThePirateBay?
- Why is media preservation desirable in the first place?
- Why is it a bad thing that companies can make a profit?
- How is this the fault of private capital, when the state ultimately has complete and final say on the arbitration of conflicts? Archive.org would just tell those companies to kick rocks, if not for the state's aggression.
- Anime studios (assuming this is what you are talking about) are hardly the billionaire class. Not even video game studios are quite that level. And certainly not monopolistic, as some people in this thread have brought up.
- Intellectual property is largely the protection of not being able to replicate a certain idea, I.E. making your own variant on something. This would fall under copyright law.
- Communism is cringe and gay, and piracy has nothing to do with the means of production. So the discussion of communism is largely irrelevant. There are very strong capitalist arguments for piracy, too.
- Do you honestly think that these industries could exist, in the capacity that they do today, without the increase in private capital? And if so, why?
- Piracy is based.
Clearing up the terrible misconceptions about capitalism and libertarianism in this thread:
- What is stopping them from uploading the files to another site? Like ThePirateBay?
- Why is media preservation desirable in the first place?
- Why is it a bad thing that companies can make a profit?
- How is this the fault of private capital, when the state ultimately has complete and final say on the arbitration of conflicts? Archive.org would just tell those companies to kick rocks, if not for the state's aggression.
- Anime studios (assuming this is what you are talking about) are hardly the billionaire class. Not even video game studios are quite that level. And certainly not monopolistic, as some people in this thread have brought up.
- Intellectual property is largely the protection of not being able to replicate a certain idea, I.E. making your own variant on something. This would fall under copyright law.
- Communism is cringe and gay, and piracy has nothing to do with the means of production. So the discussion of communism is largely irrelevant. There are very strong capitalist arguments for piracy, too.
- Do you honestly think that these industries could exist, in the capacity that they do today, without the increase in private capital? And if so, why?
- Piracy is based.
Clearing up the terrible misconceptions about capitalism and libertarianism in this thread:
| @DreamWindow DreamWindow said: What is stopping them from uploading the files to another site? Like ThePirateBay? If by "them" you mean the production committee, not being able to make ¥200 Million instead of ¥190 Million stops them. DreamWindow said: Why is media preservation desirable in the first place? Even if you are able to remake lost media, it will not be the same as the original. DreamWindow said: How is this the fault of private capital, when the state ultimately has complete and final say on the arbitration of conflicts? Holders of private capital, if influential enough, is the power behind the throne in a state. The state has the final say, but capital could whisper things to it. DreamWindow said: Intellectual property is largely the protection of not being able to replicate a certain idea, I.E. making your own variant on something. Here's what I get off of it. 1. One can't pass derivative work as original 2. In terms of variants, should the maker of a derivative work profit from it? Personally, I see no problems charging to cover the cost. |
Reply to mo_lave
@DreamWindow
If by "them" you mean the production committee, not being able to make ¥200 Million instead of ¥190 Million stops them.
Even if you are able to remake lost media, it will not be the same as the original.
Holders of private capital, if influential enough, is the power behind the throne in a state. The state has the final say, but capital could whisper things to it.
Here's what I get off of it.
1. One can't pass derivative work as original
2. In terms of variants, should the maker of a derivative work profit from it? Personally, I see no problems charging to cover the cost.
DreamWindow said:
What is stopping them from uploading the files to another site? Like ThePirateBay?
What is stopping them from uploading the files to another site? Like ThePirateBay?
If by "them" you mean the production committee, not being able to make ¥200 Million instead of ¥190 Million stops them.
DreamWindow said:
Why is media preservation desirable in the first place?
Why is media preservation desirable in the first place?
Even if you are able to remake lost media, it will not be the same as the original.
DreamWindow said:
How is this the fault of private capital, when the state ultimately has complete and final say on the arbitration of conflicts?
How is this the fault of private capital, when the state ultimately has complete and final say on the arbitration of conflicts?
Holders of private capital, if influential enough, is the power behind the throne in a state. The state has the final say, but capital could whisper things to it.
DreamWindow said:
Intellectual property is largely the protection of not being able to replicate a certain idea, I.E. making your own variant on something.
Intellectual property is largely the protection of not being able to replicate a certain idea, I.E. making your own variant on something.
Here's what I get off of it.
1. One can't pass derivative work as original
2. In terms of variants, should the maker of a derivative work profit from it? Personally, I see no problems charging to cover the cost.
mo_lave said: If by "them" you mean the production committee, not being able to make ¥200 Million instead of ¥190 Million stops them. No, I was referring to individuals who upload to internet archive or the piratebay. mo_lave said: Even if you are able to remake lost media, it will not be the same as the original. This doesn't really answer the question. I am of the opinion that media that is good or desirable often gets preserved, due to the actions of people who wish to see it preserved, and this is a good thing for those who wish to see it. But the notion that there is some kind of necessity behind the action of preserving media is largely subjective, and not something that is ultimately an obligation for those who produce it to uphold. mo_lave said: Holders of private capital, if influential enough, is the power behind the throne in a state. The state has the final say, but capital could whisper things to it. Most anime studios are not influential enough to control the state. It's absurd how many people overestimate how large of a role these companies play, when most of them are rather meager in terms of their capital value. Even despite this, without that capital value, the work would not have come into existence in the first place. The burden should rest wholly on the state, as they have a monopoly on the arbitration of conflicts. mo_lave said: Here's what I get off of it. 1. One can't pass derivative work as original 2. In terms of variants, should the maker of a derivative work profit from it? Personally, I see no problems charging to cover the cost. 1. Yes, but the act of uploading a work without altering it, to a website like the internet archive would be a violation of copyright, rather than a derivative work. Which is why I made the distinction. 2. From a philosophical point of view? No, I don't think there's anything wrong with profiting off of a derivative work. There is no homesteading principle when it comes to ideas, or creative works. This argument can very easily be made, under a capitalist framework. |
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
| Intellectual property or IP law is there to reward the creation of creative products. If you abolished IP law, you'd still have capitalism. So, turning this into a thread about capitalism vs socialism or w/e seems misplaced. The question should be honed toward how we should treat IP law. I say it is consequentially good to have stringent IP laws, because if you did not have intellectual property, anyone who worked or invested in making a film, video game, or took the time to write a book would have people who copy them. The expensive part of making the product was creating the animation, the storyboard, the script, etc. It is cheap to imitate a creative work. So, IP law should exist to promote creative works. I include not just the labor that goes into making the product as being essential, by the way, but the investment. Obviously. The stuff we are talking about are not made on the cheap. That said, since I justified things on consequential grounds, that doesn't imply unlimited IP rights. I believe the amount of time that a work should be subject to IP protections should be more limited. Perhaps 50 years or so. A decent chunk of a contributor's adult life if not all of it after creation. Currently US IP law grants ownership for 95 years. So I'd slash that about in half. |
FreshellSep 20, 2024 6:16 PM
Reply to Freshell
Intellectual property or IP law is there to reward the creation of creative products. If you abolished IP law, you'd still have capitalism. So, turning this into a thread about capitalism vs socialism or w/e seems misplaced. The question should be honed toward how we should treat IP law. I say it is consequentially good to have stringent IP laws, because if you did not have intellectual property, anyone who worked or invested in making a film, video game, or took the time to write a book would have people who copy them. The expensive part of making the product was creating the animation, the storyboard, the script, etc. It is cheap to imitate a creative work. So, IP law should exist to promote creative works. I include not just the labor that goes into making the product as being essential, by the way, but the investment. Obviously. The stuff we are talking about are not made on the cheap.
That said, since I justified things on consequential grounds, that doesn't imply unlimited IP rights. I believe the amount of time that a work should be subject to IP protections should be more limited. Perhaps 50 years or so. A decent chunk of a contributor's adult life if not all of it after creation. Currently US IP law grants ownership for 95 years. So I'd slash that about in half.
That said, since I justified things on consequential grounds, that doesn't imply unlimited IP rights. I believe the amount of time that a work should be subject to IP protections should be more limited. Perhaps 50 years or so. A decent chunk of a contributor's adult life if not all of it after creation. Currently US IP law grants ownership for 95 years. So I'd slash that about in half.
Freshell said: Currently US IP law grants ownership for 95 years. So I'd slash that about in half. Personally I'd put it at more than half, but otherwise I agree with you. |
|
More topics from this board
» Why do some people have private profiles?AmityBlight - Sep 14 |
29 |
by 149597871
»»
8 minutes ago |
|
» How much of a swear words user are you?fleurbleue - Yesterday |
31 |
by Zakatsuki_
»»
26 minutes ago |
|
» What's the dumbest, most blatantly obvious scam you've ever seen?TheBlockernator - Sep 16 |
15 |
by Wendy--
»»
32 minutes ago |
|
» Do you find it hard to be kind?LabMemberX - 2 hours ago |
5 |
by deg
»»
35 minutes ago |
|
» What's your favorite quote?Zakatsuki_ - Sep 18 |
20 |
by Wendy--
»»
37 minutes ago |