6 ms·

> They seem to be very bad at their jobs. On the contrary, I'd argue they are mostly good at their jobs. Their job isn't to help the average American. Their j

> They seem to be very bad at their jobs. On the contrary, I'd argue they are mostly good at their jobs. Their job isn't to help the average American. Their job is to serve Capital. They get paid by the rich, not by average Americans. They are doing a good job at that. Look at the stock market, it goes up while Main Street is in turmoil.

derg 6y ago
This screencap just about sums it up: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EVMnSzMUYAMW4n8?format=jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EVMnSzMUYAMW4n8?format=jpg It's not often you see an image and immediately think "yep, that'll be in some history book in short order". Just utterly divorced and a sign of a _very_ healthy society... If you can't see it: An image with "Dow's Best Week Since 1938" on a graphic while breaking news declares "More than 16 M Americans have lost jobs in 3 weeks"
- owenversteeg 6y ago
  Yeah, that'll definitely end up as an iconic image. For those that want a higher quality screenshot, I just took one: https://i.imgur.com/FzkO6W5.png https://i.imgur.com/FzkO6W5.png It's Jim Cramer's Mad Money on April 9th 2:00 in. (I do not recommend watching Cramer.)
  - derg 6y ago
    Oh nice thanks! this one is much better.
- PeterStuer 6y ago
  Te irony is that in a better world this would be great news. 1'Due to great technical innovations, we were able to free up 16M FTE previously required to maintain our economy. We are continuing to redistribute what still needs to be done and expect starting next quarter the average required workweek can be shortened to 24 hours per person, leaving all much more time to leasure and pursue personal interests. The outlook for hitting the 20 hours/week milestone has been udated and is now expected to be reach in 14 months from now'. Instead neo-liberalism serves us this distopian neo-feudal regime that requires all to 'work more/work longer' just to slow our decline into near poverty while a select few 'rulers' horde all the fruits of progress.
  - derg 6y ago
    It makes me so sad and angry that none of that is the case. A better world _is_ possible. I've been struggling with working life, especially in the midst of wfh during this pandemic and the common question I keep arriving at is: "what's the point in all this?" I don't claim to have it hard (I am so fortunate to have a steady job that allows me to work from home) but there's just a level of mental exhaustion and constant low level burnout that everyone is experiencing (especially amongst my cohorts/generation/friend group since that's my sample size) and it's just like... okay we have another what 40+ years of this? all for what? and that doesn't even apply to the people working those app jobs and doing physical labor, who no doubt have it worse than anyone else I know.
    - CapricornNoble 6y ago
      >>>there's just a level of mental exhaustion and constant low level burnout This, x1000. It's maddening. I work in a an understaffed military HQ that tries to do too many things, while suffering through 30-50% personnel turnover every summer. We plan exercises talking about "readiness" but it's like groundhog day...EVERY.DAMN.TIME. Nothing really changes, the organization is no better prepared to fight today than it was 3 years ago, and all it's doing is burning out the mid-career professionals we'll need to carry the force when the war eventually kicks off for real. Across industries, across geographies...we are living in an oppressive cyberpunk dystopia.
- nightski 6y ago
  The Dow is made up of 30 companies and is in no way reflective of the full economy. I don't see how that sums anything up at all.
  - derg 6y ago
    I mean that's the point, no? The dow having a record day while tens millions are suddenly no longer employed demonstrates a disconnect between the two. Tens of millions out of work should spell disaster for companies, should it not?
    - nightski 6y ago
      First of all, you are ignoring the fact that the Dow dropped ~37% earlier in the year in response to what was happening. The market has never dropped that much so fast. Second, a great day means nothing if you look at how volatile the market has been lately. We are seeing large swings up and down on a regular basis. Third, there is no indication that tens of millions unemployed (which we are still figuring out how much of that is actually temporary vs. permanent) would necessarily immediately affect the large cap stocks in the Dow. These are companies like 3M, Apple, Caterpillar, etc... Lastly, just because the Dow is up significantly on a single day does not mean all the stocks in the Dow are doing great. We've been seeing handfuls of stocks carry indices upwards even though they also contain poor performers.
      - derg 6y ago
        You can "well akshually" me all you want, it still doesn't discount what I said. It's the juxtaposition of people celebrating the "best day since [x]" while tens of millions are losing jobs.
        nightski 6y ago
        I'm just trying to say that a CNBC headline does not equal "people celebrating". If you watch it for a few days you'll see what I mean. Lately it feels like it has been "Best day since the great depression" followed by "Worst day since the great depression" every other day. They are very sensationalist.
rubidium 6y ago
So your cynical view is that the government exists to serve the term rich/capitalism. Thats fine for you to think. But some of us would like to have a functional democratic republic.
- Miner49er 6y ago
  I just think that people work for who pays them. Very little of D.C. politician's money comes from everyday Americans. I'd argue a true democratic republic isn't possible alongside capitalism. The rich will always have disproportionate power over elected officials. Whether it's through direct payments, or the ability to influence voters by manufacturing consent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent).
- banads 6y ago
  It's not cynical, it's historical: "All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well born, the other the mass of the people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government. Can a democratic assembly, who annually revolve in the mass of the people, be supposed steadily to pursue the public good?" -Alexander Hamilton, Farrand's Records of the Federal Convention, v. 1, p. 299. (June 19, 1787)
pas 6y ago
Not capital. The incumbent power brokers. Capital would like to work, build new housing, hire workers from abroad, sell drugs legally, build nuclear power plants ... and pollute, and take on more risk, and hire people below minimal wage, and try out this new amazing medication, and so on. There are good sides and bad sides to this. Currently US politics is in a deadlock between fractured local interests (NIMBY/gentrification, preservation, but also we need low-income housing too; let's build a wall, but also allow cheap farm labor) and federal concerns (tariffs, fuck Obamacare, and everyone in general, but also let's help the economy, etc). This kind of polarized chaos only helps those who are entrenched and are already playing dirty.
- Miner49er 6y ago
  I think the incumbent power brokers are those with capital, but maybe I'm wrong. I think that there's capitalists on both sides of almost every issue you described, and that's how we ended up with the balance we have. If not, who are these incumbent power brokers? And how does it benefit them to ban drugs, not build new housing, limit immigration, etc?
  - pas 6y ago
    Who decides that the IRS shouldn't have a free filing system and Intuit/TurboTax should be able to rent-seek on the country? Who decides that megachurches are a-okay and tax exempt? Who decides that hairdressers need a license? Sure, money is always involved, "political capital" is real, but accumulating more of it doesn't increase the capacity of global political system (as economic capital grows the economic capacity), it just consolidates and polarizes it. So fucks it up basically. And in that regard it's more like a market failure of politics. Too little political competition, too much outside influences and forcing factors. (Eg too much ideology. Or a kind of cross-financing props up one side - basically somewhere in the decision making hierarchy that small sector was conceded, sacrificed, so Intuit continues to make big profits, but something else happened instead, let's say some state got some subsidy.) All in all, first-past-the-post voting entrenches the big power brokers. (Who might not be the elected officials, but quite usually of course are.) Then the emergent two-party system leads to polarization of other issues. Local issues also became party issues. This brings some uniformity and consistency, but obviously does cause a lot of inefficiencies too. So, how does it benefit them to do X? Probably it makes them good party members. And that consistency makes the party viable long term. Thus even local changes can only happen if the whole country zeitgeist changes.
frockington1 6y ago
Wall Street does not reflect the current economy. It reflects the major corporations future prospects. In the current economic situation, Main Street has been forced to close and does not have the cash to stay afloat, which is very good for large companies who will have less competition and easy acquisitions

derg 6y ago

This screencap just about sums it up: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EVMnSzMUYAMW4n8?format=jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EVMnSzMUYAMW4n8?format=jpg It's not often you see an image and immediately think "yep, that'll be in some history book in short order". Just utterly divorced and a sign of a _very_ healthy society... If you can't see it: An image with "Dow's Best Week Since 1938" on a graphic while breaking news declares "More than 16 M Americans have lost jobs in 3 weeks"

owenversteeg 6y ago
Yeah, that'll definitely end up as an iconic image. For those that want a higher quality screenshot, I just took one: https://i.imgur.com/FzkO6W5.png https://i.imgur.com/FzkO6W5.png It's Jim Cramer's Mad Money on April 9th 2:00 in. (I do not recommend watching Cramer.)
- derg 6y ago
  Oh nice thanks! this one is much better.
PeterStuer 6y ago
Te irony is that in a better world this would be great news. 1'Due to great technical innovations, we were able to free up 16M FTE previously required to maintain our economy. We are continuing to redistribute what still needs to be done and expect starting next quarter the average required workweek can be shortened to 24 hours per person, leaving all much more time to leasure and pursue personal interests. The outlook for hitting the 20 hours/week milestone has been udated and is now expected to be reach in 14 months from now'. Instead neo-liberalism serves us this distopian neo-feudal regime that requires all to 'work more/work longer' just to slow our decline into near poverty while a select few 'rulers' horde all the fruits of progress.
- derg 6y ago
  It makes me so sad and angry that none of that is the case. A better world _is_ possible. I've been struggling with working life, especially in the midst of wfh during this pandemic and the common question I keep arriving at is: "what's the point in all this?" I don't claim to have it hard (I am so fortunate to have a steady job that allows me to work from home) but there's just a level of mental exhaustion and constant low level burnout that everyone is experiencing (especially amongst my cohorts/generation/friend group since that's my sample size) and it's just like... okay we have another what 40+ years of this? all for what? and that doesn't even apply to the people working those app jobs and doing physical labor, who no doubt have it worse than anyone else I know.
  - CapricornNoble 6y ago
    >>>there's just a level of mental exhaustion and constant low level burnout This, x1000. It's maddening. I work in a an understaffed military HQ that tries to do too many things, while suffering through 30-50% personnel turnover every summer. We plan exercises talking about "readiness" but it's like groundhog day...EVERY.DAMN.TIME. Nothing really changes, the organization is no better prepared to fight today than it was 3 years ago, and all it's doing is burning out the mid-career professionals we'll need to carry the force when the war eventually kicks off for real. Across industries, across geographies...we are living in an oppressive cyberpunk dystopia.
nightski 6y ago
The Dow is made up of 30 companies and is in no way reflective of the full economy. I don't see how that sums anything up at all.
- derg 6y ago
  I mean that's the point, no? The dow having a record day while tens millions are suddenly no longer employed demonstrates a disconnect between the two. Tens of millions out of work should spell disaster for companies, should it not?
  - nightski 6y ago
    First of all, you are ignoring the fact that the Dow dropped ~37% earlier in the year in response to what was happening. The market has never dropped that much so fast. Second, a great day means nothing if you look at how volatile the market has been lately. We are seeing large swings up and down on a regular basis. Third, there is no indication that tens of millions unemployed (which we are still figuring out how much of that is actually temporary vs. permanent) would necessarily immediately affect the large cap stocks in the Dow. These are companies like 3M, Apple, Caterpillar, etc... Lastly, just because the Dow is up significantly on a single day does not mean all the stocks in the Dow are doing great. We've been seeing handfuls of stocks carry indices upwards even though they also contain poor performers.
    - derg 6y ago
      You can "well akshually" me all you want, it still doesn't discount what I said. It's the juxtaposition of people celebrating the "best day since [x]" while tens of millions are losing jobs.
      - nightski 6y ago
        I'm just trying to say that a CNBC headline does not equal "people celebrating". If you watch it for a few days you'll see what I mean. Lately it feels like it has been "Best day since the great depression" followed by "Worst day since the great depression" every other day. They are very sensationalist.

rubidium 6y ago

So your cynical view is that the government exists to serve the term rich/capitalism. Thats fine for you to think. But some of us would like to have a functional democratic republic.

Miner49er 6y ago
I just think that people work for who pays them. Very little of D.C. politician's money comes from everyday Americans. I'd argue a true democratic republic isn't possible alongside capitalism. The rich will always have disproportionate power over elected officials. Whether it's through direct payments, or the ability to influence voters by manufacturing consent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent).
banads 6y ago
It's not cynical, it's historical: "All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well born, the other the mass of the people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government. Can a democratic assembly, who annually revolve in the mass of the people, be supposed steadily to pursue the public good?" -Alexander Hamilton, Farrand's Records of the Federal Convention, v. 1, p. 299. (June 19, 1787)

pas 6y ago

Not capital. The incumbent power brokers. Capital would like to work, build new housing, hire workers from abroad, sell drugs legally, build nuclear power plants ... and pollute, and take on more risk, and hire people below minimal wage, and try out this new amazing medication, and so on. There are good sides and bad sides to this. Currently US politics is in a deadlock between fractured local interests (NIMBY/gentrification, preservation, but also we need low-income housing too; let's build a wall, but also allow cheap farm labor) and federal concerns (tariffs, fuck Obamacare, and everyone in general, but also let's help the economy, etc). This kind of polarized chaos only helps those who are entrenched and are already playing dirty.

Miner49er 6y ago
I think the incumbent power brokers are those with capital, but maybe I'm wrong. I think that there's capitalists on both sides of almost every issue you described, and that's how we ended up with the balance we have. If not, who are these incumbent power brokers? And how does it benefit them to ban drugs, not build new housing, limit immigration, etc?
- pas 6y ago
  Who decides that the IRS shouldn't have a free filing system and Intuit/TurboTax should be able to rent-seek on the country? Who decides that megachurches are a-okay and tax exempt? Who decides that hairdressers need a license? Sure, money is always involved, "political capital" is real, but accumulating more of it doesn't increase the capacity of global political system (as economic capital grows the economic capacity), it just consolidates and polarizes it. So fucks it up basically. And in that regard it's more like a market failure of politics. Too little political competition, too much outside influences and forcing factors. (Eg too much ideology. Or a kind of cross-financing props up one side - basically somewhere in the decision making hierarchy that small sector was conceded, sacrificed, so Intuit continues to make big profits, but something else happened instead, let's say some state got some subsidy.) All in all, first-past-the-post voting entrenches the big power brokers. (Who might not be the elected officials, but quite usually of course are.) Then the emergent two-party system leads to polarization of other issues. Local issues also became party issues. This brings some uniformity and consistency, but obviously does cause a lot of inefficiencies too. So, how does it benefit them to do X? Probably it makes them good party members. And that consistency makes the party viable long term. Thus even local changes can only happen if the whole country zeitgeist changes.

frockington1 6y ago

Wall Street does not reflect the current economy. It reflects the major corporations future prospects. In the current economic situation, Main Street has been forced to close and does not have the cash to stay afloat, which is very good for large companies who will have less competition and easy acquisitions