4 ms·

You’re presuming a society owes acknowledgment of the value stored in their investment vehicles? Which is ultimately my point. None of us have to view Apple as

You’re presuming a society owes acknowledgment of the value stored in their investment vehicles? Which is ultimately my point. None of us have to view Apple as “valuable”. It’s simply a political routine built upon exposure to previous political routine. Time series of the brain. There’s a tax on our agency to keep propping up systems that are devaluing our agency to the benefit of a moneyed minority. We’re under no political obligation to enable or protect that, no matter how much economic theory you copy-paste. Imo the free market is not Apple and Dell computers, or Ford and Chevy cars. It’s between public and private power. One has cost us reliability and resiliency for fiscal efficiency. We do not have to politically accept that.

zepto 6y ago
> You’re presuming a society owes acknowledgment of the value stored in their investments? Not really. Also I’m not copying and pasting anything here. Notice that the person I am replying to is the one who is talking about ‘iron clad economic realities’. You’re welcome to deny the value of anything you like, or the existence of it for that matter. Nobody is obliging you to accept any reality you don’t like. > There’s a tax on our agency to keep propping up systems that are devaluing our agency to the benefit of a moneyed minority. Why are you propping them up then? > Imo the free market is not Apple and Dell computers, or Ford and Chevy cars. It’s between public and private power. One has cost us reliability and resiliency for fiscal efficiency. We do not have to politically accept that. It’s not clear what you are trying to say here. Can you explain? What do you mean by a ‘free market between public and private power’?
- scyAnts0 6y ago
  To me you are copy-pasting emotional information I’ve already heard over and over. It’s a metaphor, not a prescription of literal behavior. I talk trash about big tech constantly, I’m hardly propping them up. They have no information advantage, just a political capital one. The authors are using their political insight, based on the last generation or so of political rhetoric to emotionally minimize others value of Big Tech, suggesting that to be of local economic benefit. > It’s not clear what you are trying to say here. Can you explain. Our economy is predicated on a post hoc conclusion based upon information manipulation. We denigrate humans spending time economy on public solutions to problems, and celebrate deference to privatization. This creates a neurological preference for the latter over the former. We circularly continue to justify storing more value in these organizations ultimately based upon the initial post hoc observation; this is what happened so it must keep happening! Never mind that ultimately it’s human agency being co-opted into propping up the value of others and undermining themselves. Politics needs to consider the time dimension for the masses. If it’s going to take someone their life to pay off a debt because society told them that’s just how it works, that’s hardly freedom. Politics largely just concerns itself with space; ownership of property. Not the tax on our time for things other than making sure Bezos and Musk are still rich.
  - zepto 6y ago
    > To me you are copy-pasting emotional information I’ve already heard over and over. It’s a metaphor, not a prescription of literal behavior. I don’t see what this adds except a vaguely insulting innuendo which applies equally to you and lowers trust. Also, it seems odd to me that you are reading emotion into what you call copy pasted economic theory. I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying, except that I don’t think it reduces purely to information manipulation, and to a certain extent, that claim can result in a facile justification for one’s own attempts at manipulation. It’s also just not clear how any of this is relevant to the topics at hand. Isn’t your comment just a generic ‘the system is bad’ and ‘politics needs to change’ (agreed), and ‘it’s all a scam to keep the rich in power’ (partially agreed), we need to think differently (agreed). But with no additional content?

zepto 6y ago

> You’re presuming a society owes acknowledgment of the value stored in their investments? Not really. Also I’m not copying and pasting anything here. Notice that the person I am replying to is the one who is talking about ‘iron clad economic realities’. You’re welcome to deny the value of anything you like, or the existence of it for that matter. Nobody is obliging you to accept any reality you don’t like. > There’s a tax on our agency to keep propping up systems that are devaluing our agency to the benefit of a moneyed minority. Why are you propping them up then? > Imo the free market is not Apple and Dell computers, or Ford and Chevy cars. It’s between public and private power. One has cost us reliability and resiliency for fiscal efficiency. We do not have to politically accept that. It’s not clear what you are trying to say here. Can you explain? What do you mean by a ‘free market between public and private power’?

scyAnts0 6y ago
To me you are copy-pasting emotional information I’ve already heard over and over. It’s a metaphor, not a prescription of literal behavior. I talk trash about big tech constantly, I’m hardly propping them up. They have no information advantage, just a political capital one. The authors are using their political insight, based on the last generation or so of political rhetoric to emotionally minimize others value of Big Tech, suggesting that to be of local economic benefit. > It’s not clear what you are trying to say here. Can you explain. Our economy is predicated on a post hoc conclusion based upon information manipulation. We denigrate humans spending time economy on public solutions to problems, and celebrate deference to privatization. This creates a neurological preference for the latter over the former. We circularly continue to justify storing more value in these organizations ultimately based upon the initial post hoc observation; this is what happened so it must keep happening! Never mind that ultimately it’s human agency being co-opted into propping up the value of others and undermining themselves. Politics needs to consider the time dimension for the masses. If it’s going to take someone their life to pay off a debt because society told them that’s just how it works, that’s hardly freedom. Politics largely just concerns itself with space; ownership of property. Not the tax on our time for things other than making sure Bezos and Musk are still rich.
- zepto 6y ago
  > To me you are copy-pasting emotional information I’ve already heard over and over. It’s a metaphor, not a prescription of literal behavior. I don’t see what this adds except a vaguely insulting innuendo which applies equally to you and lowers trust. Also, it seems odd to me that you are reading emotion into what you call copy pasted economic theory. I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying, except that I don’t think it reduces purely to information manipulation, and to a certain extent, that claim can result in a facile justification for one’s own attempts at manipulation. It’s also just not clear how any of this is relevant to the topics at hand. Isn’t your comment just a generic ‘the system is bad’ and ‘politics needs to change’ (agreed), and ‘it’s all a scam to keep the rich in power’ (partially agreed), we need to think differently (agreed). But with no additional content?