3 ms·

Welcome to the hyper capitalist world that has been created over the past 60 years. This is the result of always needed growth in your economic system.

anthonypasq 2y ago
this seems like a complete non-sequitur to me
- giardini 2y ago
  But now you've added a sequitur! (It's OK to leave a thread dangling in the wind.)
- alexyz12 2y ago
  seems very relevant to me. Isn't it capitalism that reduces our value to $s? And thus our art is only valuable as content?
  - shafoshaf 2y ago
    I think this is a common misconception of the comparison between "capitalism" and other forms of economic distribution. It's not capitalism that equates everything to dollars, it is how the universe works. This was the beauty of Karl Marx's thinking. He postulated that the best way to measure value is in the amount of human labor that goes into the output. However, once you have a medium to equate the value of a new chair into labor then I can come up with an another transformation to equate that labor into some defined quantity of glass beads. It turns out that choosing Labor as the "value" is completely arbitrary, and so dollars (or yen or gold) works just as well as a medium for conversion.
    - MassPikeMike 2y ago
      Choosing labor as the value is worse than arbitrary, because labor is far less fungible than (say) commodities. The value of labor depends on whose labor it is for the job. Half an hour's labor by one person can turn apples, flour, butter, and sugar into a delicious pie; half an hour's labor by a different person will create a soggy mess. In one case, labor adds value; in another case, it destroys value (can't use that flour for anything else now.)
    - funcDropShadow 2y ago
      > This was the beauty of Karl Marx's thinking. He postulated that the best way to measure value is in the amount of human labor that goes into the output. This is indeed the most beautiful insight of Karl Marx that I ever read. This predicts perfectly why all socialist/communist economies collapse. They value inefficiency. The more work is needed to build a product, the more valuable it is --- according to Marx. That is one of the most fundamental error in his theories.
      - rakoo 2y ago
        You're assuming socialist/communist economies must, for some reason, be run exactly the same as capitalist economies. Of course if you're trying to mix both it will collapse. The point of Marx isn't that we should create markets where the value is decided by the amount of labor. The point of Marx is that if Labor creates value, then Labor should be in charge. The problem being that Labor is hard, so the end goal cannot be to maximize Labor (or value), contrary to your implied way of thinking were the most value must be created.
        funcDropShadow 2y ago
        If maximizing value is not the goal, then why should Marxism redefine value in a counter-intuitive way? Btw, "Labor" cannot be in charge, outside the UK at least, because Labor is an abstract concept. In Marxist societies people are in charge that pretend to have the laborers best interest in their hearts. But as they "Some are more equal than others."
        rakoo 2y ago
        > If maximizing value is not the goal, then why should Marxism redefine value in a counter-intuitive way? Because it's only an exchange value and doesn't take into account the myriad of things that also have value but are not a consequence of work ? And the goal of Marxism might not be to maximize exchange value ? > In Marxist societies people are in charge that pretend to have the laborers best interest in their hearts Hard disagree, looking at societies applying values evolved from Marxist theories I see people in charge of themselves. I think of the old Commune de Paris, of the Spanish Revolution, of the Rojava. You need to look further than the one example you have in mind.
daedrdev 2y ago
Somehow the increased accessibility of being an independent entertainer instead of having to work in a toxic entertainment industry that regularly covered up widespread abuse means that capitalism bad.
cloverich 2y ago
Can you elaborate on your selection of 60 for the inception point?
- 8bitsrule 2y ago
  That's about the time teen magazines emerged, isn't it. And the subsequent explosion of trends and rumors mags.
golergka 2y ago
Economic growth is another way of saying "improving people's lives". An economic system which always needs to improve people's lives is a good thing, actually. When you compare modern first world to 60 years ago, people's lives have significantly improved. And if you do the same in developed countries, the difference is unbelievable.
- mellavora 2y ago
  The promise of capitalism is to improve people's circumstances and thus make them happy. The promise of buddhism is to make people happy regardless of circumstances.
  - golergka 2y ago
    And the promise of communism is to make everyone equally miserable. I was born in USSR and still remember 5-hour queues for rotting cabbage, thanks.
    - red1reaper 2y ago
      The promise of communism is that the worker owns the means of production, the worker, not the goverment. If the goverment owns your means of production, it's just a corpo disguissed as a country.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  Problem is the 10-20 year window doesn't look so good. Only vampires don't realize you can't suck every last drop out out. Every good manager knows you can't count on more than 80% employee utilization in the best circumstances with the best people. Now companies expect zero hour employees (part time employees who are guaranteed zero hours/zero schedule but expected to move their lives around their job, which is one of three part time jobs they need to survive) to do more than that by requiring employees do the manager's job of finding shift coverage off hours using their personal phone, etc while also being 100% utilized during work hours, with zero overlapping roll coverage. That isn't sustainable and no way live, and is an unreasonable expectation from a zero hour job.

anthonypasq 2y ago

this seems like a complete non-sequitur to me

giardini 2y ago
But now you've added a sequitur! (It's OK to leave a thread dangling in the wind.)
alexyz12 2y ago
seems very relevant to me. Isn't it capitalism that reduces our value to $s? And thus our art is only valuable as content?
- shafoshaf 2y ago
  I think this is a common misconception of the comparison between "capitalism" and other forms of economic distribution. It's not capitalism that equates everything to dollars, it is how the universe works. This was the beauty of Karl Marx's thinking. He postulated that the best way to measure value is in the amount of human labor that goes into the output. However, once you have a medium to equate the value of a new chair into labor then I can come up with an another transformation to equate that labor into some defined quantity of glass beads. It turns out that choosing Labor as the "value" is completely arbitrary, and so dollars (or yen or gold) works just as well as a medium for conversion.
  - MassPikeMike 2y ago
    Choosing labor as the value is worse than arbitrary, because labor is far less fungible than (say) commodities. The value of labor depends on whose labor it is for the job. Half an hour's labor by one person can turn apples, flour, butter, and sugar into a delicious pie; half an hour's labor by a different person will create a soggy mess. In one case, labor adds value; in another case, it destroys value (can't use that flour for anything else now.)
  - funcDropShadow 2y ago
    > This was the beauty of Karl Marx's thinking. He postulated that the best way to measure value is in the amount of human labor that goes into the output. This is indeed the most beautiful insight of Karl Marx that I ever read. This predicts perfectly why all socialist/communist economies collapse. They value inefficiency. The more work is needed to build a product, the more valuable it is --- according to Marx. That is one of the most fundamental error in his theories.
    - rakoo 2y ago
      You're assuming socialist/communist economies must, for some reason, be run exactly the same as capitalist economies. Of course if you're trying to mix both it will collapse. The point of Marx isn't that we should create markets where the value is decided by the amount of labor. The point of Marx is that if Labor creates value, then Labor should be in charge. The problem being that Labor is hard, so the end goal cannot be to maximize Labor (or value), contrary to your implied way of thinking were the most value must be created.
      - funcDropShadow 2y ago
        If maximizing value is not the goal, then why should Marxism redefine value in a counter-intuitive way? Btw, "Labor" cannot be in charge, outside the UK at least, because Labor is an abstract concept. In Marxist societies people are in charge that pretend to have the laborers best interest in their hearts. But as they "Some are more equal than others."
        rakoo 2y ago
        > If maximizing value is not the goal, then why should Marxism redefine value in a counter-intuitive way? Because it's only an exchange value and doesn't take into account the myriad of things that also have value but are not a consequence of work ? And the goal of Marxism might not be to maximize exchange value ? > In Marxist societies people are in charge that pretend to have the laborers best interest in their hearts Hard disagree, looking at societies applying values evolved from Marxist theories I see people in charge of themselves. I think of the old Commune de Paris, of the Spanish Revolution, of the Rojava. You need to look further than the one example you have in mind.

daedrdev 2y ago

Somehow the increased accessibility of being an independent entertainer instead of having to work in a toxic entertainment industry that regularly covered up widespread abuse means that capitalism bad.

cloverich 2y ago

Can you elaborate on your selection of 60 for the inception point?

8bitsrule 2y ago
That's about the time teen magazines emerged, isn't it. And the subsequent explosion of trends and rumors mags.

golergka 2y ago

Economic growth is another way of saying "improving people's lives". An economic system which always needs to improve people's lives is a good thing, actually. When you compare modern first world to 60 years ago, people's lives have significantly improved. And if you do the same in developed countries, the difference is unbelievable.

mellavora 2y ago
The promise of capitalism is to improve people's circumstances and thus make them happy. The promise of buddhism is to make people happy regardless of circumstances.
- golergka 2y ago
  And the promise of communism is to make everyone equally miserable. I was born in USSR and still remember 5-hour queues for rotting cabbage, thanks.
  - red1reaper 2y ago
    The promise of communism is that the worker owns the means of production, the worker, not the goverment. If the goverment owns your means of production, it's just a corpo disguissed as a country.
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
Problem is the 10-20 year window doesn't look so good. Only vampires don't realize you can't suck every last drop out out. Every good manager knows you can't count on more than 80% employee utilization in the best circumstances with the best people. Now companies expect zero hour employees (part time employees who are guaranteed zero hours/zero schedule but expected to move their lives around their job, which is one of three part time jobs they need to survive) to do more than that by requiring employees do the manager's job of finding shift coverage off hours using their personal phone, etc while also being 100% utilized during work hours, with zero overlapping roll coverage. That isn't sustainable and no way live, and is an unreasonable expectation from a zero hour job.