Author Topic: Is the true world enemy the economy?  (Read 8074 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
Re: Is the true world enemy the economy?
« Reply #30 on: June 30, 2013, 03:28:39 am »
You're looking past the first step. Increasing minimum wages dramatically would change the fabric of business and make investors feel they are being gypped by the government because the workers would be getting more money instead of them.
It's the government's job to look past the short term and at long terms gains.
In short: If a country does something a business hates, they'll just move elsewhere, out of the reach of the country that wants to regulate them, then operate from afar. Again, this needs to be a global effort, not that of just one or two governments but global society as a whole.
I could get behind that.
They are bubbles, bubbles in that soon that the growth of such practices will move money away from the common worker to the point the common worker would not be able to make luxury purchases that benefit the economy. Instead they'll be making merely month-to-month payments in keeping up their bills and thus the economy will slow down and perhaps experience another crash as worker value is deprecated by companies. Such practices are happening now.
That is still not a bubble. A bubble as an economic term means that investor demand feedback loop I just described. You can't just change word definitions to suit your argument.
I must respectfully ask that you forego regarding my position as static. As I said, I am a pragmatist, perhaps abolishing the economy wouldn't be practical, but the economy's current state is far from practical. Considering this, I acknowledge that perhaps a barter system may not be fully practical either — however again — neither is the current economy.

If we want to be exactly where we are now in 100 years, the current economy would work fine If we want progress however, some drastic changes are in order.

The markets need to realize that they in themselves are a significant element in holding back humanity as a whole. They are forcing old, outdated and static business models upon a society that wants to evolve but cannot. It's like a car chained to a pole that is driven 20 feet into the ground, the car will lurch from side to side as the accelerator is applied — the chain is the outdated and old business practices implemented by old men who believe their way to be the only way. The pole is the timeframe or reference in which those practices were created. The economy and in extension, business and law as a result has been living largely in the past and not in the present and has been influencing creation of law as such.

One potent example of how we are being held back by markets is copyright and how there are "regional releases" of content in a day and age where society is pressing for more global economies and markets, but the old business model of "We must license it special in every country in light of their copyright law" comes into play. I know of people who resort to piracy but would fully pay for content but cannot get it because a foreign publisher will not ship it to them no matter how much the individual would pay because it's not "licensed". Look at Netflix or Youtube in how "This video/content is not available in your country" (yet they could be making money off of that content). This is all due to business operating an outdated business model.

Another potent example is how markets forbid import of certain parts and components or discourage it, this is extremely prevalent in the automotive industry where individual countries have "editions" of cars and small tweaks among parts may make premium parts in one country incompatible with an edition in another, with the costs in one of the countries artificially inflated, as to discourage you from getting cheaper parts.
Funny you should bring up regional releases, because that is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. The only thing holding it back is that physical retailers still control enough of the market share to be able to demand that publishers not give digital distributors an earlier release, but even that is limited. Publishers do in fact want to abandon that old model, and very soon digital media will be big enough for it to be viable. Hell, just look at how music used to be. You used to have to pay $20-30 for an album that had more often than not two or three good songs with the rest being filler. Then iTunes and Youtube came along, and no you can buy songs individually for a few cents each or just watch one ad and legally hear it for free. Businesses can and do innovate and change with their consumers as it becomes more profitable to do so, especially when there's competition.

Naturally, there's problems. Major problems that should be addressed. But that's the case with pretty much everything, and really, it's far better than what it could be. For all its problems, a typical western economy is a far more pleasant system to live under than, say, China (unless you're one of the ultra-rich) and India and especially the likes of Somalia and North Korea. Now I'm not saying we should all just rest on our collective laurels, far from it. Just that a little perspective would be nice before saying the economy is the worst thing to happen since Bronies became a thing.

Offline Kradorex Xeron

  • Technical Consultant
  • Administrator
  • Bishop
  • *****
  • Posts: 115
  • Gender: Male
  • Digitally Original
    • Personal Site
Re: Is the true world enemy the economy?
« Reply #31 on: June 30, 2013, 11:06:40 pm »
It's the government's job to look past the short term and at long terms gains.
This is very difficult for governments to do when investors (of the stock exchange variety) have them by the balls by means of being capable of destroying their peoples' lives "Oh, you want to regulate this business? I'll take my money elsewhere". Ultimately the investment business has blackmailed government into power. The investment business has become almost like narcotic drug addicts with bombs, always looking for their next "fix", if they get denied their fix they will set those bombs off and blow apart those who denied them.

It's a catch-22 that only a huge revamp of the economy will solve, to disarm the bombs and make the economy much less dependent upon the addicts that line the stock exchange floors. But for all intents and purposes, it will take tearing apart some traditions and process that has become deep in economies to accomplish. The problem there is everybody's scared of the unknown, but at the same time no thought goes into uncovering that unknown, so everything just becomes a matter of clinging to the status quo and hoping for the best (including hoping no investors blow up their stockpile).

That is still not a bubble. A bubble as an economic term means that investor demand feedback loop I just described. You can't just change word definitions to suit your argument.

Okay, the investor demand is "more money", company CEOs come to investors saying "perhaps we could automate more for less worker cost", so as a result investors hear that and demand more and more automation in hopes their dividends are higher as more is automated and there are less workers, but thing is, the needle to burst those bubbles is that nobody in the "lower levels" of the economy will have money to purchase the product to keep money flowing since nobody is working.

Funny you should bring up regional releases, because that is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. The only thing holding it back is that physical retailers still control enough of the market share to be able to demand that publishers not give digital distributors an earlier release, but even that is limited. Publishers do in fact want to abandon that old model, and very soon digital media will be big enough for it to be viable. Hell, just look at how music used to be. You used to have to pay $20-30 for an album that had more often than not two or three good songs with the rest being filler. Then iTunes and Youtube came along, and no you can buy songs individually for a few cents each or just watch one ad and legally hear it for free. Businesses can and do innovate and change with their consumers as it becomes more profitable to do so, especially when there's competition.
True, to a point, though consider the situation of DRM where companies end up punishing their legitimate customers more than they do the pirates. The difficulty is that publishers are stuck in an age where they had patent/copyright control over every device that played their media. Consider Sony with the VCRs in how they could have control from filming, to publishing the tapes, to release, to the player device. The difficulty is the market doesn't understand how to "let go" despite customer cries. Controlling the equipment owned by the customer in exchange for digitally available media is not compromise, it's maintaining a status quo.

Nowadays people don't even own a great deal of their technology, they're "licensed" to use it because companies don't trust their customers while their customers trust their data with them — as such there's quite a bit that can happen without the customer's consent and the customer really has limited legal recourse due to the EULAs, but this is a topic for another discussion.

Naturally, there's problems. Major problems that should be addressed. But that's the case with pretty much everything, and really, it's far better than what it could be. For all its problems, a typical western economy is a far more pleasant system to live under than, say, China (unless you're one of the ultra-rich) and India and especially the likes of Somalia and North Korea. Now I'm not saying we should all just rest on our collective laurels, far from it. Just that a little perspective would be nice before saying the economy is the worst thing to happen since Bronies became a thing.
I think the problem is human nature states that unless something inconveniences someone gravely enough, that nothing will get done about things. Revolutions happen only because the people have had enough. I think that the current economy (perhaps not economy in general) is setting a threshold where things are "bad" but not "bad enough" to warrant sufficient outcry for change.

I think many big businesses and big-name investors have discovered the "sweet spot" where they can keep the party going, keeping the cancerous condition of the economy that benefits only those in the stock markets without damaging things too much to cause sufficient shift to cause pushback against certain corruptive practices. For-profit businesses are quite good at analysing statistics where those "sweet spots" are.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2013, 11:08:53 pm by Kradorex Xeron »
~Krad Xeron

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
Re: Is the true world enemy the economy?
« Reply #32 on: July 01, 2013, 01:59:54 am »
This is very difficult for governments to do when investors (of the stock exchange variety) have them by the balls by means of being capable of destroying their peoples' lives "Oh, you want to regulate this business? I'll take my money elsewhere". Ultimately the investment business has blackmailed government into power. The investment business has become almost like narcotic drug addicts with bombs, always looking for their next "fix", if they get denied their fix they will set those bombs off and blow apart those who denied them.

It's a catch-22 that only a huge revamp of the economy will solve, to disarm the bombs and make the economy much less dependent upon the addicts that line the stock exchange floors. But for all intents and purposes, it will take tearing apart some traditions and process that has become deep in economies to accomplish. The problem there is everybody's scared of the unknown, but at the same time no thought goes into uncovering that unknown, so everything just becomes a matter of clinging to the status quo and hoping for the best (including hoping no investors blow up their stockpile).
Ok then. Bearing in mind that going back to a barter economy is a stupid idea, what would you propose to fix it? Higher import tariffs, perhaps? Maybe use them to pay for labour subsidies for local businesses?
Okay, the investor demand is "more money", company CEOs come to investors saying "perhaps we could automate more for less worker cost", so as a result investors hear that and demand more and more automation in hopes their dividends are higher as more is automated and there are less workers, but thing is, the needle to burst those bubbles is that nobody in the "lower levels" of the economy will have money to purchase the product to keep money flowing since nobody is working.
That's not happening, though. At all. Companies are shutting down their factories and outsourcing their manufacturing to Chinese firms, not automating their factories.
True, to a point, though consider the situation of DRM where companies end up punishing their legitimate customers more than they do the pirates. The difficulty is that publishers are stuck in an age where they had patent/copyright control over every device that played their media. Consider Sony with the VCRs in how they could have control from filming, to publishing the tapes, to release, to the player device. The difficulty is the market doesn't understand how to "let go" despite customer cries. Controlling the equipment owned by the customer in exchange for digitally available media is not compromise, it's maintaining a status quo.

Nowadays people don't even own a great deal of their technology, they're "licensed" to use it because companies don't trust their customers while their customers trust their data with them — as such there's quite a bit that can happen without the customer's consent and the customer really has limited legal recourse due to the EULAs, but this is a topic for another discussion.
Funnily enough, DRM is becoming less and less of a thing because of that (at least overtly). We saw what happened with the new consoles. The PS3 never included it to begin with and the Xbox One tried to at first but did away with it at the last minute due to consumer outcry. Then of course there's EA, whose old CEO has been replaced with someone who's likely going to implement more consumer friendly policies in order to reverse their current decline. Changes can and do happen, and in fact they do a lot faster than they used to. Just look at how fast things used to progress before the industrial revolution. Compared to that, things move lightning fast nowadays.
I think the problem is human nature states that unless something inconveniences someone gravely enough, that nothing will get done about things. Revolutions happen only because the people have had enough. I think that the current economy (perhaps not economy in general) is setting a threshold where things are "bad" but not "bad enough" to warrant sufficient outcry for change.

I think many big businesses and big-name investors have discovered the "sweet spot" where they can keep the party going, keeping the cancerous condition of the economy that benefits only those in the stock markets without damaging things too much to cause sufficient shift to cause pushback against certain corruptive practices. For-profit businesses are quite good at analysing statistics where those "sweet spots" are.
Of course they will. They're business. They're only out for profit. Expecting them to act in the interests of the overall public good is just silly. It's up to the government and consumers in general to keep that "sweet spot" at a more reasonable point. If there's a failure to do so, than it needs to be addressed as a failing of the government, not businesses.

Offline Kradorex Xeron

  • Technical Consultant
  • Administrator
  • Bishop
  • *****
  • Posts: 115
  • Gender: Male
  • Digitally Original
    • Personal Site
Re: Is the true world enemy the economy?
« Reply #33 on: July 02, 2013, 04:52:42 am »
Ok then. Bearing in mind that going back to a barter economy is a stupid idea, what would you propose to fix it? Higher import tariffs, perhaps? Maybe use them to pay for labour subsidies for local businesses?
How does one alter the principles of the economy without crashing it? One can't. The problem is the party is going to have to end someday and the investors and traders are all going to take their balls and go home because the governments are "mean to them" if change happens, thus economical crash is inevitable if we as a society want to move forward.

Since corporate entities are in control of the media and so  forth, it will be painted by the media as rather than putting economical improvement at the forefront, it would be painted as governments being anti-business, wanting to crash the economy and being against workers. They will then promptly lay off as many workers and/or outsourcing as it takes to get governments to stop regulating them. The public outcry would most likely be against government.

Assuming that one can change things to correct issues without economical collapse, the problem with this approach is it still approaches business as a products/services element, it doesn't address the underlying investment/stock trading/banking system that is currently the cancerous part of the economy.

What I would propose is international mandates, perhaps under the WTO that:
1. Tax havens can no longer exist.  If you operate a business it has to be operated in the country of your citizenship and residence. Ownership by proxy would also be forbidden.
1a. Individuals could no longer hold foreign bank accounts without citizenship in the selected country.
2. Shell corporations can no longer exist. If you operate a business it must have in itself a product or service, if a business only offers a location to store its own or investors' money and/or otherwise reduce tax by splitting the money among multiple  corporations, then those businesses are to be deemed non-existent and closed by the host government and cash taken much like a business that has unclaimed assets.
3. Business structures for companies beyond a certain size (e.g. all on the stock market) must be publicized and kept up to date. This includes publicizing any and all businesses that investors and management own and operate, branches and other associated entities regardless of geographic location. Such information will no longer be "for stock holders only".
4. Businesses that do not provide a product or service, but hold patents would lose those protections after 1 year of non-utilization and be subject to (2).
5. Businesses, business management and investors would be taxed based on the money they have that has not moved. As it stands, income tax only taxes the act of income, but does not account for money that is being squatted upon. If someone wants the responsibility of holding great sums of money but don't want to use it, they should have some responsibility to return some of that to the public interest.
6. A company that devotes 70-80% of assets or higher to the public good would be free of corporate income tax or receive minimum tax.
7. Businesses, investors (individually and commercially), and stock markets that hold great economical control would be subject to FOIA-style laws since it is in the public interest to know what they are doing that either have monopolies (they seem to be unavoidable), are critical to public infrastructure, and so forth. If one wants to be in the lime light of the public and be on top of the world, one can be audited by the public directly without the use of IRS or CRA-style agencies.

Evasion or any undeclared business would result in the business forfeiting 100% of their profits for that year to be handed over to the governments of that organization's origin toward national debts or public programmes or services. Investors would forfeit their year's dividends for not requiring organizations they invest in to pursue compliance. This would scare investors away from known organizations that defraud the public trust and eventually cause those organizations to go under and those who are in compliance and actively providing the economy trade would flourish.

These measures would encourage money to remain flowing and discourage stagnation, but like any process, details of implementation would take more than a simple thread at a messageboard to properly discuss.

That's not happening, though. At all. Companies are shutting down their factories and outsourcing their manufacturing to Chinese firms, not automating their factories.
Many chinese firms are automating processes so that they do not need workers or not as many. Exhibit B: Foxconn

Funnily enough, DRM is becoming less and less of a thing because of that (at least overtly). We saw what happened with the new consoles. The PS3 never included it to begin with and the Xbox One tried to at first but did away with it at the last minute due to consumer outcry. Then of course there's EA, whose old CEO has been replaced with someone who's likely going to implement more consumer friendly policies in order to reverse their current decline. Changes can and do happen, and in fact they do a lot faster than they used to. Just look at how fast things used to progress before the industrial revolution. Compared to that, things move lightning fast nowadays.
While in the gaming industry it is slowing the practice because those who play games tend to be rather savvy when the industry is pulling a "fast one", in other industries not so. A couple examples:

1. Computer software — A lot of computer software these days automatically calls home for things like updates, user data ("the cloud"), and things like that. Often times software can use those opportunities to "vertify" its authenticity which is effectively a type of DRM where you unwittingly consented to this verification in the EULA.

2. Automotive parts and servicing — the automotive industry has become very segmented and proprietary. In order to read "codes" of your car's computer, you need an expensive book and interface (and second computer) instead of having a display on your dash that can make note of the sensor that's raising alarms. Often it's just cheaper to pay a mechanic in the short term. Often times these items are made obscure by the car manufacturers.

Of course they will. They're business. They're only out for profit. Expecting them to act in the interests of the overall public good is just silly. It's up to the government and consumers in general to keep that "sweet spot" at a more reasonable point. If there's a failure to do so, than it needs to be addressed as a failing of the government, not businesses.
The difficulty is again, a chicken/egg scenerio. (as noted in my first section of this post where how does one implement rules without upsetting anyone).
« Last Edit: July 02, 2013, 05:01:21 am by Kradorex Xeron »
~Krad Xeron

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
Re: Is the true world enemy the economy?
« Reply #34 on: July 02, 2013, 07:52:59 am »
How does one alter the principles of the economy without crashing it? One can't. The problem is the party is going to have to end someday and the investors and traders are all going to take their balls and go home because the governments are "mean to them" if change happens, thus economical crash is inevitable if we as a society want to move forward.

Since corporate entities are in control of the media and so  forth, it will be painted by the media as rather than putting economical improvement at the forefront, it would be painted as governments being anti-business, wanting to crash the economy and being against workers. They will then promptly lay off as many workers and/or outsourcing as it takes to get governments to stop regulating them. The public outcry would most likely be against government.
Depends on the business in question. They'll only move if it's more profitable to do so, not because "the government's being mean". Some may be able to, the majority (such as retail chains or the like), not so much.
Assuming that one can change things to correct issues without economical collapse, the problem with this approach is it still approaches business as a products/services element, it doesn't address the underlying investment/stock trading/banking system that is currently the cancerous part of the economy.
...Did I not already explain to you why the financial sector in general is a legitimate and rather important part of the economy overall, and without it we'd be rather fucked? Really, did I not explain that?
What I would propose is international mandates, perhaps under the WTO that:
1. Tax havens can no longer exist.  If you operate a business it has to be operated in the country of your citizenship and residence. Ownership by proxy would also be forbidden.
That would be utterly disastrous. Think about what such a law would do to, say, airlines or shipping companies. Or chains like McDonalds and Target that operate in multiple countries. Or oil companies, that need to drill all over the world in order to just satisfy America's demand alone (of course, the whole oil addiction thing is a whole other problem entirely, but not one that's going away overnight anytime soon). Getting rid of tax havens at that price would not be even close to worth it.
1a. Individuals could no longer hold foreign bank accounts without citizenship in the selected country.
You can't think of any reason why someone would hold a foreign bank account other than to dodge tax?
2. Shell corporations can no longer exist. If you operate a business it must have in itself a product or service, if a business only offers a location to store its own or investors' money and/or otherwise reduce tax by splitting the money among multiple  corporations, then those businesses are to be deemed non-existent and closed by the host government and cash taken much like a business that has unclaimed assets.
That is acceptable.
3. Business structures for companies beyond a certain size (e.g. all on the stock market) must be publicized and kept up to date. This includes publicizing any and all businesses that investors and management own and operate, branches and other associated entities regardless of geographic location. Such information will no longer be "for stock holders only".
All business that investors own? You know that someone who even owns a single $20 share counts as an investor, right? Or that some people will buy an sell shares within the space of a few weeks or even days? How are you supposed to even determine whether those people own businesses/other investments, much less how that would be relevant to anyone and not a violation of that person's privacy?
4. Businesses that do not provide a product or service, but hold patents would lose those protections after 1 year of non-utilization and be subject to (2).
So what if a business takes out a patent, then a few months later decides that it's no longer viable? Should they be liquidated just because they weren't clairvoyant enough to see that market conditions would change in the future? What about, say, a miner patenting a new mining method? Implementing something like that would take a hell of a lot longer than one year.
5. Businesses, business management and investors would be taxed based on the money they have that has not moved. As it stands, income tax only taxes the act of income, but does not account for money that is being squatted upon. If someone wants the responsibility of holding great sums of money but don't want to use it, they should have some responsibility to return some of that to the public interest.
Oh for fuck's sake. I already explained to you how money saved is still in circulation, in the last post, no less. Are you just ignoring it or can you really not wrap your head around how basic savings/investment works? If so, what makes you think you're qualified to comment on the economy in the first place?
6. A company that devotes 70-80% of assets or higher to the public good would be free of corporate income tax or receive minimum tax.
Define "public good".
7. Businesses, investors (individually and commercially), and stock markets that hold great economical control would be subject to FOIA-style laws since it is in the public interest to know what they are doing that either have monopolies (they seem to be unavoidable), are critical to public infrastructure, and so forth. If one wants to be in the lime light of the public and be on top of the world, one can be audited by the public directly without the use of IRS or CRA-style agencies.
As I said already, that would be a rather gross violation of privacy.
Evasion or any undeclared business would result in the business forfeiting 100% of their profits for that year to be handed over to the governments of that organization's origin toward national debts or public programmes or services. Investors would forfeit their year's dividends for not requiring organizations they invest in to pursue compliance. This would scare investors away from known organizations that defraud the public trust and eventually cause those organizations to go under and those who are in compliance and actively providing the economy trade would flourish.
Taking dividends would be a horrible idea. There are quite a few middle class investors who have no say in how the company itself is run, and would be hurt rather badly by having their dividends taken away for a year. Fining a company for breaking the law is fine (pun intended), but directly punishing people who had no hand in it is utterly pointless and frankly not cool
.
Many chinese firms are automating processes so that they do not need workers or not as many. Exhibit B: Foxconn
Only to the extent that it's actually profitable.
While in the gaming industry it is slowing the practice because those who play games tend to be rather savvy when the industry is pulling a "fast one", in other industries not so. A couple examples:
Are you kidding me? Gamers are fucking idiots when it comes to this sort of thing. Look at how often they actually follow through with their declared boycotts? The fact that it takes something as massively anti-consumer as Sim City 5 (no, I refuse to call it by the same name as the original Sim City) or the Xbox One just to prompt any strictly non-impotent rage says it all.
1. Computer software — A lot of computer software these days automatically calls home for things like updates, user data ("the cloud"), and things like that. Often times software can use those opportunities to "vertify" its authenticity which is effectively a type of DRM where you unwittingly consented to this verification in the EULA.
That's fine, as long auto updates can be turned off and offline functionality exists (assuming the internet isn't an integral part of that function). After all, patches, update and cloud storage aren't free, so there's nothing wrong with ensuring users have actually paid (in a non-intrusive manner, naturally) before giving access to such features.
2. Automotive parts and servicing — the automotive industry has become very segmented and proprietary. In order to read "codes" of your car's computer, you need an expensive book and interface (and second computer) instead of having a display on your dash that can make note of the sensor that's raising alarms. Often it's just cheaper to pay a mechanic in the short term. Often times these items are made obscure by the car manufacturers.
Can't say I'm too familiar with cars, so I guess I'll tentatively take your word for it.

Offline Kradorex Xeron

  • Technical Consultant
  • Administrator
  • Bishop
  • *****
  • Posts: 115
  • Gender: Male
  • Digitally Original
    • Personal Site
Re: Is the true world enemy the economy?
« Reply #35 on: July 02, 2013, 10:44:29 pm »
Depends on the business in question. They'll only move if it's more profitable to do so, not because "the government's being mean". Some may be able to, the majority (such as retail chains or the like), not so much.
The decision "the government's being mean to us" typically is raised as a result of "lost profits" or "scared investors" due to regulation.

...Did I not already explain to you why the financial sector in general is a legitimate and rather important part of the economy overall, and without it we'd be rather fucked? Really, did I not explain that?
You explained it clearly, note I referred to it as cancerous, not viral. It was once at a legitimate state, we need to get back to that state, but it will require angering quite a few people who are currently enjoying the party in stock markets worldwide. We need to make the economy less a circlejerk of who can gain power through money alone and make the economy focused on trade again.

I repeat: We need to make the economy about trade again, not power or clout. While debt is indeed an element of any economy, it has become a mechanism to maintain economic control over others.

We live in a control-based economy, not trade-based at the moment. That control-based element where "control of market" and keeping people in debt artificially is what is cancerous.

That would be utterly disastrous. Think about what such a law would do to, say, airlines or shipping companies. Or chains like McDonalds and Target that operate in multiple countries. Or oil companies, that need to drill all over the world in order to just satisfy America's demand alone (of course, the whole oil addiction thing is a whole other problem entirely, but not one that's going away overnight anytime soon). Getting rid of tax havens at that price would not be even close to worth it.
Perhaps I should clarify: International companies could operate fine, but their headquarters has to be based in the country of their management's residence. Companies could only operate branch corporations if those offices are under the same name as the HQ'd company. E.g. "Whatever Inc." could not open an overseas operation as "Blah Ltd.", it would have to be "Whatever" as well. People too couldn't open up a business in another country without personnel physically in that other country.

The main goal here is to block people from setting up foreign companies without any purpose but to provide somewhere to stash money that isn't one's own name or setting up companies that have no purpose but to filter money through.

You can't think of any reason why someone would hold a foreign bank account other than to dodge tax?
As I see it, the illegitimate uses have ruined it for the legitimate uses. If those legitimately holding foreign bank accounts want somebody to blame, they should blame the tax dodgers for ruining it, not blame government. Perhaps the very threat would cause the legitimate account holders to call for the illegitimate account holders to be controlled better.

Alternately, what could be done is law in place that if you have an international bank account, it can be audited as a domestic account through the same channels. Too, those accounts would have to be reported to one's domestic government in full.

All business that investors own? You know that someone who even owns a single $20 share counts as an investor, right? Or that some people will buy an sell shares within the space of a few weeks or even days? How are you supposed to even determine whether those people own businesses/other investments, much less how that would be relevant to anyone and not a violation of that person's privacy?
While I agree privacy is a significant element and must be upheld.. In this day and age where government is going around saying "If you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to hide", it would be a gross double standard to exclude the entire financial sector from this. Perhaps if the financial sector (who can push government around easily) has their feet held over the flame as far as privacy, they will make the government do the right thing and respect everybody's privacy.

So what if a business takes out a patent, then a few months later decides that it's no longer viable? Should they be liquidated just because they weren't clairvoyant enough to see that market conditions would change in the future? What about, say, a miner patenting a new mining method? Implementing something like that would take a hell of a lot longer than one year.
If they are working on research and development, they could make that progress public and demonstrate their viability as a business all the while doing other business. If they can't do anything whatsoever with the patent, they could choose to self-invalidate and return it for someone else who could come and implement it.

The key here is actual demonstration of progress, not just sitting on patents in hope someone would come along and violate a patent to launch lawsuits in that manner.

Oh for fuck's sake. I already explained to you how money saved is still in circulation, in the last post, no less. Are you just ignoring it or can you really not wrap your head around how basic savings/investment works? If so, what makes you think you're qualified to comment on the economy in the first place?
Economies are based on scarcity, if a product is plentiful, it has lower value  than something that has low availability. This is why gold has so much value and is so tightly regulated so that an individual cannot stockpile finds of it and then flood the market with it.

As far as investment is concerned, I understand that money invested often reaches research and development and so on of products and so forth. However a great deal of that money quite often ends up going from one pocket to another or sitting around in the business' coffers without being used, just racking up interest and making an illusion that the money is doing something.

Define "public good".
Where a company actively is engaged in dealing with products and services that benefit infrastructure, build stuff, improve communities, and provide individuals products and services. Tangible stuff, not just academic things like pushing numbers from company to company creating a sense of false activity. While the economy is important, it only derives its importance from tradition, what gives it importance in the presence is products and services, not circlejerking of moving money around for an illusion of economical activity.

As I said already, that would be a rather gross violation of privacy.
Most "big names" already have their lives splashed all over the news with scandal and so forth, what difference would it be to add a few more data points to the pool?

Fame and power is a responsibility, if you don't want it, butt-out of the spotlight. Leave being a big name to those who want to be accountable. If you leave that spotlight, your information would no longer be subjected to those provisions.

Taking dividends would be a horrible idea. There are quite a few middle class investors who have no say in how the company itself is run, and would be hurt rather badly by having their dividends taken away for a year. Fining a company for breaking the law is fine (pun intended), but directly punishing people who had no hand in it is utterly pointless and frankly not cool
The difficulty is you're assuming that the investors as a group can't lean on the company and say "You're screwing us over". If one investor isn't powerful enough, it needs to become a collective effort. If  you're unhappy with how a company operates, don't invest in it. It's as simple as that — The days people invest in companies that they have no interest (not the financial term) in just for the sake of financial benefit alone need to end.

I think there needs to be a return to investing in things you believe in, not simply investing in things that look good financially.

Only to the extent that it's actually profitable.
For a technology company where automation can reduce error, and increase production speed it's very profitable.

Are you kidding me? Gamers are fucking idiots when it comes to this sort of thing. Look at how often they actually follow through with their declared boycotts? The fact that it takes something as massively anti-consumer as Sim City 5 (no, I refuse to call it by the same name as the original Sim City) or the Xbox One just to prompt any strictly non-impotent rage says it all.
I'll cede to that point.

That's fine, as long auto updates can be turned off and offline functionality exists (assuming the internet isn't an integral part of that function). After all, patches, update and cloud storage aren't free, so there's nothing wrong with ensuring users have actually paid (in a non-intrusive manner, naturally) before giving access to such features.
Windows' activation is contingent on "phone home" technology. If  you don't allow a Windows XP SP3/Vista/7 installation to contact Microsoft's servers, it'll complain about not being activated/genuine and in the case of 7 at least, go into a "Reduced-functionality mode" if you don't let it verify.

Can't say I'm too familiar with cars, so I guess I'll tentatively take your word for it.
If you're interested, look into ODB2 — the specification for reading the codes.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2013, 10:55:22 pm by Kradorex Xeron »
~Krad Xeron

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
Re: Is the true world enemy the economy?
« Reply #36 on: July 03, 2013, 12:54:29 am »
The decision "the government's being mean to us" typically is raised as a result of "lost profits" or "scared investors" due to regulation.
My point is that not every business can just up and move overseas, at least not without losing access to their original markets. Others won't because a rather severe restructuring like that is very expensive in the short to medium term. Naturally, they'll all whine when anything potentially reduces their profits, but my point is you have to be a little savvy at judging what's impotent whining and what's actually likely to happen (probably best to listen to independent analysts rather than business executives, for obvious reasons).
You explained it clearly, note I referred to it as cancerous, not viral. It was once at a legitimate state, we need to get back to that state, but it will require angering quite a few people who are currently enjoying the party in stock markets worldwide. We need to make the economy less a circlejerk of who can gain power through money alone and make the economy focused on trade again.

I repeat: We need to make the economy about trade again, not power or clout. While debt is indeed an element of any economy, it has become a mechanism to maintain economic control over others.

We live in a control-based economy, not trade-based at the moment. That control-based element where "control of market" and keeping people in debt artificially is what is cancerous.
The economy kind of is already focused on trade. It's value is measured in GDP, after all, which is basically the total value of all goods and services, not investments, produced in a year. The thing is to get goods and services in any sort of adequate quantity, you need a hell of a lot of money to make it happen. Due to the very nature of it, you can't really have that much money in one place without power and control being a natural thing.
Perhaps I should clarify: International companies could operate fine, but their headquarters has to be based in the country of their management's residence. Companies could only operate branch corporations if those offices are under the same name as the HQ'd company. E.g. "Whatever Inc." could not open an overseas operation as "Blah Ltd.", it would have to be "Whatever" as well. People too couldn't open up a business in another country without personnel physically in that other country.

The main goal here is to block people from setting up foreign companies without any purpose but to provide somewhere to stash money that isn't one's own name or setting up companies that have no purpose but to filter money through.
That wouldn't change a thing, actually. Any assets held by a transnational corporation are taxed according to the taxes of the country in which those assets are located. Meaning a company based in America could still open a branch in the Cayman Islands, and any money held by the Cayman Island branch will be subject to Cayman Island rather than American taxes, regardless of whether or not they both share the same name.
As I see it, the illegitimate uses have ruined it for the legitimate uses. If those legitimately holding foreign bank accounts want somebody to blame, they should blame the tax dodgers for ruining it, not blame government. Perhaps the very threat would cause the legitimate account holders to call for the illegitimate account holders to be controlled better.

Alternately, what could be done is law in place that if you have an international bank account, it can be audited as a domestic account through the same channels. Too, those accounts would have to be reported to one's domestic government in full.
So... You say DRM is bad because it punishes legitimate customers for the actions of pirates (not always, admittedly, but it often does), but when it comes to foreign bank accounts, punishing legitimate customers for the actions of tax dodgers is fine and dandy? That's quite the double standard you have there.
While I agree privacy is a significant element and must be upheld.. In this day and age where government is going around saying "If you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to hide", it would be a gross double standard to exclude the entire financial sector from this. Perhaps if the financial sector (who can push government around easily) has their feet held over the flame as far as privacy, they will make the government do the right thing and respect everybody's privacy.
...No. If you think the solution to privacy violations is to violate more people's privacy, well, I'm really not sure why I'm wasting my time here in the first place.
If they are working on research and development, they could make that progress public and demonstrate their viability as a business all the while doing other business. If they can't do anything whatsoever with the patent, they could choose to self-invalidate and return it for someone else who could come and implement it.

The key here is actual demonstration of progress, not just sitting on patents in hope someone would come along and violate a patent to launch lawsuits in that manner.
That would completely defeat the purpose of patents in the first place. Forcing R&D to be seen by all, competitors included would do far more to stifle progress than even the current, broken patent laws could ever do.
As far as investment is concerned, I understand that money invested often reaches research and development and so on of products and so forth. However a great deal of that money quite often ends up going from one pocket to another or sitting around in the business' coffers without being used, just racking up interest and making an illusion that the money is doing something.
No, you dense knob-end. For the millionth time, money cannot accrue interest by being out of circulation. Interest earned on bank accounts, for example, comes from various loans and investments given out by the bank. Interest earned on the likes of bonds ultimately comes from the revenue stream of the issuer. Same goes for dividends and the like. In fact, having a good amount of the total money in the economy being saved and invested rather than used directly to buy and sell products is a very good thing, for reasons I explained many times.
Where a company actively is engaged in dealing with products and services that benefit infrastructure, build stuff, improve communities, and provide individuals products and services. Tangible stuff, not just academic things like pushing numbers from company to company creating a sense of false activity. While the economy is important, it only derives its importance from tradition, what gives it importance in the presence is products and services, not circlejerking of moving money around for an illusion of economical activity.
That's what companies already do. The financial side of things is in service of providing and selling the end product, not the other way around.
The difficulty is you're assuming that the investors as a group can't lean on the company and say "You're screwing us over". If one investor isn't powerful enough, it needs to become a collective effort. If  you're unhappy with how a company operates, don't invest in it. It's as simple as that — The days people invest in companies that they have no interest (not the financial term) in just for the sake of financial benefit alone need to end.

I think there needs to be a return to investing in things you believe in, not simply investing in things that look good financially.
Remember what I said about punishing innocent parties for the actions of another group? Yeah, it never ends well.

Also, the whole point of a free market economy is that business provide what's in demand, not what rich people are emotionally invested in. The same applies to investors. They're supposed to use their money to ultimately provide consumers with what they want, not what the investor wants, and the easiest way to do that is invest in what's most profitable, and that tends to reflect where the most excess demand is to be found.
For a technology company where automation can reduce error, and increase production speed it's very profitable.
Yeah, actually profitable. Hence, not a bubble.
Windows' activation is contingent on "phone home" technology. If  you don't allow a Windows XP SP3/Vista/7 installation to contact Microsoft's servers, it'll complain about not being activated/genuine and in the case of 7 at least, go into a "Reduced-functionality mode" if you don't let it verify.
I can't say that's ever been a thing for me. I've used both XP and 7 offline and online but with automatic updates turned off for rather long periods of time (months in a row at times), and I can't say I've ever had that problem.

Offline Kradorex Xeron

  • Technical Consultant
  • Administrator
  • Bishop
  • *****
  • Posts: 115
  • Gender: Male
  • Digitally Original
    • Personal Site
Re: Is the true world enemy the economy?
« Reply #37 on: July 06, 2013, 06:30:50 pm »
I think I want to refocus the point of this thread. I acknowledge the complexities of the economy but its current state makes change prohibitive, thus I would like to spend some time highlighting some points specially as I feel that solutions that try to work within the current state of the economy are a futility as they always will result in "But..."

To that end I would like to highlight a couple of points:

My point is that not every business can just up and move overseas, at least not without losing access to their original markets. Others won't because a rather severe restructuring like that is very expensive in the short to medium term. Naturally, they'll all whine when anything potentially reduces their profits, but my point is you have to be a little savvy at judging what's impotent whining and what's actually likely to happen (probably best to listen to independent analysts rather than business executives, for obvious reasons).
True, but in many cases, that "impotent whining" can send stocks crashing and damage the economy due to how fragile it has become. Any and every bit of "uncertainty" these days can be severely damaging and possibly cause companies to lose enough money from investments that they have to lay off workers/cut back operations/etc.

The current economy cannot get out of the loop of roller coaster graphs and pointless, cyclical debate because of the sheer culture that has been created surrounding trade. It's astronomical how a single man these days can cause economical crash and scandal. If economy really was based more on trade than investment/banking/debt, it would have more solid footing and not be as vulnerable.

The economy kind of is already focused on trade. It's value is measured in GDP, after all, which is basically the total value of all goods and services, not investments, produced in a year. The thing is to get goods and services in any sort of adequate quantity, you need a hell of a lot of money to make it happen. Due to the very nature of it, you can't really have that much money in one place without power and control being a natural thing.
GDP is just a quota for a country's economy to meet — not an honest indicator of economical strength. Like any production quota, if a country's economy doesn't meet the GDP, it results in a bad bottom line. The current economy is hyperfocused on statistics, but lacks the ability to look beyond those statistics.

Most of those involved in the economy fail to realize or demonstrate ignorance to that the economy is just a system formulated by mankind and that like any system it is imperfect. This failure often results in the economy being put above the well being of mankind as a whole.

Consider many natural disasters that you have agencies looking at where money is going to come from when money should not be a factor in recovery of those situations, simply use resources and have the economy balance itself out later for the losses of those resources. "Oh, but that can't happen, everything needs to be accounted for...", "We can't do that, you'll deprive.." — no, let me stop anyone who says this, sometimes the hyper-accontability the current economy has can get in the way of having workable solutions to significant problems. Sometimes as well it can put people INTO harm's way while there's the squabbling about money or "think of the economical rammifactions". Notice how often times news agencies report the financial damage more often and/or before they do the human lives lost or displaced.

This 'hyper-accountability' and hyperfocus on statistics and so forth can make the economy artificially difficult to understand and can often blow the issues with it out of proportion as everybody's looking at how mankind can service the economy (have to keep GDP up, have to ensure those stock market graphs are remaining high), but not looking at how the economy can service mankind (getting people what they need). At the end of the day about 80% of the economy is busywork (look at your income tax forms and try coming back to me and telling me it's not), 20% is actual trade.

I understand the economy is more of an 'event' than it is a 'thing' and perhaps shouldn't be attacked in itself, but when an event incites riots, violence or pain so massive that people can't figure out how to end that pain, that event should have an intervention and quickly, to hell with the statistics and 'complexities'. If you want an example of those complexities, look at this thread — it has in itself become a monument to how one has to tiptoe around things in fear of tipping over a domino and causing a chain reaction of unhappy old men.

Any and every attempt to change the current economy or the environment around it, no matter how good gets rejected for being 'unworkable' because change isn't what those who operate in stock exchanges, banks, investment firms, companies so on and so forth want. These people and entities know how to make things so complex that changing one thing will damage 50 other things and thus be declared unworkable by default.

The economy (ergo the methods of trade) should be built around culture and people, people and culture shouldn't be built around  trade (where people can spend 60 hour weeks trying to satisfy processes that wouldn't accept any less than 100% of their lives and their family and community lives go unaccounted for — labour law is often seen as an affront to the economy).

Frankly until 100% of people's time is spent doing trade-related things, people's time will be seen as wasted by the current system. That's why people are encouraged to buy buy buy, or work work work. People's free time is seen as wasted assets, not as valuable time that can be spent with family, friends or the community.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2013, 09:05:11 pm by Kradorex Xeron »
~Krad Xeron

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
Re: Is the true world enemy the economy?
« Reply #38 on: July 08, 2013, 12:19:55 am »
GDP is just a quota for a country's economy to meet — not an honest indicator of economical strength. Like any production quota, if a country's economy doesn't meet the GDP, it results in a bad bottom line. The current economy is hyperfocused on statistics, but lacks the ability to look beyond those statistics.
No, it's not a quota. It's the combined value of all goods and services produced in a year in the economy in question.
<snip>
You don't seem to realise that there are actual negative consequences for simply not paying for things or making massive structural changes. It's not just some conspiracy formulated by the Illuminati in order to keep the working man down. You can't just say "to hell with facts" and start fucking around with things based on nothing more than gut instinct. I already explained in detail why closing down banks and stock markets would be disastrous for everyone, rich and poor alike, in detail, despite the fact that you thought it would be our salvation. Fucking with this sort of thing when you have no idea beyond gut feelings what you're doing has far greater consequences than simply making a few old rich people a tad peeved. You can destroy not only individual's but also entire social classes' livelihoods. That's why you have to be very careful and at least have a basic understanding of what you're doing.
The economy (ergo the methods of trade) should be built around culture and people, people and culture shouldn't be built around  trade (where people can spend 60 hour weeks trying to satisfy processes that wouldn't accept any less than 100% of their lives and their family and community lives go unaccounted for — labour law is often seen as an affront to the economy).

Frankly until 100% of people's time is spent doing trade-related things, people's time will be seen as wasted by the current system. That's why people are encouraged to buy buy buy, or work work work. People's free time is seen as wasted assets, not as valuable time that can be spent with family, friends or the community.
I'd recommend you look at some subsistence farmers in Africa or Asia. This is about as economy-free a lifestyle as you could ever find. As it turns out, they actually do have to spend pretty much 100% of their waking hours working just to stay alive. As such, it could be argued that a highly advanced economy is a very good thing for culture (pretty much however you would define that). That way, weekends and maximum working hours can actually be a thing without everyone starving to death.

Offline Kradorex Xeron

  • Technical Consultant
  • Administrator
  • Bishop
  • *****
  • Posts: 115
  • Gender: Male
  • Digitally Original
    • Personal Site
Re: Is the true world enemy the economy?
« Reply #39 on: July 08, 2013, 01:38:18 am »
No, it's not a quota. It's the combined value of all goods and services produced in a year in the economy in question.
But if a country doesn't meet or exceed what GDP it had last year, it's deemed to be unproductive and that the country had a bad economy. Sounds like a quota to me — quotas can be based on statistics after all and float from year to year.

You don't seem to realise that there are actual negative consequences for simply not paying for things or making massive structural changes. It's not just some conspiracy formulated by the Illuminati in order to keep the working man down. You can't just say "to hell with facts" and start fucking around with things based on nothing more than gut instinct. I already explained in detail why closing down banks and stock markets would be disastrous for everyone, rich and poor alike, in detail, despite the fact that you thought it would be our salvation. Fucking with this sort of thing when you have no idea beyond gut feelings what you're doing has far greater consequences than simply making a few old rich people a tad peeved. You can destroy not only individual's but also entire social classes' livelihoods. That's why you have to be very careful and at least have a basic understanding of what you're doing.
The problem everyone has is that everyone over-glorifies tradition. Just because it has been around for 100s to 1000s of years doesn't mean it is free of defect. In fact something being around for  that long opens it up for more defect because more can happen to it and make it corruptively mutate — consider people's bodies, the older one is the more susceptible to cancer one is. The laws of the universe don't simply stop applying because man's law starts.

Nobody knows how to change things that have been around for 100-1000s of years because everybody's afraid to. Everybody's afraid of the ramifications because nobody can think of all possible variables, so nobody tries so we get caught in a loop:

1. $THING has been around for a long time.
2. People revere and fear $THING, thinking it must be good because it's old.
3. In that fear, people don't bother thinking of things to improve $THING
4. $THING doesn't see change

The only actual changes the economy has ever seen have been forced upon it, humanity is unwilling to consciously improve it because given its current state, it can't without those upsets you and I highlighted. I think the economy needs another forced change, one to tear down the cancerous elements of it, but of course those changes will always be unworkable under the current economy because trying to cut ANY wire will blow the whole thing up because everything is cross-wired to hell and back.

I'd recommend you look at some subsistence farmers in Africa or Asia. This is about as economy-free a lifestyle as you could ever find. As it turns out, they actually do have to spend pretty much 100% of their waking hours working just to stay alive. As such, it could be argued that a highly advanced economy is a very good thing for culture (pretty much however you would define that). That way, weekends and maximum working hours can actually be a thing without everyone starving to death.
"Highly advanced economy" we are so far from that due to the cancers that infest our current one. Our current economy CANNOT evolve because there's so much holding it back. One can have a governmental revolution, but I believe nobody knows how to have an economic one because it isn't as easy as kicking certain people out; it requires removing carefully elements of society which humanity, as you have demonstrated again and again, is unwilling to do.

I am not advocating for demolition, I am advocating for revolution, a change in how humanity perceives the economy. A change in how humanity works around the economy. The current economy is coming to an end as far as how far it can evolve and is now throttling humanity into a game of numbers and  the think-tanks are preoccupied trying to figure out how to keep the current form of the economy going rather than innovating to stimulate growth of a new one with new ideas and ideals.

Humanity's potential has fallen so far in that it has reduced itself to a tail-chasing dog that is hyper-obsessed with symbols on dead trees, yet feels its laws are so much greater than the universe's laws.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2013, 01:43:25 am by Kradorex Xeron »
~Krad Xeron

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
Re: Is the true world enemy the economy?
« Reply #40 on: July 08, 2013, 02:53:00 am »
But if a country doesn't meet or exceed what GDP it had last year, it's deemed to be unproductive and that the country had a bad economy. Sounds like a quota to me — quotas can be based on statistics after all and float from year to year.
...No. No it's not. It's a simple statistic. Just because it's used to define short term growth does not make it a quota.
The problem everyone has is that everyone over-glorifies tradition. Just because it has been around for 100s to 1000s of years doesn't mean it is free of defect. In fact something being around for  that long opens it up for more defect because more can happen to it and make it corruptively mutate — consider people's bodies, the older one is the more susceptible to cancer one is. The laws of the universe don't simply stop applying because man's law starts.

Nobody knows how to change things that have been around for 100-1000s of years because everybody's afraid to. Everybody's afraid of the ramifications because nobody can think of all possible variables, so nobody tries so we get caught in a loop:

1. $THING has been around for a long time.
2. People revere and fear $THING, thinking it must be good because it's old.
3. In that fear, people don't bother thinking of things to improve $THING
4. $THING doesn't see change

The only actual changes the economy has ever seen have been forced upon it, humanity is unwilling to consciously improve it because given its current state, it can't without those upsets you and I highlighted. I think the economy needs another forced change, one to tear down the cancerous elements of it, but of course those changes will always be unworkable under the current economy because trying to cut ANY wire will blow the whole thing up because everything is cross-wired to hell and back.
My point is that all of the solution you've offered would've done far far far more harm than good, and anyone with a basic understanding of economics could've seen that. You should probably at least try to educate yourself in economics before you try to decry the whole thing as inherently bad and in need of massive restructuring by someone who barely knows what they're doing. It's like declaring something like String Theory to be completely wrong when you barely understand even high school level physics.
"Highly advanced economy" we are so far from that due to the cancers that infest our current one. Our current economy CANNOT evolve because there's so much holding it back. One can have a governmental revolution, but I believe nobody knows how to have an economic one because it isn't as easy as kicking certain people out; it requires removing carefully elements of society which humanity, as you have demonstrated again and again, is unwilling to do.
Yeah, no. Modern western economies are as advanced as you can get these days (and no, yours or anyone else's hypothetical vision of how things should be does not define what's advanced and what isn't. If you think it's so bad, then take a look at pretty much anything in pre-20th century. Not just what's produced, but also basic methods of doing things (such as guilds vs. modern factories/companies, or non-fiat vs. fiat currency) and the difference in productivity it accounts for, and then get back to me.

Offline Kradorex Xeron

  • Technical Consultant
  • Administrator
  • Bishop
  • *****
  • Posts: 115
  • Gender: Male
  • Digitally Original
    • Personal Site
Re: Is the true world enemy the economy?
« Reply #41 on: July 08, 2013, 04:37:52 am »
My point is that all of the solution you've offered would've done far far far more harm than good, and anyone with a basic understanding of economics could've seen that. You should probably at least try to educate yourself in economics before you try to decry the whole thing as inherently bad and in need of massive restructuring by someone who barely knows what they're doing. It's like declaring something like String Theory to be completely wrong when you barely understand even high school level physics.
I understand economy is needed, I understand that the mechanics of the economy are required to be complex since it is so large and has so many facets. I understand that statistics are needed to see trends and such. I never claimed to be an expert in the field, but one doesn't need a degree in economics to see  there's something blatantly wrong. The problem however in through there is that those who are experts in the field are so tied up in keeping things afloat and keeping the status-quo going that there is no thought going into innovation anymore.

While my "barter" solution may have been wanton (and thus I withdraw it), it wasn't without merit considering that we're practically suffocated by the need to buy, work, trade, pay tax, so on and so forth, but at the end of the day The economy is not an eternal engine, it requires fuel, that fuel is innovation and new ideas to keep it moving — if companies stopped developing new things tomorrow once everyone has everything they wanted the economy would crash. The problem there is that there are less and less people in society who are able to come forth and create, create those new ideas to keep things fresh as thinking outside of the box is discouraged in today's world as if one can soak money out of current day ideas it is to be done.

Consider the area of computing, it used to be that a lot of computers were unique and artforms in themselves and the next model seriously had new features.. these days a lot of hardware manufacturers just increase the specs (more CPU cores, more RAM, more HDD, more video resolution, faster 3D speed) and call it good, gone are the days you can get fancy peripheral cards that did fancy things.

Consider the area of transportation: It's a race to the bottom of less gallons of fuel per mile. There are few cars that are actually substantially different than the others on the road beyond just a different body and branding.

Consider the area of construction: It's a race to the top of how many floors a building can have for the cheapest while maintaining code. There are few artful buildings that are designed anymore.

Consider the area of food service: Everything is being converted to fast food, comfortable non-corporate locally-run restaurants are becoming fewer and fewer and fast food is becoming more and more.

Everything is "economical" so almost nothing new is ever done unless it is absolutely necessary and demanded to do so to ensure money stays flowing. This has the side effect of while it stimulates some people to fund and move forward things, it has the other side effect of slowing innovation as everyone's wanting to soak as much money as possible with minimal effort.

The economy is indeed in a state of diminishing returns, just inflation, mass-production and other factors mask that.

Yeah, no. Modern western economies are as advanced as you can get these days (and no, yours or anyone else's hypothetical vision of how things should be does not define what's advanced and what isn't. If you think it's so bad, then take a look at pretty much anything in pre-20th century. Not just what's produced, but also basic methods of doing things (such as guilds vs. modern factories/companies, or non-fiat vs. fiat currency) and the difference in productivity it accounts for, and then get back to me.
Simply because things are seen as "advanced" now compared to "back then" does not preclude the economy from growth beyond numbers.

Maybe the problem is less economical and more social. Everyone seems to be in a disillusioned state  that as long as businesses are open, banks cashing cheques, stock exchanges open and operating as normal, government offices open, malls open, nothing shocking going on on the news, gossip flowing around workplaces, paperwork being filed so on and so forth that everything is fine and progress doesn't have to happen.

Perhaps you are right, it isn't the economy, it's people (collectively) that are the problem here. But thinking again, it's people who make the economy, it isn't a naturally occurring event/thing created by nature. Society is acting like the current economy's goals (make more money forever as one is alive) as carrots on sticks affixed to everyone — everyone's so focused on those carrots that they forget there's a whole world beyond their assigned carrot and honestly, results in people being selfish.

While we may not be able  to obtain a stereotypical sci-fi utopia, we shouldn't sit down and accept the status-quo without a visionary mindset of a better future.
~Krad Xeron

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
Re: Is the true world enemy the economy?
« Reply #42 on: July 08, 2013, 05:58:06 am »
I understand economy is needed, I understand that the mechanics of the economy are required to be complex since it is so large and has so many facets. I understand that statistics are needed to see trends and such. I never claimed to be an expert in the field, but one doesn't need a degree in economics to see  there's something blatantly wrong. The problem however in through there is that those who are experts in the field are so tied up in keeping things afloat and keeping the status-quo going that there is no thought going into innovation anymore.

While my "barter" solution may have been wanton (and thus I withdraw it), it wasn't without merit considering that we're practically suffocated by the need to buy, work, trade, pay tax, so on and so forth, but at the end of the day The economy is not an eternal engine, it requires fuel, that fuel is innovation and new ideas to keep it moving — if companies stopped developing new things tomorrow once everyone has everything they wanted the economy would crash. The problem there is that there are less and less people in society who are able to come forth and create, create those new ideas to keep things fresh as thinking outside of the box is discouraged in today's world as if one can soak money out of current day ideas it is to be done.
In reality, innovation and progress is happening, and in fact it's at breakneck speed. Comparing the modern economy to something even as recent as the 90's is barely recognisable. Cheap and fast broadband has spurred innovation in pretty much all industries, including non-IT related fields. Even the industrial revolution doesn't compare to that much progress that quickly.
Consider the area of computing, it used to be that a lot of computers were unique and artforms in themselves and the next model seriously had new features.. these days a lot of hardware manufacturers just increase the specs (more CPU cores, more RAM, more HDD, more video resolution, faster 3D speed) and call it good, gone are the days you can get fancy peripheral cards that did fancy things.
While I guess you can call old computers "unique" and "artforms" if you will, but I say that was fucking horrible. All software and peripherals being locked to a certain platform, which itself was an unchangable hardware configuration (aside from maybe a seller-approved RAM or hard drive upgrade). Hardware being standardised and Windows becoming an open platform is easily the best things to happen in computing, since now you can custom build pretty much any machine you could ever want, provided the tech is there. Then again, if you really like computers being closed platforms, you could always get a Mac.
Consider the area of transportation: It's a race to the bottom of less gallons of fuel per mile. There are few cars that are actually substantially different than the others on the road beyond just a different body and branding.
I don't see how that's really a bad thing. What differences are you looking for in a car that you can't get? Honestly, I'm really struggling to come up with any differentiations a car manufacturer could put out that would both conform to road laws and government regulations and be actually useful. I guess if you just want to be different for the sake of being different, you can slap a giant spoiler, neon lights and those stationary hubcaps on your car. Personally, I think it's a waste of money and just makes you look like some rich kid who's compensating for a small penis, but hey, your life.
Consider the area of construction: It's a race to the top of how many floors a building can have for the cheapest while maintaining code. There are few artful buildings that are designed anymore.
That's really nothing new. Buildings are hugely expensive, so unless you have a lot of money to throw around, splashing out just to make it look fancy is kind of hard to justify. This is especially true for skyscrapers, which cost hundreds of millions of dollars and take years to complete. The rank and file commercial and residential buildings have always been about function and price over form since buildings were first a thing.
Consider the area of food service: Everything is being converted to fast food, comfortable non-corporate locally-run restaurants are becoming fewer and fewer and fast food is becoming more and more.
Maybe in the very short term, since fast food is one of the very few sectors that tends to do well during a recession, but that'll change once things improve.
While we may not be able  to obtain a stereotypical sci-fi utopia, we shouldn't sit down and accept the status-quo without a visionary mindset of a better future.
As I said though, your visionary mindset needs some grounding in reality. Not only that, if you intend to carry it out by actively changing the economy, you absolutely need to know what you're doing and understand the full ramifications of your actions. If you fuck it up, you can destroy millions of people's livelihoods.

Offline Kradorex Xeron

  • Technical Consultant
  • Administrator
  • Bishop
  • *****
  • Posts: 115
  • Gender: Male
  • Digitally Original
    • Personal Site
Re: Is the true world enemy the economy?
« Reply #43 on: July 08, 2013, 07:48:15 am »
In reality, innovation and progress is happening, and in fact it's at breakneck speed. Comparing the modern economy to something even as recent as the 90's is barely recognisable. Cheap and fast broadband has spurred innovation in pretty much all industries, including non-IT related fields. Even the industrial revolution doesn't compare to that much progress that quickly.
However a lot of that "innovation" never reaches market or is deemed "not economical" and is shot down, look at pharmaceutical/medical industry for instance: Often times cures are created (innovation), but are either blockaded or outright never released to the public because it's more economical to treat, rather than to cure. So in essence, a lot of that innovation is done just as PR stunts to get attention. Notice how often "We have a cure for ...." gets thrown around but often that stuff is never heard from again.

We may have all sorts of different stuff we _want_, but a lot of what we _need_ isn't economical:

Look at how expensive nutritious food is compared to snack foods or fast food, then the question gets asked "Why is $COUNTRY having obesity problems?". It's the state of the economy that's driving that obesity as it's cheaper to eat crap than to eat good and  that status quo is not changing.
We want cheaper food, but we need healthier choices

Look at how unhealthy we are as a society, when we're required to work insane hours to feed the economy, then we come home tired, ill, stressed to illness and not really wanting to do much more where we allow our own health to degrade and we need to pay more to make ourselves healthy again. It isn't economical in the numbers to cut back work hours so that people can live life less stressfully. Everything these days is about being "productive" not healthy. It makes economical sense for this to continue as it pays for the medical treatments, etc needed.
We want productivity, but we need health and less stress.

Look at how often environmentally unfriendly things are done in spite of people living around those things, Oil fracking is one significant example. It makes complete economic sense to take the shortcuts necessary to have that operation running with wanton disregard for the environment. From any other perspective other than economics, it is insane.
We want the oil, but the actual need is retaining the environment and people's health.

There are many other examples but frankly the current economy doesn't focus on needs, but rather wants alone. "The market wants this product" is uttered far too often in various forms, but never is said "The people need...". Frankly I think the state of the economy is driving people to living unhealthy lifestyles because any other alternative is too expensive and discouraged.

While I guess you can call old computers "unique" and "artforms" if you will, but I say that was fucking horrible. All software and peripherals being locked to a certain platform, which itself was an unchangable hardware configuration (aside from maybe a seller-approved RAM or hard drive upgrade). Hardware being standardised and Windows becoming an open platform is easily the best things to happen in computing, since now you can custom build pretty much any machine you could ever want, provided the tech is there. Then again, if you really like computers being closed platforms, you could always get a Mac.
What I was moreso pointing out is that these days everything is cheap plastic. Laptop computers even as late as the early 00's for instance used to have good casing that didn't crack or degrade over time. These days many laptop models suffer defects with the plastic that overuse of the screen hinge can cause cracking due to cheap construction and poor engineering. And most laptop models are still in fact proprietary.

Desktop computers however have universal parts, but the industry is trying to push them out of the picture claiming "Nobody uses desktops anymore, everyone uses laptops, tablets or phones", so in essence, those computers you have indicated to be "open platforms" aren't economical and the industry is trying to get rid of them. Too, many "all in one" desktop computer systems use laptop parts which are again proprietary.

The late 90's was the peak of open hardware computing, but these days we're getting back into the proprietary hardware and this time it is cheap and made of faulty plastic, faulty solder (ever since there was a move away from lead in the solder, its quality has dropped and made circuit boards way more susceptible to failure), and cheap faulty capacitors that fail after ~3 years.

I don't see how that's really a bad thing. What differences are you looking for in a car that you can't get? Honestly, I'm really struggling to come up with any differentiations a car manufacturer could put out that would both conform to road laws and government regulations and be actually useful. I guess if you just want to be different for the sake of being different, you can slap a giant spoiler, neon lights and those stationary hubcaps on your car. Personally, I think it's a waste of money and just makes you look like some rich kid who's compensating for a small penis, but hey, your life.
Look beyond the appearance and more toward the operation of the vehicles: Electric cars are innovation have largely been suffering the oil industry trying to keep them out of the picture because they "aren't economical" for the said industry. Many promising technologies get bought out by the oil industry, patented by them and stuffed under the rug because they "aren't workable".

That's really nothing new. Buildings are hugely expensive, so unless you have a lot of money to throw around, splashing out just to make it look fancy is kind of hard to justify. This is especially true for skyscrapers, which cost hundreds of millions of dollars and take years to complete. The rank and file commercial and residential buildings have always been about function and price over form since buildings were first a thing.
While this is economically correct, when it comes down to it, are we leaving our next generations buildings that can weather the test of time or is tearing down buildings every 10-15 years going to become a new norm because it isn't economical in the short term to make better buildings?

In some Asian regions, buildings get torn down every 5-10 years on the dot these days because the buildings were never built with the future in mind, only their immediate use. That's not very economical in the longterm, but given my carrot on a stick metaphor, everybody's busy looking in the short term, so buildings get built to last long enough until it can be replaced.

Buildings have become disposable.

Maybe in the very short term, since fast food is one of the very few sectors that tends to do well during a recession, but that'll change once things improve.
Perhaps, but when everybody's working for fast food these days, nobody has any money to start up any such business. Hell, those working fast food are lucky to make it month to month and given that job creation is always slower than job destruction, we will not fully recover to the pre-2008 job levels for at least another 5-10 years I'd wager and even then, jobs for what people went to post-secondary (post-high) education for would continue to be abysmal and people will be redirected to the "economical jobs" (fast food, retail, sales)

Unemployment rates are under-estimated and often are done in the form of any statistics: there's always omissions or those not counted.

As I said though, your visionary mindset needs some grounding in reality. Not only that, if you intend to carry it out by actively changing the economy, you absolutely need to know what you're doing and understand the full ramifications of your actions. If you fuck it up, you can destroy millions of people's livelihoods.
This is why those economic think-tanks need to get out of their ongoing busywork and start realizing there's a future to be formed. The economy is a system of wants, and while it does overlap with needs on the occasion, there are so very many needs that go unanswered for because there is no conscious effort for anyone with enough economic clout to want those needs to be fulfilled, often times those needs are "uneconomical" to fulfil. What needs to happen is more brainpower being put toward how to close the gap between what the economy is encouraging and what needs there are in humanity.

The problem however is that those with that economic clout don't want to have those needs fulfilled, they're just interested in the carrot that is dangling in their face because their parents taught them that way is the only way to live, and ad-naseum up the generations to keep making money, profit and whatnot to keep the economy flowing as-is because nothing is seen as wrong with it because nobody knows anything any different.

At the moment I fear we're not going to leave the next generation much to speak of, just a bunch of cheap "economical" disposable crap that won't weather the test of time and any innovations we leave will be stifled and buried under insane amounts of bureaucracy.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2013, 04:33:47 pm by Kradorex Xeron »
~Krad Xeron