Brilliantly illustrated analysis of why Capatilism screws us.

[knewcleardaze]

Obama is just not qualified. It's really that simple.

What president in recent years was? I don't usually like to talk politics on the interweb. The entire election process in America needs to be rehabilitated.
When voting for president, one has only a few options. That's it. Pick the lesser of the three evils, Dem, Rep, Ind. And by the way, one only has from 8 am to 8 pm. I'll stop before I begin to rant.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry but how else would you explain not knowing about Sharon Angle and the Tea Party.

You know what happened with the Boston Tea Party?

You do know that Tea Party people were attending Health Care Town Halls with guns?

Oh FFS Buck. Do I seem that disengaged to you?

The Tea Party is the boogey man meanwhile a far leftists is on msnbc advocating violent overthrow with nary a whisper.

 

[usedtobefast]

Oh FFS Buck. Do I seem that disengaged to you?

The Tea Party is the boogey man meanwhile a far leftists is on msnbc advocating violent overthrow with nary a whisper.

who?what? and the T Party is a boogyeman created by very wealthy right wing
interests. they can obfuscate the real issue with gibberish from anyone willing
to take the cash. i think we might agree on that. maybe.

 

[Anonymous]

who?what? and the T Party is a boogyeman created by very wealthy right wing
interests. they can obfuscate the real issue with gibberish from anyone willing
to take the cash. i think we might agree on that. maybe.

I understand your point, but I'm thinking this is no more true than arguing Soros to be in control of the far left. Influential? Sure. In control? I don't think so.

 

[buckwheat]

Oh FFS Buck. Do I seem that disengaged to you?


The Tea Party is the boogey man meanwhile a far leftists is on msnbc advocating violent overthrow with nary a whisper.

I don't get what you mean then.

Anyway, I have to turn over a new leaf and not insult people unless they bother me....... I mean I have to control myself.

Check out my thread on JV's Pm to me in the Clinic.

PS. what are the grievances held by righties that they want to see addressed before they go guns ablazin?

 

[rhubroma]

Well, there's at least one American who gets it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=namL_pIqsVo

I can't even imagine how castigated this guy would be (by the left) if he were to advocate this position from spectrum right.

Nope, Lenin would have nicked the first three to move directly on to option four.

Revolution by nature is violent, or else they'd call it something else like plea bargaining.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't get what you mean then.

Anyway, I have to turn over a new leaf and not insult people unless they bother me....... I mean I have to control myself.

Check out my thread on JV's Pm to me in the Clinic.

PS. what are the grievances held by righties that they want to see addressed before they go guns ablazin?

It's hard to know what the crazy's on the fringe of both right and left really want. I don't think they know themselves. Anarchy, chaos, revolution... who knows...

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

Just like all forms of government, all economic systems are flawed. The fact remains that democracy and the free market economy are the least flawed of their ilk.

 

[mountaindew]

You mean a representative republic not democracy.

 

[Ferminal]

Just like all forms of government, all economic systems are flawed. The fact remains that democracy and the free market economy are the least flawed of their ilk.

Yet both only exist in a Utopian world.

 

[Spare Tyre]

Yet both only exist in a Utopian world.

Please explain.

 

[Ferminal]

Please explain.

Neither pure Democracy or pure laissez-faire economics have ever existed (in the modern world) and it's likely that they never will. Whilst some believe that these pure states are the ideal structure of society, the process to get there would be too difficult, too painful, too impractical.

 

[Spare Tyre]

Yeah, I saw that. Hedges is too far left of the NY Times (no mean feat). I also read how much of an admirer he is of Karl Marx.

I nearly fell out when I read that because his views and writing seem so mainstream.

I actually enjoy reading Hedges for the same reason I like reading posts from Rhubroma.

The New York Times is a conservative paper, nicely supportive of the corporate status quo 'n all that. It's hardly left wing.

 

[Anonymous]

The New York Times is a conservative paper, nicely supportive of the corporate status quo 'n all that. It's hardly left wing.

Hmmm. I guess I don't know what 'conservative' means then.

http://www.mrc.org/timeswatch/

And the right wing editorial board;

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/opinion/editorialboard.html

And then there's Krugman...

 

[rhubroma]

Hmmm. I guess I don't know what 'conservative' means then.

http://www.mrc.org/timeswatch/

And the right wing editorial board;

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/opinion/editorialboard.html

And then there's Krugman...

Ohh, come on Scott SoCal, I've already explained to you the the New York Times is not a real left-wing newspaper.

I can now refer to a dilemma in regards tp a situation my girlfriend is involved with presently, that also demonstrates why neoliberal capitalism screws us. She is an illustrator for publications. Basically the work that she produces is paid only for that publication for which the job was originally commissioned. On a one time basis without any copyright guarantees. Afterward, consequently, if the book is reprinted in subsequent editions, she receives nothing in the form of the compensations she is legally entitled to. Or if her designs are bought by another publishing house, and then used again, she also gets squat. Everything is thus locked up and exploited by the company (or companies) after she has done the work. They use the work as many times as they can exploit it for profit, while she gets nothing beyond her original pay.

This is, strictly speaking, illegal, but has simply become the unjust and unjustifiable praxis of business in its current neoliberal capitalist form. And since the capitalists command unchecked by any effective means put up by government in the markets of today, which is by contrast unwaveringly for their cause, they break the law with absolute impunity. My girlfriend either has to therefore "play along" (as she is really forced to do by the market logic), or else the company simply gives the work to somebody else that's willing (who has perhaps just graduated from illustration school, desperate to establish for himself/herself a place in the field at any cost). Beyond that she would have to sue the company, at her own expense of course and against these giants. But even if she won the case would risk being blacklisted by the industry thus ending her career.

So you can understand that this is a loose/loose situation for the worker, and a win/win situation for the employer. This is precisely what Marx railed against. It is the misuse of so called free market competition by the capitalists at the expense and exploitation of workers, who have been dis-empowered by the prevailing philosophy of neoliberal capitalism in the psychology of our markets as foisted upon the world by the American capitalists and their government. Even the law is ineffective as a deterrent against this hegemony the employers enjoy over employees, as my girlfriend's case demonstrates. And it is just condemnable.

 

[Anonymous]

Ohh, come on Scott SoCal, I've already explained to you the the New York Times is not a real left-wing newspaper.

I can now refer to a dilemma in regards tp a situation my girlfriend is involved with presently, that also demonstrates why neoliberal capitalism screws us. She is an illustrator for publications. Basically the work that she produces is paid only for that publication for which the job was originally commissioned. On a one time basis without any copyright securities. Afterward, consequently, if the book is reprinted in subsequent editions, she receives nothing in the form of the compensations she is legally entitled to. Or if her designs are bought by another publishing house, and then used again, she also gets squat. Everything is thus locked up and exploited by the company (or companies) after she has done the work. They use the work as many times as they can to exploit it for profit, while she gets nothing beyond her original pay.

This is, strictly speaking, illegal, but has simply become the unjust and unjustifiable praxis of business in its current neoliberal capitalist form. And since the capitalists commend unchecked by government in the markets of today (especially with the philosophy of deregulation over the financial markets), they break the law with absolute impunity. My girlfriend either has to therefore "play along" (as she is really forced to due by the market logic), or else the company simply gives the work to somebody else that's willing (who has perhaps just graduated from illustration school, desperate to establish for himself/herself a place in the field at any cost). Beyond that she would have to sue the company, at her own expense of course and against these giants. But even if she won the case would risk being blacklisted by the industry ending her career.

So you can understand that this is a loose/loose situation for the worker, and a win/win situation for the employer. This is precisely what Marx railed against. It is the misuse of so called free market competition by the capitalists at the expense and exploitation of workers, who have been dis-empowered by the prevailing philosophy of neoliberal capitalism in the psychology of our markets as foisted upon the world by the American capitalists and their government. Even the law is ineffective as a deterrent against this hegemony the employers enjoy over employees, as my girlfriend's case demonstrates. And it is just condemnable.

The use of another journalist's work by cyclingnews.com without credit or further compensation, may not have the same material basis as my girlfriend's illustrations (because cyclingnews.com is an immaterial commodity, not a product to be bought), but the condemnable exploitation of someone else's work is identical.

By your definition of 'left-wing', I suppose you are correct.

So, your girlfriend enters into an agreement where she knows the conditions up-front, is compensated according to the agreement and then considers the conditions of employment unacceptable after the fact. Have I got that correct?

Did anyone force or coerce her to accept this assignment?

I have a crazy idea. Perhaps she should set her own terms of employment. Maybe she should put her capital at risk and create value large enough so that her terms will be acceptable to her contractor.

I realize that it's much easier to just sit on one's back-side and complain about how unjust the system is.

Don't go nuts with a 4,000 word rebuttal... I'm just trying to help.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

By your definition of 'left-wing', I suppose you are correct.

So, your girlfriend enters into an agreement where she knows the conditions up-front, is compensated according to the agreement and then considers the conditions of employment unacceptable after the fact. Have I got that correct?

Did anyone force or coerce her to accept this assignment?

I have a crazy idea. Perhaps she should set her own terms of employment. Maybe she should put her capital at risk and create value large enough so that her terms will be acceptable to her contractor.

I realize that it's much easier to just sit on one's back-side and complain about how unjust the system is.

Don't go nuts with a 4,000 word rebuttal... I'm just trying to help.

"Put her capital at risk...create value large enough..." gee, I never knew ideology could be so simple.

If you think this girl and the companies she enters contracts with have equal power...that idea rightly got a government booted out in Australia.

For someone so enamored of market principles, can't you see that few companies demanding + many artists supplying = struggling illustrator forced to accept poor conditions?

 

[Anonymous]

"Put her capital at risk...create value large enough..." gee, I never knew ideology could be so simple.

If you think this girl and the companies she enters contracts with have equal power...that idea rightly got a government booted out in Australia.

For someone so enamored of market principles, can't you see that few companies demanding + many artists supplying = struggling illustrator forced to accept poor conditions?

Kinda answered your own question there, didn't you?

Lessee, I'm a pro cyclist that has not distinguished myself from hundreds of others and I'm upset that the system is stacked against me....

Nope. Bad analogy.

I'm upset with a system because my chosen profession doesn't pay me what I think I'm worth.... Nope.

I realize there are many options potential employers have for the service that I offer but instead of looking for ways to make a go of it I'm going to demand change from the employers/system.... Nope.

Yeah, you got me. It's the system.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

Kinda answered your own question there, didn't you?

Lessee, I'm a pro cyclist that has not distinguished myself from hundreds of others and I'm upset that the system is stacked against me....

Nope. Bad analogy.

I'm upset with a system because my chosen profession doesn't pay me what I think I'm worth.... Nope.

I realize there are many options potential employers have for the service that I offer but instead of looking for ways to make a go of it I'm going to demand change from the employers/system.... Nope.

Yeah, you got me. It's the system.

I know, all we have to do is harness that massive potential every single one of us has to be the best, the very best in the world at whatever we set our minds to. It's so simple.

If you manage to achieve this before your rent goes into arrears, then you can indulge yourself with self-congratulations and consider yourself a winner.

If you can't, then you are just lazy. Loser.

It's a wonderful, wonderful life...er, system that jettisons the need for compassion by solving the human condition.

I'm trying to figure out if you're Mark Zuckerberg or Allen Greenspan. Whoever you are, you seem to think the application of the human will never fails.

BTW, nice strawmen. They even have elite pretensions...pro cyclist? We're talking about everyday people doing everyday jobs that are necessary to society but not necessarily profitable.

 

[Anonymous]

I know, all we have to do is harness that massive potential every single one of us has to be the best, the very best in the world at whatever we set our minds to. It's so simple.

If you manage to achieve this before your rent goes into arrears, then you can indulge yourself with self-congratulations and consider yourself a winner.

If you can't, then you are just lazy. Loser.

It's a wonderful, wonderful life...er, system that jettisons the need for compassion by solving the human condition.

I'm trying to figure out if you're Mark Zuckerberg or Allen Greenspan. Whoever you are, you seem to think the application of the human will never fails.

BTW, nice strawmen. They even have elite pretensions...pro cyclist? We're talking about everyday people doing everyday jobs that are necessary to society but not necessarily profitable.

Necessary to society but not necessarily profitable. Okay...

A system that jettisons the need for compassion by solving the human condition.

You are right. What the system needs to do is pay significantly higher than market prices for everything. That will fix the world we live in.

No strawmen btw. I was a professional athlete as a teenager and I was not good enough to achieve what I wanted to achieve. Sucks for me.

Sports analogies can be applied and can provide clarity to many things. You should try it sometime.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

Necessary to society but not necessarily profitable. Okay...

A system that jettisons the need for compassion by solving the human condition.

You are right. What the system needs to do is pay significantly higher than market prices for everything. That will fix the world we live in.

No strawmen btw. I was a professional athlete as a teenager and I was not good enough to achieve what I wanted to achieve. Sucks for me.

Sports analogies can be applied and can provide clarity to many things. You should try it sometime.

Okay, let's burn the Bibles and get our values from fiscal policy and Sports Illustrated.

Goddamn it, I've been wasting my time reading Kant, Keats and Dante. No wonder I'm broke.

Ideology...by Mammon it's fantastic.

Edit: The market hasn't fixed much of anything lately...except the game!

 

[Anonymous]

Okay, let's burn the Bibles and get our values from fiscal policy and Sports Illustrated.

Goddamn it, I've been wasting my time reading Kant, Keats and Dante. No wonder I'm broke.

Ideology...by Mammon it's fantastic.

Edit: The market hasn't fixed much of anything lately...except the game!

For the purposes of illustration, this is a strawman;

Okay, let's burn the Bibles and get our values from fiscal policy and Sports Illustrated

My beloved LA Lakers suffered their first defeat of the season a few days ago due to a couple of bad calls by the referees. So the system let them down. That and they didn't play much defense, but mostly it was the system.

You wanna throw a pity party for yourself then go right ahead. If what you choose to do is point to all of the injustices in the world then you will be extremely busy (and depressed).

Point to something better.... lead the way.

 

[rhubroma]

By your definition of 'left-wing', I suppose you are correct.

So, your girlfriend enters into an agreement where she knows the conditions up-front, is compensated according to the agreement and then considers the conditions of employment unacceptable after the fact. Have I got that correct?

Did anyone force or coerce her to accept this assignment?

I have a crazy idea. Perhaps she should set her own terms of employment. Maybe she should put her capital at risk and create value large enough so that her terms will be acceptable to her contractor.

I realize that it's much easier to just sit on one's back-side and complain about how unjust the system is.

Don't go nuts with a 4,000 word rebuttal... I'm just trying to help.

Your remark about sitting on ones a$$ was as insulting as it was stupid. The work is time consuming, exacting and extremely demanding. The stuff of a real professional. And it's not about investment capital but the unjust exploitation of labor.

Apart form this simply being a morally reprehensible form of business practice, backed by government in the capitalist democracies, it goes against the basic philosophy of copyright law.

Authors and musicians get treated differently, it should be the same for illustrators.

She should get 15% compensation of the original cost of her work each time they go to print. Lets say (in a purposefully reductive example) the publisher reprints 5000 copies, sells them all at 3 times the price of production costs and makes 60000. They put out 20000 and profited 40000. Of that 40000, her 15% compensation would be say 1500 (not of the 40,000 but what of what the company originally paid for her illustations).

Clearly any freelance illustrator needs that income over the long term to live more comfortably. And moreover he or she morally deserves it. Yet, in the current state of things, the company has profited handsomely and won't even pass on the crumbs (to borrow Ronald Regan's term) to the one who made it possible to sell the product in the first place.

It's about respecting the worker's dignity. In the current system only the greedy profit interests of the rich are safeguarded, without any concern for the weak and the unrepresented. Is this fair? Is it fair that my girlfriend doesn't receive that 1500 on profits that the company made with her work to the amount of 40000?
And of course there is, furthermore, no limit to how many times the employer can use her illustrations to make profit. If it's a popular work, sometimes there can be several reprints.

Be sincere, because if you say that this practice is acceptable and just, then you are simply without any moral scruples.

 

[Anonymous]

Your remark about sitting on ones a$$ was as insulting as it was stupid. The work is time consuming, exacting and extremely demanding. The stuff of a real professional. And it's not about investment capital but the unjust exploitation of labor.

Apart form this simply being a morally reprehensible form of business practice, backed by government in the capitalist democracies, it goes against the basic philosophy of copyright law.

Authors and musicians get treated differently, it should be the same for illustrators.

She should get 15% compensation of the original cost of her work each time they go to print. Lets say (in a purposefully reductive example) the publisher reprints 5000 copies, sells them all at 3 times the price of production costs and makes 60000. They put out 20000 and profited 40000. Of that 40000, her 15% compensation would be say 1500 (not of the 40,000 but what of what the company originally paid for her illustations).

Clearly any freelance illustrator needs that income over the long term to live more comfortably. And moreover he or she morally deserves it. Yet, in the current state of things, the company has profited handsomely and won't even pass on the crumbs (to borrow Ronald Regan's term) to the one who made it possible to sell the product in the first place.

It's about respecting the worker's dignity. In the current system only the greedy profit interests of the rich are safeguarded, without any concern for the weak and the unrepresented. Is this fair? Is it fair that my girlfriend doesn't receive that 1500 on profits that the company made with her work to the amount of 40000?
And of course there is, furthermore, no limit to how many times the employer can use her illustrations to make profit. If it's a popular work, sometimes there can be several reprints.

Be sincere, because if you say that this practice is acceptable and just, then you are simply without any moral scruples.

Your remark about sitting on ones a$$ was as insulting as it was stupid. The work is time consuming, exacting and extremely demanding. The stuff of a real professional. And it's not about investment capital but the unjust exploitation of labor

My comment was directed at you sitting on your a$$ and complaining. I have every confidence your girlfriend is talented and hard working.

I'm guessing if her employer was breaking copyright laws then there would be grounds for a suit. So sue them and stop the bad practice already.

She should get 15% compensation of the original cost of her work each time they go to print. Lets say (in a purposefully reductive example) the publisher reprints 5000 copies, sells them all at 3 times the price of production costs and makes 60000. They put out 20000 and profited 40000. Of that 40000, her 15% compensation would be say 1500 (not of the 40,000 but what of what the company originally paid for her illustations).

This seems like a decent business model. Instead of complaining about it why don't you and your girlfriend take the risk the publisher is taking and do the project yourselves. Just think, you could provide better working conditions for the illustrators and by doing such, have access to the very best as I'm sure they would love to work for you two.

Clearly any freelance illustrator needs that income over the long term to live more comfortably. And moreover he or she morally deserves it.

I need more income over a long period of time to live more comfortably. Moreover, I deserve it (morally speaking of course). I demand this of my customers and I'm sure they will all agree and comply.

Be sincere, because if you say that this practice is acceptable and just, then you are simply without any moral scruples

I am seriously offended at this. I have earned and deserve to be thought of, by you, to be without any moral scruples. I'm stunned that there still may be doubt in your mind. For what else can one be if one dares to disagree with the academic.

 

[rhubroma]

My comment was directed at you sitting on your a$$ and complaining. I have every confidence your girlfriend is talented and hard working.

I'm guessing if her employer was breaking copyright laws then there would be grounds for a suit. So sue them and stop the bad practice already.



This seems like a decent business model. Instead of complaining about it why don't you and your girlfriend take the risk the publisher is taking and do the project yourselves. Just think, you could provide better working conditions for the illustrators and by doing such, have access to the very best as I'm sure they would love to work for you two.



I need more income over a long period of time to live more comfortably. Moreover, I deserve it (morally speaking of course). I demand this of my customers and I'm sure they will all agree and comply.



I am seriously offended at this. I have earned and deserve to be thought of, by you, to be without any moral scruples. I'm stunned that there still may be doubt in your mind. For what else can one be if one dares to disagree with the academic.[/I]

This is why I bother with you at all, because, deep down, you are a almost a nice guy.

I'm an academic and, therefore, just a pseudo-intellectual and a prostitute. Cheers.