50th Day of Violent Protests in Portland - Page 16 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15117567
Drlee wrote:
@ckaihatsu I am sure you are a very clever chap. But some of us are quite old and would appreciate it if you learned to edit. There's a good fellow.



Learned to edit *what* -- ?

You're being vague.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
So 1000+ killings per year at the hands of cops isn't 'real' enough for you, PI?



Doug64 wrote:
Around 1,000 a year over the past three years (a little over 200 each year of which are Black), with no breakdown I've seen on how many were justified, how many were iffy, and how many the cops were clearly out of line. Meanwhile, we kill over 36,000 a year on our states' highways.



I guess the real question is 'What are the cops *defending*?'.

You're implying that the cops must be correct in their judgments by default, and that they simply make *errors* that lead to killings, but without detail provided to the public over every killing, we have no way of *qualifying* these killings, as you're pointing out.

In many cases, I'd estimate, nothing untoward would have happened if the cop/s hadn't *been* there -- in other words oftentimes the cops just wind up *escalating* a situation that would have had better results / endings simply if the cops weren't a part of it.

Then add into it *overreactions*, like shooting someone in the back who's running away and is obviously *no threat* to the officer, and also *summary executions*, which overlap with 'overreactions'.

Suddenly the *statistical* approach doesn't seem so meaningful or relevant, since so many of the *questionable* uses of force turn out to be *egregious* / gratuitous uses of force.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Maybe you see it as basically open-ended, or maybe you're in the 'singularity' teleology camp, but from the standpoint of *socialist politics* what matters is that technology, even under the bourgeois incrementalist snail-pace, has the *potential* to materially liberate all of humanity from dire need and want.



Sivad wrote:
No it doesn't. Technology will never liberate humanity because humanity is a prison of dominance and exploitation that runs on need and want(you are all diseased). Technology has the potential to liberate consciousness from humanity and that's the only real hope for any kind of world where life is worth living.



You're saying that humanity is 'diseased'. Would this be due to the coronavirus -- ?

x D


I think humanity would still have its own, 'internal' problems and issues to resolve, mostly separately from technology, like who needs to sacrifice their lives in labor, and who doesn't. (Hence 'class', and Marxism, etc.)

Also you're forgetting the 'promise' of technology, which is *convenience* -- the more that's *automated* / industrialized, the *less* labor that *anyone* has to do, to make such goods and services physically exist. *Full* automation would mean that *no one* has to do labor, because the machine does it *all*, by mere button-pushing by the consumer. If I could 3D-print a frickin' *meal*, I *would*.


---


Doug64 wrote:
It’s up to me to decide whether I trust any numbers coming out of non-developed countries. Do you have a link for your numbers? And you’ve already said that developed countries aren’t sending their children back to school while the pandemic is on, so your “most European countries” aren’t developed.

Also, I note that you haven’t provided that breakdown of how many of the shootings are justified, without that we can’t diagnose the problem, can we? I would rather have a thousand criminals killed each year at the hands of cops than a thousand cops killed each year at the hands of criminals.


Doug64 wrote:
It’s up to me to decide whether I trust any numbers coming out of non-developed countries.


Doug64 wrote:
I would rather have a thousand criminals killed each year at the hands of cops than a thousand cops killed each year at the hands of criminals.



And who defines who's a 'criminal', exactly? (I think *this* issue is more-to-the-point.)

It's up to me to decide whether I trust any numbers coming out of *developed* countries.
#15117569
ckaihatsu wrote:
You're saying that humanity is 'diseased'. Would this be due to the coronavirus -- ?

x D


It would be due to extreme inherent anti-social tendencies. The lust for power and pathological desire to control, dominate, and gulag people. The innate craven cowardice that creates a desperate need for the illusion of security provided by manipulative lying babbitt fucks. A poverty of curiosity and imagination that causes us to squander all of our time, energy, and resources on consumption and self-destruction(consumerism, retarded hoaxes, and bullshit wars).

I think humanity would still have its own, 'internal' problems and issues to resolve, mostly separately from technology, like who needs to sacrifice their lives in labor, and who doesn't. (Hence 'class', and Marxism, etc.)


I think humanity in itself is a dead end and if it isn't transcended soon it's guaranteed to end in oblivion.

h+
#15117589
wat0n wrote:It's not mudslinging to ask pertinent questions about this contradiction :roll:

I'm still waiting for you to explain the contradiction which you were concerned about. I didn't see any contents in your posts, just bland statements. Seems like a common trend around here. Care to put in plain English what exactly the 'contradiction' you were referring to is?
#15117590
Rugoz wrote:That is certainly nonsense for the US in recent decades. Markups and profits have increased substantially. Technological change must not increase competition.

Marx presented a model. Technology, particularly in modern times, has a pervasive tendency of enabling monopolistic profits. That's not actually at odds with Marxist economics.
#15117591
wat0n wrote:This would also open the question as to how exactly are they defining and measuring the rate of profit. Marxian economists have a different definition from mainstream ones.

Rugoz wrote:Whatever the definition, the reasoning is still wrong.


This is just a circle jerk between an ignorant person and an ignorant neo-classicalist (in that order). You guys have said nothing of value. And the reasoning is not wrong.
#15117592
Crantag wrote:I'm still waiting for you to explain the contradiction which you were concerned about. I didn't see any contents in your posts, just bland statements. Seems like a common trend around here. Care to put in plain English what exactly the 'contradiction' you were referring to is?


If profitability has trended down economy-wide for the last 100-150 years, why hasn't this shown up in financial asset returns?

Crantag wrote:This is just a circle jerk between an ignorant person and an ignorant neo-classicalist (in that order). You guys have said nothing of value. And the reasoning is not wrong.


Both of us are almost surely better trained in economics than you are.
#15117605
wat0n wrote:If profitability has trended down economy-wide for the last 100-150 years, why hasn't this shown up in financial asset returns?



Both of us are almost surely better trained in economics than you are.

Rugoz is clearly trained in economics, as am I. I like @Rugoz's posts, and he shares a lot of knowledge and insights, but he is taking the pompous, though ignorant tone toward Marxist economics, which is all too typical of neo-classicalists.

You on the other hand... are clearly not well trained in economics, which I actually am.

But to your question, it is a matter of distribution.
#15117609
Crantag wrote:Rugoz is clearly trained in economics, as am I. I like @Rugoz's posts, and he shares a lot of knowledge and insights, but he is taking the pompous, though ignorant tone toward Marxist economics, which is all too typical of neo-classicalists.

You on the other hand... are clearly not well trained in economics, which I actually am.


I'm willing to bet I'm more trained in economics than you are :)

Crantag wrote:But to your question, it is a matter of distribution.


:lol:
#15117611
wat0n wrote:I'm willing to bet I'm more trained in economics than you are :)



:lol:

Well than, you are willing to bet wrong.

I do have a sad announcement. My PhD in economics just ended. I was doing it remotely for the past couple of years, and my academic advisor died at his desk of a heart attack at the age of 58, about a week and a half ago.

You clearly don't know much about economics. @Rugoz does though.
Last edited by Crantag on 05 Sep 2020 01:06, edited 1 time in total.
#15117612
Crantag wrote:Well then, you are willing to bet wrong.

I do have a sad announcement. My PhD in economics just ended. I was doing it remotely for the past couple of years, and my academic advisor died at his desk of a heart attack at the age of 58, about a week and a half ago.

You clearly don't know much about economics. @Rugoz does though.


Cool story bro. Where is it, one of those trash heterodox schools like UMass Amherst?
#15117613
wat0n wrote:Cool story bro. Where is it, one of those trash heterodox schools like UMass Amherst?

It was actually at one of the best economics universities in the world, it is not in America, but I've told you enough of my personal details. I suggest you go pound sand up your nose, it'll probably be more productive.
#15117614
Crantag wrote:It was actually at one of the best economics universities in the world, it is not in America, but I've told you enough of my personal details. I suggest you go pound sand up your nose, it'll probably be more productive.


Feel free to respond why is it that the downward trend in profitability doesn't show up in asset prices whenever you feel. 100+ years is more than enough time for fundamentals to show.

Let's see if you can enlighten me with your alleged econ skills ;)
#15117615
wat0n wrote:Feel free to respond why is it that the downward trend in profitability doesn't show up in asset prices whenever you feel. 100+ years is more than enough time for fundamentals to show.

Let's see if you can enlighten me with your alleged econ skills ;)

I did respond. It is a matter of distribution. You don't know how to read, either?
#15117617
wat0n wrote:Go ahead and elaborate.

I recall I laughed, because it's a purposely vague response.

I'm not going to sit here and right you an essay. But distribution is about the distribution of finite resources, which are the fruits of production. Financial profits don't encompass gross profits across the entire economy. I'll leave it there because you aren't worth my time, and if you can't interpret this statement, you clearly have very little economics ability.
#15117618
Crantag wrote:I'm not going to sit here and right you an essay. But distribution is about the distribution of finite resources, which are the fruits of production. Financial profits don't encompass gross profits across the entire economy. I'll leave it there because you aren't worth my time, and if you can't interpret this statement, you clearly have very little economics ability.


Sure, financial asset prices will not include businesses that are financially constrained, such as SMEs (to provide an example).

However, profits, sales, production, value added, etc tends to be concentrated in large enterprises, not small ones. This is particularly true for the industrial sector while services tend to be more atomized, since economies of scale tend to play a larger role in the former, but even in services large businesses can represent a major part of the aforementioned variables. I know this because I actually used to work in compiling economic statistics and have had access to the raw data from economic surveys and tax data.

Furthermore, if financial asset prices had been diverging from the real economy for so long, then why wouldn't more people just invest in them instead of incurring the risks of starting their own business? There have been plenty of opportunities for arbitrage during the last 2 or 3 generations.

Either way, your response is still rather vague. Statements like "distribution is about the distribution of finite resources, which are the fruits of production" add no information. Of course distribution is about the distribution of resources, which are mostly finite, and of course most of these resources are the fruits of some type of production (even natural resources need to be processed and transported at some point to be useful). Distribution being about distribution is a tautology. I presume even allegedly Marxian economists learn a bit about propositional logic and what happens with tautologies at some point. I presume so because mainstream ones do.

:roll:
#15117635
wat0n wrote:Sure, financial asset prices will not include businesses that are financially constrained, such as SMEs (to provide an example).

However, profits, sales, production, value added, etc tends to be concentrated in large enterprises, not small ones. This is particularly true for the industrial sector while services tend to be more atomized, since economies of scale tend to play a larger role in the former, but even in services large businesses can represent a major part of the aforementioned variables. I know this because I actually used to work in compiling economic statistics and have had access to the raw data from economic surveys and tax data.

Furthermore, if financial asset prices had been diverging from the real economy for so long, then why wouldn't more people just invest in them instead of incurring the risks of starting their own business? There have been plenty of opportunities for arbitrage during the last 2 or 3 generations.

Either way, your response is still rather vague. Statements like "distribution is about the distribution of finite resources, which are the fruits of production" add no information. Of course distribution is about the distribution of resources, which are mostly finite, and of course most of these resources are the fruits of some type of production (even natural resources need to be processed and transported at some point to be useful). Distribution being about distribution is a tautology. I presume even allegedly Marxian economists learn a bit about propositional logic and what happens with tautologies at some point. I presume so because mainstream ones do.

:roll:

Did you type that, or copy and paste it?

Answer honestly.

I might actually read it later, but not now.
#15117641
@Crantag

I don't know, what do you think? Why don't you try to run it through a plagiarism checker and find out yourself? If you have an econ PhD as you claim, I'm guessing you have had to do that kind of stuff to catch cheaters while TA'ing.

Once you do that, and after you wipe your tears, you could try to defend your claims.

:)
#15117642
wat0n wrote:@Crantag

I don't know, what do you think? Why don't you try to run it through a plagiarism checker and find out yourself? If you have an econ PhD as you claim, I'm guessing you have had to do that kind of stuff to catch cheaters while TA'ing.

Once you do that, and after you wipe your tears, you could try to defend your claims.

:)

You bore the shit out of me, but you also once more betray your lack of reading comprehension. I clearly stated that my academic advisor just died of a heart attack, which marks the end of my PhD. Try to keep up. I don't care if you wrote that or not, and it is less likely I will read it now. It sorta sounds like you are saying you didn't write it, but I couldn't give two shits.
#15117646
Crantag wrote:You bore the shit out of me, but you also once more betray your lack of reading comprehension. I clearly stated that my academic advisor just died of a heart attack, which marks the end of my PhD. Try to keep up. I don't care if you wrote that or not, and it is less likely I will read it now. It sorta sounds like you are saying you didn't write it, but I couldn't give two shits.


It would be sad to hear that, if it were true. Although changing advisors should not be impossible, even if it's admittedly not trivial.

And if you believe I didn't write that, go ahead and run it through a plagiarism detector.
  • 1
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 21
Does Palantir See Too Much?

I suppose art does imitate life. All three optio[…]

Who will win the 2020 US election? (poll)

I expect Trump will look like he's losing narrowl[…]

@Politics_Observer Fox News is USA's state-spons[…]

Trump and Russiagate

I really hate to say that. But the first thing I w[…]