A Maximum Wage

[Caesar]

 

[volcboy]

That sort of ignores the key issue, being that small, localised businesses can't produce a lot of the goods and services that are considered fundamental to an industrialised society.

It is one thing to ask a small mum and dad corner store to take over the retail role of Woolies. It's another to ask them to develop and produce the next iPhone.

It doesn't ignore the key issue, it just highlights the spongy language used around capitalism, such as 'benefits'.

Most of the technology used in the iPhone was not developed by a corporation, but by government funded research (e.g. WiFi technology developed by CSIRO), which Apple then put together in a certain configuration to create a supply of a product. They then created a demand for that product, and sold a lot of them.

Do you really need your iPhone, or did Apple just create a demand in your mind to make you think that you do?

 

[nicky]

vocolboy that is another great point you touched on in regards to the lifecycle of alot of technology. The research and associated risk is a public expense and the profit is then privatised.

 

[Catsmaninamerica]

Have u been to HK? The place is a shithole.

you ****ing kidding? Its one of the most amazing cities on the planet. I suggest you head back and take your eastern suburbs red rooster loving vb drinking glasses off and step out of the aussie comfort zone for a week.

 

[Caesar]

Do you really need your iPhone, or did Apple just create a demand in your mind to make you think that you do?

Whether I need it or not isn't important. What is important is that people want it.

People may not 'need' the trappings of industrialised society but they are not particularly interested in giving them up.

 

[Seeds]

Lol a maximum wage. We shouldn't even have a minimum wage. How about we let the market decide.

 

[frantelle]

It doesn't ignore the key issue, it just highlights the spongy language used around capitalism, such as 'benefits'.

Most of the technology used in the iPhone was not developed by a corporation, but by government funded research (e.g. WiFi technology developed by CSIRO), which Apple then put together in a certain configuration to create a supply of a product. They then created a demand for that product, and sold a lot of them.

Do you really need your iPhone, or did Apple just create a demand in your mind to make you think that you do?

There are a lot of arguments for government research/ subsiding research given everyone benefits from any improvement. In your case, if say McDonalds had discovered Wifi, they would've horded the technology for themselves, what benefit is there for them to share their discovery? Then other companies need to spend more money on re-discovering technology that a building across the road is utilising

 

[volcboy]

Whether I need it or not isn't important. What is important is that people want it.

Before you had the concept of an iPhone (I assume you're old enough to remember them not existing), did you desire one, or did Apple create that desire for you? Given all of the technology available, could you envisage a better device? I'm sure that you could - all Apple devices are designed primarily to make Apple money, with any benefit to the consumer marketed to them as a need.

Until people learn to understand the psychology of 'want' and how it is manufactured through advertising, they will continue to accept second-rate products they are told they want rather than demanding what they could actually have and create. I'm not holding my breath that this will happen, unfortunately.

 

[volcboy]

There are a lot of arguments for government research/ subsiding research given everyone benefits from any improvement. In your case, if say McDonalds had discovered Wifi, they would've horded the technology for themselves, what benefit is there for them to share their discovery? Then other companies need to spend more money on re-discovering technology that a building across the road is utilising

Corporations like to tell us quite often how much they 'create' for us, when all they are really focused doing is creating profits for themselves and externalising as many of the costs as possible. Plenty of corporations 'hoard' patents for ideas themselves and waste a lot of resources protecting or burying them, even if their 'idea' is a touchscreen full of square icons with the corners rounded off.

 

[Caesar]

If you don't like iPhones, substitute for something else.

A massive proportion of the social and technological advances in our society since the industrial revolution (and the way they're sustained) have been / are due to the systemic advantages provided by the ability to aggregate capital, marshal resources, speculate and potentially turn a profit.

If you are going to essentially eliminate the ability of the private sector to do that you either return to an agrarian-style economy, or you turn over all responsibility for industry to government (i.e. communism / hardline socialism). Nobody is really interested in either.

 

[LouisCK]

you ******* kidding? Its one of the most amazing cities on the planet. I suggest you head back and take your eastern suburbs red rooster loving vb drinking glasses off and step out of the aussie comfort zone for a week.

**** off mate I live in Asia.

HK is great when you have money, but try heading out to Chunking Mansions and tell me how well free for all capitalism works.

 

[crownie]

You must look down on the many who inherit their wealth and don't earn it.

they are no worse then poor people who refuse to work and live off the goverment.

 

[Catsmaninamerica]

**** off mate I live in Asia.

HK is great when you have money, but try heading out to Chunking Mansions and tell me how well free for all capitalism works.

fair enough. I lived in HK for many years and have been to Chung King plenty. Was there 3 weeks ago in fact. I just reckon its a great city, but as you say, i have money.

 

[LouisCK]

fair enough. I lived in HK for many years and have been to Chung King plenty. Was there 3 weeks ago in fact. I just reckon its a great city, but as you say, i have money.

Fair enough, no harm.

I love HK in some ways too, I mean, calling it a shithole was a bit vague, but it isn't a great place for the majority of poor folk there. Singapore is similar in that regard, as are any of the really capitalist city states/emirates.

 

[Catsmaninamerica]

Fair enough, no harm.

I love HK in some ways too, I mean, calling it a shithole was a bit vague, but it isn't a great place for the majority of poor folk there. Singapore is similar in that regard, as are any of the really capitalist city states/emirates.

Singapore imo is far worse than HK. Where are you based?

 

[LouisCK]

I'm in Indo. Obviously HK and Singapore have a better standard of living than Jakarta...

 

[The Passenger]

Here's are our overlord 1%ers at it again

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-04-18/meet-isdafix-the-libor-scandals-sequel

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-14/banks-drop-off-isdafix-panel-amid-rate-rigging-probes.html

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ed-the-biggest-financial-scandal-yet-20130425

the sooner bitcoins or any of these crypto-currencies take over the better imo

 

[Caesar]

Cryptocurrencies are cool and serve a useful purpose, but the lack of ability to regulate the money supply makes them too unstable to ever be a primary medium of exchange.

 

[The Passenger]

Cryptocurrencies are cool and serve a useful purpose, but the lack of ability to regulate the money supply makes them too unstable to ever be a primary medium of exchange.

i don't know, bitcoins are about as regulated as you can get - just not in the traditional sense. they're not regulated by any government authority. they don't like that.

everyone knows exactly how many bitcoins are in circulation at any one time, and everyone knows how many bitcoins will be in circulation at any given point in time, topping out at ~21 million sometime next century.

 

[Caesar]

Everybody knows how many bitcoins exist - not how many are in circulation. Having a fixed and predictable number of coins lowers inflationary pressures and mean that if it becomes a primary store of value, people will be encouraged to hoard it, rather than use it as a medium of exchange. This obviously causes huge debt and liquidity problems and with no ability to modify supply there is no way to counter it.

I think bitcoins and other similar currencies are useful mostly as they exist now - a secondary currency where people specifically require a flexible medium of exchange that is not able to be controlled by any central authority. In that respect, they are an excellent tool.

I would not be surprised to see the role of currency changed though. Money as we know it is a fairly unsophisticated financial instrument. It's used for a bunch of different purposes that often conflict. Maybe one day, we will have different forms of currencies for different purposes. Bitcoins (or something similar) could be part of that.

 

[The Passenger]

This obviously causes huge debt and liquidity problems and with no ability to modify supply there is no way to counter it.

We (read: They) haven't exactly been great at managing these issues anyway, although one could argue that has all been intentional anyway.

 

[volcboy]

If you are going to essentially eliminate the ability of the private sector to do that you either return to an agrarian-style economy, or you turn over all responsibility for industry to government (i.e. communism / hardline socialism). Nobody is really interested in either.

You are not being imaginative enough - you are only giving two options, which are based on the extremes of governing systems that have existed in recent history. There are many more systems of organisation that can be tried apart from centralised government/dictatorial control and corporation-dominated 'free' market economics. It isn't an either/or scenario, where throwing out the idea that corporations operate to satisfy our best interests within a free market system automatically leads to an agrarian-style economy.

That is the sort of shallow fear mongering that the largest profit makers from the current system trot out regularly to convince the masses to keep calm, carry on, keep consuming and stop thinking that there may be better options.

 

[Caesar]

If you have a practical alternative to the profit incentive for aggregating capital and promoting innovation, that doesn't involve handing over control of the means of production to a socialist bureaucracy, let's hear it.

 

[Simple Jack]

A mate of mine bought a whole crapload of bitcoins a $5 a pop, he's done quite well out of it.

 

[The Passenger]

A mate of mine bought a whole crapload of bitcoins a $5 a pop, he's done quite well out of it.

me and a mate were gonna get together $1k each and buy them at $3 a pop at end of 2011.... i was just finishing uni and had literally no money. ooo well

maybe get on litecoins or something. they are $4 each now.

at least it's not as bad as they guy that gave up 10,000 a few years back for 2 pizzas.

http://au.businessinsider.com/2-million-bitcoin-pizza-2013-4

i know there are plenty of tales like that in the financial world, but being able to turn $40 => $2 million in three years.... ouch.