Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 259

Anti-trust regulation obviously. That was a big policy choice that was used to break up the railroad, rockefellor and JP Morgan monopoly at the beginning 20th century. It was one of good things Teddy Roosevelt did when he had some off time from massacring Phillipinos. And lots of anti-trust regulation during the great depression obviously, from the other Roosevelt. Monopolies are largely policy choices, especially for one's like microsoft. Their monopoly was essentially entirely a policy choice. Tech companies monopolize easily because of their network effects as well, which is a new phenomenon from the internet era. But you can have a large company using network effects and have it run democratically.

The problem is not that they are huge monopolies anyway. There is actually efficiency in having large scale industrial organization for some things. The problem is that they created their surveillience system in secret. They make money off mass advertising, which is the opposite of efficiency in economic theory. Efficiciency is defined as providing people what they want at the lowest cost possible. Google provides people what they don't want at zero cost. What's the market? We don't pay google a cent when we use their apps. Their strategy, and facebook are the same here, is to open up 'supply routes', by buying up, and developing any technology which can be used to harvest 'behavioral surplus'. Im quoting terminology from Shoshona Zuboff here, the leading scholar on survellience capitalism. Meaning, our minds, habbits, emotions, ect, are essentially like liquid gold to these companies, and they make money off harvesting the data from them. It's like mining hands in poker, but on an absurd scale obviously.

Imo the solution is to run these companies democratically, at a loss, (meaning no revenue from advertising). There are a lot of good things data science and the tech industry can do, and have done. Google wasn't turned into a gold mine until quite a few years into it's development (around 2001). The profit motive was what turned them into a mass advertising survellience system. It isn't rocket science.

Not going to go into details but i'd recommend shoshona zuboff's surveillience capitalism, and bit tyrants as reading material for this. The last chapter of Bit Tyrants has some good solutions to the problem. Breaking them up makes little sense to me, but i guess it could improve the situation. The culture of survellience capitalism is spreading over the world at a rapid rate, but it doesn't have to become normalized the way mass advertising did in the 1920's.

Im rolling on floor laughing at the idea that Trump is making a stand against big tech. They helped him interfere in the election in 2016 ffs, with cambridge anayltica. The guy is more dedicated to enriching the corporate overlords than any person in history.

Good thing its not up to him to do that

On July 31 2020 06:22 Stroggoz wrote: Anti-trust regulation obviously. That was a big policy choice that was used to break up the railroad, rockefellor and JP Morgan monopoly at the beginning 20th century. It was one of good things Teddy Roosevelt did when he had some off time from massacring Phillipinos. And lots of anti-trust regulation during the great depression obviously, from the other Roosevelt. Monopolies are largely policy choices, especially for one's like microsoft. Their monopoly was essentially entirely a policy choice. Tech companies monopolize easily because of their network effects as well, which is a new phenomenon from the internet era. But you can have a large company using network effects and have it run democratically. The problem is not that they are huge monopolies anyway. There is actually efficiency in having large scale industrial organization for some things. The problem is that they created their surveillience system in secret. They make money off mass advertising, which is the opposite of efficiency in economic theory. Efficiciency is defined as providing people what they want at the lowest cost possible. Google provides people what they don't want at zero cost. What's the market? We don't pay google a cent when we use their apps. Their strategy, and facebook are the same here, is to open up 'supply routes', by buying up, and developing any technology which can be used to harvest 'behavioral surplus'. Im quoting terminology from Shoshona Zuboff here, the leading scholar on survellience capitalism. Meaning, our minds, habbits, emotions, ect, are essentially like liquid gold to these companies, and they make money off harvesting the data from them. It's like mining hands in poker, but on an absurd scale obviously. Imo the solution is to run these companies democratically, at a loss, (meaning no revenue from advertising). There are a lot of good things data science and the tech industry can do, and have done. Google wasn't turned into a gold mine until quite a few years into it's development (around 2001). The profit motive was what turned them into a mass advertising survellience system. It isn't rocket science. Not going to go into details but i'd recommend shoshona zuboff's surveillience capitalism, and bit tyrants as reading material for this. The last chapter of Bit Tyrants has some good solutions to the problem. Breaking them up makes little sense to me, but i guess it could improve the situation. The culture of survellience capitalism is spreading over the world at a rapid rate, but it doesn't have to become normalized the way mass advertising did in the 1920's. Im rolling on floor laughing at the idea that Trump is making a stand against big tech. They helped him interfere in the election in 2016 ffs, with cambridge anayltica. The guy is more dedicated to enriching the corporate overlords than any person in history.

Gj copying some more ideas from other ppl.

Also not sure what Cambridge Analytica has to do with calling out Tech companies for being biased against Trump. Dems could have found a similar firm and done same thing. So Trump isnt allowed to even use the products of the tech companies lol.

Are you really denying that google has a bias against the right?

Here's a black gentleman's take how the police is in fact the aggressor. Shame that he didn't have the time to tell us why they are trying to burn the courthouse.

On July 31 2020 19:21 CurbStomp wrote: Here's a black gentleman's take how the police is in fact the aggressor. Shame that he didn't have the time to tell us why they are trying to burn the courthouse.

I understand your frustration but continuing to up the ante your hatred of blacks isnt a good or practical solution. Its something I need to work on myself.

This is somewhat of a virtue signal post that is probably more about myself than anything I just needed a reason to write something to try and deescalate from all this race stuff. So you do you. Anyway Im going to continue my rant.

Ive been thinking about race more lately as im sure weve all been and I think I definitely am a little prejudiced towards blacks. Even when it comes to women, I generally am not attracted to black girls and on the pretty rare occasion if I am its generally the lighter skin black girls.

Well...I guess they are not all bad. There are some pretty decent ones like Michael Jordan. I like mixed race girls, pure black is a big no-no.

User was temp-banned for this post.

On July 31 2020 06:22 Stroggoz wrote: Anti-trust regulation obviously. That was a big policy choice that was used to break up the railroad, rockefellor and JP Morgan monopoly at the beginning 20th century. It was one of good things Teddy Roosevelt did when he had some off time from massacring Phillipinos. And lots of anti-trust regulation during the great depression obviously, from the other Roosevelt. Monopolies are largely policy choices, especially for one's like microsoft. Their monopoly was essentially entirely a policy choice. Tech companies monopolize easily because of their network effects as well, which is a new phenomenon from the internet era. But you can have a large company using network effects and have it run democratically. The problem is not that they are huge monopolies anyway. There is actually efficiency in having large scale industrial organization for some things. The problem is that they created their surveillience system in secret. They make money off mass advertising, which is the opposite of efficiency in economic theory. Efficiciency is defined as providing people what they want at the lowest cost possible. Google provides people what they don't want at zero cost. What's the market? We don't pay google a cent when we use their apps. Their strategy, and facebook are the same here, is to open up 'supply routes', by buying up, and developing any technology which can be used to harvest 'behavioral surplus'. Im quoting terminology from Shoshona Zuboff here, the leading scholar on survellience capitalism. Meaning, our minds, habbits, emotions, ect, are essentially like liquid gold to these companies, and they make money off harvesting the data from them. It's like mining hands in poker, but on an absurd scale obviously. Imo the solution is to run these companies democratically, at a loss, (meaning no revenue from advertising). There are a lot of good things data science and the tech industry can do, and have done. Google wasn't turned into a gold mine until quite a few years into it's development (around 2001). The profit motive was what turned them into a mass advertising survellience system. It isn't rocket science. Not going to go into details but i'd recommend shoshona zuboff's surveillience capitalism, and bit tyrants as reading material for this. The last chapter of Bit Tyrants has some good solutions to the problem. Breaking them up makes little sense to me, but i guess it could improve the situation. The culture of survellience capitalism is spreading over the world at a rapid rate, but it doesn't have to become normalized the way mass advertising did in the 1920's. Im rolling on floor laughing at the idea that Trump is making a stand against big tech. They helped him interfere in the election in 2016 ffs, with cambridge anayltica. The guy is more dedicated to enriching the corporate overlords than any person in history.

Teddy Rosevelt's emergency banking act is precisely what you claim to despise, a fed-backed financial sector, after the dust settled thousands of small banks were absorbed by the large ones, it was the first quantitive easing in the world, the start of the new friendship between big banks and state. But go on about specific monooplistic corps broken through state regulation, I don't think that list will be long, yet the list of corps helped by the state is endless.

So you are saying that the new media corps are not only not being stopped by the government, but its current administration is enrichist itself through and with them? well that was precisely my point, thank you very much.

Yes, that is correct. The state has helped the largest businesses in many ways. There was a study a couple decades back that showed the top 100 all received government support somehow. The state has also broken businesses up as well-during the great depression was the biggest example. The lesson here is the state responds to power-elite interests will use it to create oligopolies or monopolies, and in rare occasions when the public exerts their power, they can get banks regulated-as they were in the great depression. The thing about market forces-nothing is entirely market based, but a lot of industries have merged into bigger and bigger companies over time. Some of it from market forces, some of it not. I havn't studied every industry, but one example is the media. Which has steadily gone from being thousands of different outlets to about 6 companies controlling 90% of the media, last i checked. So sometimes market forces tend to generate very strong monopolies, and but it's always a policy choice at the end of the day imo. And that's quite subjective-anything is a policy choice if you think about it. The latest stage in this evolution is the financial sector taking control of companies like a parasitic host, and directing money away from R and D and towards share buy backs, ect.

You have it around backwards though. It's true that Trump is benefitting a lot from the system, but this isn't China. The private sector (banks) control the government, not the other way around, (like China).

Not sure what you mean about my view's on the fed.

The point was that historically its pretty clear that the state has failed its task of stopping monopolitic practices, and not only that but it is involved in most of them, the action you put an example of state hampering monopolies, Roosevelt's emergency banking act bailed out big banks which bought thousands of small ones... how is this anti-monopoly or anti-finance sector?. The reason banks declared insolvency in the great depression was because they were allowed to leverage, this isn't a productivity-based economy, this is a finance based economy which system is better over the long run is a fascinating and complex topic but I figured you would be against these things, aren't you?

I don't think the state controls finance, I've said it many times that through lobbying the power of the state is for sale, so corporations buy this power to keep growing, smaller businesses have no acces to this power, which again, is my main point, the state does not stop monopolies, it creates them, you believe that without the state wallstreet would swallo us all up, but that isn't true, without the state power that wallstreet weilds they would go bust.

On August 01 2020 04:04 Baalim wrote: The point was that historically its pretty clear that the state has failed its task of stopping monopolitic practices, and not only that but it is involved in most of them, the action you put an example of state hampering monopolies, Roosevelt's emergency banking act bailed out big banks which bought thousands of small ones... how is this anti-monopoly or anti-finance sector?. The reason banks declared insolvency in the great depression was because they were allowed to leverage, this isn't a productivity-based economy, this is a finance based economy which system is better over the long run is a fascinating and complex topic but I figured you would be against these things, aren't you? I don't think the state controls finance, I've said it many times that through lobbying the power of the state is for sale, so corporations buy this power to keep growing, smaller businesses have no acces to this power, which again, is my main point, the state does not stop monopolies, it creates them, you believe that without the state wallstreet would swallo us all up, but that isn't true, without the state power that wallstreet weilds they would go bust.

I don't beleive that without the state wallstreet would swallow us up, they get cheap credit ratings because of their too big to jail/fail policy, without this they would actually make no money, and likely would collapse. (according to one IMF study). Once again, i'm agreeing with you on this point.

I was refering to policies like the glass steagal act and the many other regulations that stopped finance from rent seeking activities, which clearly worked in the post ww2 period. https://ilsr.org/number-banks-u-s-1966-2014/

finance based economy? I mean you need banks in any economy, you need at least some finance/banking to invest in whatever society wants from the future, to loan money, ect. But beyond that leads to rent seeking activities. The finance sector today is totally different from this though.

So, overall. The state both creates and destroys monopolies. This is simply what history shows, and it's not inconsistent-once you understand that government policy is directed towards whatever powerful interest groups impose on it. Neoliberal 'state' policy has basically been entirely pro monopoly/oligopoly, the exact opposite of what it's advocates preached.

Baal in the scenario you're describing, why would you be anti-government, but not anti-lobbying instead?

The state clearly does both good and bad, it's a matter of what the system allows them. Limiting a branch of their corruption will push them towards "more good" actions.

Corporations on the other hand..... I can see how a free-market utopia would work if corporations cared for long-term plans since that would mean they would take care of the human resources as a priority, except that is not the case in reality, since investors don't care about profits in 20 years.

Poll: How do you feel about Authoritarianism?
(Vote): Good
(Vote): Bad
(Vote): Has its uses

No shit, the trading markets are continuously growing because FED said that they will print money until its needed. He doesn't agree with this at all and it has been going on for months now, populist piece of crap

On the bright side it seems like people are starting to slowly realize that trickle-down economics isn't sustainable

On August 01 2020 11:44 Spitfiree wrote: Baal in the scenario you're describing, why would you be anti-government, but not anti-lobbying instead? The state clearly does both good and bad, it's a matter of what the system allows them. Limiting a branch of their corruption will push them towards "more good" actions. Corporations on the other hand..... I can see how a free-market utopia would work if corporations cared for long-term plans since that would mean they would take care of the human resources as a priority, except that is not the case in reality, since investors don't care about profits in 20 years.

I am strongly anti-lobbying, and indeed limiting one of their avenues of corruption pushes them towards "more good" but most of those deals will still be made under the table and that is only one of the many ways to abuse the state powers, México has no lobbying yet this happens all the time, thats why I think the state powers have to be limited as much as it is feasible, to make the system less exploitable.

Stock holders with an exist strategy in public companies is exactly what I'm talking about finance-drive economy, what I want us as a society to pursue is a production driven economy.

During our years of friendship, he spoke passionately about how frustrated he was with the stereotypical representation of Asians in film and TV. The only roles were for inscrutable villains or bowing servants. In Have Gun - Will Travel, Paladin’s faithful Chinese servant goes by the insulting name of “Hey Boy” (Kam Tong). He was replaced in season four by a female character referred to as “Hey Girl” (Lisa Lu). Asian men were portrayed as sexless accessories to a scene, while the women were subservient. This was how African-American men and women were generally portrayed until the advent of Sidney Poitier and blaxploitation films. Bruce was dedicated to changing the dismissive image of Asians through his acting, writing and promotion of Jeet Kune Do, his interpretation of martial arts.

That’s why it disturbs me that Tarantino chose to portray Bruce in such a one-dimensional way. The John Wayne machismo attitude of Cliff (Brad Pitt), an aging stuntman who defeats the arrogant, uppity Chinese guy harks back to the very stereotypes Bruce was trying to dismantle. Of course the blond, white beefcake American can beat your fancy Asian chopsocky dude because that foreign crap doesn’t fly here.

I might even go along with the skewered version of Bruce if that wasn’t the only significant scene with him, if we’d also seen a glimpse of his other traits, of his struggle to be taken seriously in Hollywood. Alas, he was just another Hey Boy prop to the scene. The scene is complicated by being presented as a flashback, but in a way that could suggest the stuntman’s memory is cartoonishly biased in his favor. Equally disturbing is the unresolved shadow that Cliff may have killed his wife with a spear gun because she nagged him. Classic Cliff. Is Cliff more heroic because he also doesn’t put up with outspoken women?

I was in public with Bruce several times when some random jerk would loudly challenge Bruce to a fight. He always politely declined and moved on. First rule of Bruce’s fight club was don’t fight — unless there is no other option. He felt no need to prove himself. He knew who he was and that the real fight wasn’t on the mat, it was on the screen in creating opportunities for Asians to be seen as more than grinning stereotypes. Unfortunately, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood prefers the good old ways.

- Kareem Abdul Jabbar
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...antinos-movie-disrespects-him-1232544

“I understand this is a Tarantino film, that the movie characters are ‘antiheroes’ and this has his characteristic style and is another of his rage fantasies,” she said. “While I understand that the mechanism in the story is to make Brad Pitt’s character out to be such a badass that he can beat up Bruce Lee, the script treatment of my father as this arrogant, egotistical punching bag was really disheartening — and, I feel, unnecessary.”

...

Shannon Lee said it’s disheartening to see her father portrayed as an arrogant blowhard, because in truth, as an Asian-American in 1960s Hollywood, he had to work much harder to succeed than Booth and Rick Dalton (Leonardo Dicaprio), the fictional, white protagonists of the film.

...

“But I think he was directed to be a caricature,”



-Bruce Lee's Daughter
https://www.thewrap.com/bruce-lee-dau...upon-a-time-in-hollywood-shannon-lee/



^If the Bruce Lee thing were a stand alone incident, it would be one thing. But Tarantino is clearly has a tendency to portray Asians in racist ways. Note that Tarantino creates a hierarchy in the Asian Yazuka where Asian Women are head and shoulders above the Asian men or the "Crazy 88s". Lucy Liu > Gogo > HalfAsian/Half French Woman > Asian Males that have no individuality (wear masks) and are inept. Uma Thurman's character easily disposes of the inept Asian males, but is almost defeated by the attractive Asian teenage girl with the flail // Lucy Liu. 1 Asian Woman > 88 Asian males. Not racist at all.

Notice the stark contrast in Tarantino's message compared to films such as "Django Unchained" and "Inglorious Basterds".

Tarantino is an example of how Hollywood is "Deeply Racist" (As dumbfuck Loco would say) against Asians and Asian Americans, and most specifically targeted against the Asian Patriarchy.

So let me get this clear....

Tarantino is racist towards Asians because he is making fun of patriarchy?

Also Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was a caricature of the entire Hollywood, making fun of all those roles was the entire point of the movie. If they thought that "John Wayne" type of character was pointing towards virtues they have little to no clue what Tarantino is all about, he was continuously trashing the entire Hollywood industry via various references e.g. characters making fun of spaghetti western movies even though they were the most quality westerns ever made.

All these comments leave me with the impression that these people had no idea what the movie was about at all... and they exposed themselves

Edit:
Also is it me or didn't we have this exact same conversation when the movie came out

On August 03 2020 12:35 Spitfiree wrote: So let me get this clear.... Tarantino is racist towards Asians because he is making fun of patriarchy? Also Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was a caricature of the entire Hollywood, making fun of all those roles was the entire point of the movie. If they thought that "John Wayne" type of character was pointing towards virtues they have little to no clue what Tarantino is all about, he was continuously trashing the entire Hollywood industry via various references e.g. characters making fun of spaghetti western movies even though they were the most quality westerns ever made. All these comments leave me with the impression that these people had no idea what the movie was about at all... and they exposed themselves Edit: Also is it me or didn't we have this exact same conversation when the movie came out

'

I'm not going to have a conversation with someone who is not going to try and make honest arguments. Being poor is no excuse for being a communist and a racist.