How to Make Trillions of Dollars • Hacker News Board

Re: How to Make Trillions of Dollars

#131

Post by numeromancer » Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 5:34 PM UTC

hxa7241 wrote: post #126

jacoblyles wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Now, it has long been understood, very well, that a society that is based on this principle will destroy itself in time. Bullshit. A society based on the principles of the free market will create unprecedented human health and prosperity[1]. Anti-capitalists are anti-human. I wonder if the billion or so people that climbed out of poverty over the last decade thanks to global capitalism would change Chomsky's mind a…

Chomsky is not anti-capitalist in the sense of proposing some particular complete replacement of it (as one might infer from your comment). He carefully avoids what is not well understood. Would you say capitalism is perfect? No, of course not. Then surely you will allow people to criticise it.

"Either the general population will take control of its own destiny and will concern itself with community interests..."

So, he understood this very well? I must conclude so since he didn't avoid it. So he could tell me with precision when a "general population" has taken control of "its own destiny"? Whether "it" has "concern[ed] itself with community interests"? Generally, you can provide some measure with which I can find out if Chomsky is right or wrong in these statements?

I think not. Chomsky "carefully avoids" nothing; he treads heavily, makes a lot of noise, and kicks up a dusty fog.

Re: How to Make Trillions of Dollars

#132

Post by zeteo » Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 5:43 PM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #120

zeteo wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the standard Marxist analysis, but it's been refuted since, by Armstrong and others. The Enclosure Acts "kicked" very few people off the land. What they did mostly was to transform poorly utilized common land (marginal pasture, forests, and even some "tragedy of the commons"-style arable land) into extremely productive privately owned plots. The food production increased immensely as a result, which allowed bu…

I'm not arguing that the Enclosure Acts reduced the prosperity of society in aggregate, merely that one of their direct results was that "previously starving peasants moved into the cities" wasn't a free choice on the part of the peasants in many cases. They may have even ended up better off in doing so, but that's different from whether it was voluntary. I don't think you need a Marxist analysis to come to the concl…

The comparison with the US is not appropriate, as we're talking about very different cadastral situations. The US has, at the time, a wide open western frontier, with enormous quantities of fertile arable land freely available. Britain is a country in which all the reasonably fertile land has long been brought under cultivation. Enclosures apply to marginal land (marshes, poor pasture), in which a few semi-squatting, destitute "cottagers" eke out a very desolate existence. This land can be made fertile, but only with a huge investment of capital (e.g. draining). The way the enclosure act works is that the cottagers are paid some meager compensation in exchange for their grazing rights. The landowner then gains exclusive access to his own land, which now becomes profitable for him to invest in, and transform into very productive arable land. Will the landowner work all this land by himself and eat all the produce? Obviously not. Some of the cottagers are hired locally, as farmers on the newly productive land that requires a workforce. Others move to the city, where the price and availability of food become much better as a result of the improvement. Whichever choice they take, they are no longer half-starved, and at least they have a chance to work for a better future. The alternative you seem to be proposing - dispossess the landowner, distribute the marshes among the cottagers - is not practicable, on account of the large amounts of capital needed for improvement, which only the landowner can reasonably obtain.

This being said, I think we agree on two points: the Enclosure Acts increased the pace of urbanization (but I believe it was by providing cheap food, not forced relocation), and they also increased the prosperity of society in aggregate. On my side, I argue that this prosperity registered a net gain for both landowners and the poor classes.

Re: How to Make Trillions of Dollars

#133

Post by matwood » Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 9:14 PM UTC

loewenskind wrote: post #129

matwood wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an interesting point to the attachment of not having things. I might have been on that path until a previous girlfriend brought me back towards balance in the other direction. She convinced me to buy a couch and replace my plastic deck chairs. :) I was thinking more along the lines of how people act differently with stuff. A personal example would be my dslr camera. I purposely bought the least expensive that…

Well, personally my strategy is to try and get things to pay for themselves. I bought the most expensive camera I could in the hope that some day I could sell a few photos. Passive income is, after all, the holy grail. So if I'm taking photos for a hobby anyway, maybe this hobby can start paying for itself. I wouldn't want to engage in an expensive hobby that didn't even have that potential.

Unless there is a certain feature you needed a more expensive camera for (higher fps for sports photography for example) photos are much more the photographer than the camera. Glass is a much better place to spend money than on a camera body.

The professional photographers I know or even the guys who just sell pictures on the side use relatively inexpensive equipment compared to what is available for sale.

Re: How to Make Trillions of Dollars

#134

Post by radu_floricica » Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 9:48 PM UTC

gritzko wrote: post #114

radu_floricica wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the only practical application is manipulating it Or improve it?

Manipulation is simpler and pays better.

The proper answer is a bit longer. When you have more then one entity with this knowledge, sooner or later you're going to have an arms race. Which has, as a byproduct, all sides getting better and better.

So it's not really a question of one or the other. Having manipulation will, long term, lead to corresponding vaccination.

Re: How to Make Trillions of Dollars

#135

Post by anthonyb » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 12:59 AM UTC

zeteo wrote: post #118

_delirium wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The poor themselves decided en masse to move from village to city at the time In many cases they hardly "decided"; they were en masse kicked off the land, so had no real choice. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclosure_Acts

That's the standard Marxist analysis, but it's been refuted since, by Armstrong and others. The Enclosure Acts "kicked" very few people off the land. What they did mostly was to transform poorly utilized common land (marginal pasture, forests, and even some "tragedy of the commons"-style arable land) into extremely productive privately owned plots. The food production increased immensely as a result, which allowed bu…

Happy, well-fed, unevicted peasants don't riot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure#Enclosure_riots

And people in the east end of London were most certainly not well fed: http://london.sonoma.edu/Writings/PeopleOfTheAbyss/chapter25...

Please try not to be so knee-jerk dismissive of everything that doesn't fit into your free market viewpoint.

Re: How to Make Trillions of Dollars

#136

Post by joe_the_user » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 2:25 AM UTC

lsc wrote: post #102

AnthonBerg wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, well put. There is of course no Intention of The Man to ingeniously swap margarine in for butter, but the gravity of profit margins will tend to pull reality that way. It usually does.

I'd bet you five bucks that whole foods has better margin on it's "whole" butter than the safeway where I shop has on it's cheap off-brand margarine.

But that doesn't change the overall situation.

First you bought butter whose "realness" and "wholeness" wasn't in question and didn't cost extra. Then you bought margarine that "better" and cheaper. Only then you realize that you were being sold a unhealthy (trans-fat-filled) fake. So you people went and bought yet another product, "whole", "real" butter!

As far as margins go, they're being chased down by competition, which exactly there always needs to be new products, as above.

Re: How to Make Trillions of Dollars

#137

Post by joe_the_user » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 2:26 AM UTC

lsc wrote: post #102

AnthonBerg wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, well put. There is of course no Intention of The Man to ingeniously swap margarine in for butter, but the gravity of profit margins will tend to pull reality that way. It usually does.

I'd bet you five bucks that whole foods has better margin on it's "whole" butter than the safeway where I shop has on it's cheap off-brand margarine.

But that doesn't change the overall situation.

First you bought butter whose "realness" and "wholeness" wasn't in question and didn't cost extra. Then you bought margarine that "better" and cheaper. Only then you realize that you were being sold a unhealthy (trans-fat-filled) fake. So you people went and bought yet another product, "whole", "real" butter!

As far as margins go, they're being chased down by competition, which exactly there always needs to be new products, as above.

Re: How to Make Trillions of Dollars

#138

Post by ttttannebaum » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 3:07 AM UTC

You can call Chuck Palaniuk an overrated writer all you want, but this is what Fight Club is about and did a good job of illustrating.

Re: How to Make Trillions of Dollars

#139

Post by ttttannebaum » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 3:29 AM UTC

fleitz wrote: post #84

In all honesty Tyler Durden summed it up much more succinctly, "Working jobs we hate to buy shit we don't need." Reminds me of the Vampire Weekend song Kids Don't Stand a Chance. Particularly the verse: I didn't like the business But that was at first glance Your pillow feels so soft now But still you must advance In particular I think he hits it perfectly on the head with the idea that 'the man' just doesn't know an…

Illustrated even nicer by this comic: http://buttersafe.com/2011/01/27/traps/

Re: How to Make Trillions of Dollars

#140

Post by ttttannebaum » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 3:32 AM UTC

jacoblyles wrote: post #32

Hey guys, it has been too long since our last self-righteous anti-consumerist circle-jerk. This one is good! You can smell the smarminess right through the screen. We live in a time where the individual has more freedom to do what he wants with his life than ever before. When people live longer, survive perviously unsurvivable diseases, and can get by with the least work. When the glorious knowledge produced by human…

You confuse criticism of freedom with criticism of stupidity. Some people just want higher standards of critical thinking. Is that so childishly anti-progress, or whatever you'd call someone like me, who thinks people should be maybe just a little smarter about what they consume? You come off as dogmatic yourself in defense of consumerism. Capitalism can still exist if people aren't stupid sheep, you know.