Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

May 05 2015

aren
22:42

April 23 2015

aren
13:45
DAX
Tags: economy
Reposted frome-gruppe e-gruppe viaKobajashi Kobajashi

April 02 2015

aren
09:00

blue-author:

projectivepenteract:

theuppitynegras:

projectivepenteract:

theuppitynegras:

I’m about 90% sure the economy is never gonna “improve” 

this is capitalism in it’s final form

this is it honey 

except, you know, those companies that do a charitable thing for every thing they sell

that’s kinda new and interesting. benevolent capitalism

lmao

Pay attention, class: This is what it looks like when one is unwilling to consider new information.

It’s not new information, though. It’s misinformation.

First, it’s not that new.

Did you know that there was a time in U.S. history—which is by definition recent history—when a corporation was generally intended to have some sort of public interest that they served? I mean, that’s the whole point of allowing corporations to form. Corporations are recognized by the commonwealth or state, and this recognition is not a right but a privilege, in exchange for which the state (representing the people) is allowed to ask, “So what does this do for everyone else?”

The way the economy is now is a direct result of a shift away from this thinking and to one where a corporation is an entity unto itself whose first, last, and only concern is an ever-increasing stream of profits. What you’re calling “benevolent capitalism” isn’t benevolent at all. It’s a pure profit/loss calculation designed to distract from—not even paper over or stick a band-aid on—the problems capitalism creates. And the fact that you’re here championing it as “benevolent capitalism” is a sign of how ell it’s working.

Let’s take Toms, as one example. The shoe that’s a cause. Buy a pair of trendy shoes, and a pair of trendy shoes will be given away to someone somewhere in the world who can’t afford them.

That’s not genuine benevolence. That’s selling you, the consumer, on the idea that you can be benevolent by buying shoes, that the act of purchasing these shoes is an act of charity. The reality is that their model is an inefficient means of addressing the problems on the ground that shoelessness represents, and severely disrupts the local economies of the locations selected for benevolence.

(Imagine what it does to the local shoemakers, for instance.)

The supposed act of charity is just a value add to convince you to spend your money on these shoes instead of some other shoes. It’s no different than putting a prize in a box of cereal.

Heck, you want to see how malevolent this is?

Go ask a multinational corporation that makes shoes or other garments to double the wages of their workers. They’ll tell you they can’t afford it, that it’s not possible, that consumers won’t stand for it, that you’ll drive them out of business and then no one will have wages.

But the fact that a company can give away one item for every item sold shows you what a lie this is. A one-for-one giving model represents double the cost of labor and materials for each unit that is sold for revenue. Doubling wages would only double the labor.

So why are companies willing to give their products away (and throw them away, destroy unused industry with bleach and razors to render them unsalvageable, et cetera) but they’re not willing to pay their workers more?

Because capitalism is the opposite of benevolence.

"Charity" is by definition exemplary, above and beyond, extraordinary, extra. "Charity" is not something that people are entitled to. You give people a shirt or shoes or some food and call it charity, and you’re setting up an expectation that you can and will control the stream of largesse in the future, and anything and everything you give should be considered a boon from on high.

On the other hand, once you start paying your workers a higher wage, you’re creating an expectation. You’re admitting that their labor is more valuable to you than you were previously willing to admit, and it’s hard to walk that back.

Plus, when people have enough money for their basic needs, they’re smarter and stronger and warier and more comfortable with pushing back instead of being steamrolled over. They have time and money to pursue education. They can save money up and maybe move away. They can escape from the system that depends on a steady flow of forced or near-forced labor.

So companies will do charitable “buy one, give one” and marketing “buy one, get one” even though these things by definition double the overhead per unit, but they won’t do anything that makes a lasting difference in the standard of living for the people.

Capitalism has redefined the world so that the baseline of ethics is “How much money can we make?” and every little good deed over and above that is saintly.

But there’s nothing benevolent about throwing a scrap of bread to someone who’s starving in a ditch because you ran them out of their home in the first place.

Fuck Yeah Diomedes
Reposted fromlordminx lordminx viaacid acid

June 04 2014

aren
05:07

April 04 2014

aren
19:46

January 03 2014

aren
16:24
Der Bahnkunde als Feind
Reposted fromschwa schwa viaFreXxX FreXxX

November 09 2013

aren
10:37
It is not just scientists who enjoy technically rigorous speculation, though. Economists have investigated interstellar travel as well. One of the best-known papers was written by Paul Krugman, a trade theorist, in 1978, in between his duties as an “oppressed assistant professor”. “The Theory of Interstellar Trade” describes itself as “a serious analysis of a ridiculous subject, which is of course the opposite of what is usual in economics”.
Tags: economy paper
Reposted bylordminx lordminx

September 25 2013

aren
08:19
Auf jedenfall waren die #piraten+ finanztastisch die effizientesten Wahlkaempfer
Reposted fromnvm nvm viagingerglue gingerglue

September 17 2013

aren
18:57

Abrupt rise of new machine ecology beyond human response time : Scientific Reports : Nature Publishing Group

Society's techno-social systems are becoming ever faster and more computer-orientated. However, far from simply generating faster versions of existing behaviour, we show that this speed-up can generate a new behavioural regime as humans lose the ability to intervene in real time. Analyzing millisecond-scale data for the world's largest and most powerful techno-social system, the global financial market, we uncover an abrupt transition to a new all-machine phase characterized by large numbers of subsecond extreme events. The proliferation of these subsecond events shows an intriguing correlation with the onset of the system-wide financial collapse in 2008. Our findings are consistent with an emerging ecology of competitive machines featuring ‘crowds’ of predatory algorithms, and highlight the need for a new scientific theory of subsecond financial phenomena.
Tags: paper economy

September 12 2013

22:22

Study reveals 'true' material cost of development - BBC News

Study reveals ’true’ material cost of development - BBC News
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23931590

The way we measure exports from China at present doesn’t account for all the raw materials that are used in production says the study

Current methods of measuring the full material cost of imported goods are highly inaccurate say researchers.

In a new study, they found that three times as many raw materials are used to process and export traded goods than are used in their manufacture.

The researchers used a new model that looked at metal ores, biomass, fossil fuels and construction materials to produce what they say is a more comprehensive picture of the “material footprint” of 186 countries over a 20 year period.

In 2008, around 70bn tonnes of raw materials were extracted worldwide but just 10bn tonnes were physically traded. Over 40% were used to enable the processing and export of these materials.

“By relying on current indicators, governments are not able to see the true extent of resource consumption,” said Dr Tommy Wiedmann from the University of New South Wales.

#matériaux #consommation #transport

Reposted fromcheg00 cheg00 viageo404 geo404

May 21 2013

aren
17:26

1996 – das Jahr, als Europa das erste Mal starb



Der Nachkriegskonsens der Bundesrepublik…


"Dieser Konsens ging ungefähr so: Produziert ein VW-Arbeiter – nach dem Kauf neuer Maschinen – statt 5 Autos an einem Tag 10 Autos, kann VW mit einem Schlag mehr davon verkaufen. VW verdient also mehr, weil die Produktivität der Arbeiter gestiegen ist. Die Einnahmen wachsen aber auch dann, wenn die Preise steigen.

Beides erhöht den Kuchen, den Arbeitnehmer und Arbeitgeber untereinander aufteilen können. Steigen Löhne und Gehälter in einer Volkswirtschaft genauso stark wie Arbeitsproduktivität und Preise (also die Inflation), dann wird der Kuchen genau so aufgeteilt, dass alle gleichmäßig etwas vom wachsenden Wohlstand abbekommen."

… ist seit 1996 Geschichte


"Vielleicht hat Draghi genau wie wir Ossis längst vergessen, was dieser Nachkriegskonsens einmal war. Wer es nicht glaubt, dass es so etwas tatsächlich gegeben hat, der sollte sich folgende Grafik anschauen:

130514 de prod

Bereits seit 1996 ist Schluss mit lustig in Deutschland: Die (nominale) Lohnentwicklung blieb drastisch hinter dem Zuwachs von Produktivität plus moderater Inflation (1,5 Prozent im Durchschnitt) zurück. Regelmäßig wurde der Kuchen also zugunsten der Arbeitgeber aufgeteilt und das summiert sich über die Jahre."

weitwinkelsubjektiv.com

Reposted fromschwa schwa viatowser towser

December 31 2012

aren
08:44
Right-wing think tanks can have Rand (even if she had little use for them). In the academy, she is a nonperson. Her theories are works of fiction. Her works of fiction are theories, and bad ones at that. Should the Republicans actually win in 2012, we might need to study her in the academic world. It would be for the same reason we sometimes need to study creationism.
The Ridiculous Rise of Ayn Rand - The Conversation - The Chronicle of Higher Education

December 27 2011

aren
10:22
8256 1952 390
Bruttoinlandsprodukt deutscher Bundesländer verglichen mit dem anderer Staaten.
Reposted fromkernrot kernrot viafrell frell

December 16 2011

aren
09:21
Bahn fahren vs. Sparen
Tags: economy
Reposted fromacid acid viabesen besen
Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl