[kj] OT-ish: Top 10 Conspiracy Theories (one ofJaz's favesison here)

[Brendan Quinn]

Capitalism has built-in inefficiencies.if you have 12 companies making
widgets, that's 12 factories, HR / marketing / IT / sales / management teams
/ car fleets etc. Hence as I was saying before, there are efficiency
advantages to having a monopoly (such as The State), but generally the
efficiencies turn into profit distributed to shareholders, not savings to
the consumer. 

 

Same with cellphone networks.it's a waste of resources to have too many
(beyond additional coverage and redundancy.), along with health effects etc.
But it's seen as a good thing for the consumer. To me it's a bunch of
mindless activity.use the analogy of a wartime economy. One country vs
another. You're not going to leave anything to market forces, because it's
more efficient to organise from the top down. And the level of output is
extremely high. 

 

At the end of the day, what's more inefficient.a government-owned company
that admittedly is going to be less competitive than 'industry' - or an
industry that's inefficient in the amount of redundant resources built in by
nature of multiple competitors and in the sense of fuelling consumerism for
no reason other than profit (making goods without much inherent value). 

 

Think of all the banking, marketing, legal, PR etc overheads in capitalism.
I don't think it's efficient in that sense. 

  _____  

From: gathering-bounces at misera.net [mailto:gathering-bounces at misera.net] On
Behalf Of GREG SLAWSON
Sent: Monday, 1 June 2009 10:06 a.m.
To: gathering
Subject: Re: [kj] OT-ish: Top 10 Conspiracy Theories (one ofJaz's favesison
here)

 

I totally disagree that the problem w/business/capital is greed a-holes.
That's what we hear on the news all the time (Bernie Madoff, etc) While it
is certainly true, it is not at all the main problem. Capitalism has a
built-in need to make the maximum profit (b/c if a company doesn't, the next
one will, and try to drive them out of business). And the main way to make
maximim profit is to keep wages/benefits low and productivity high. And if
that doesn't work to well, they just lay people off. In fact, capitalism
would probably fall apart w/o some sort of unemployment (which also keeps
wages lower).
 

  _____  

Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 16:47:21 -0700
From: saulomar1 at yahoo.com
To: gathering at misera.net
Subject: Re: [kj] OT-ish: Top 10 Conspiracy Theories (one ofJaz's faves ison
here)


> ...in fact the capital could come from a collective whether that be tribe

or government or co-op or whatever.

 

True - but in practice, up to a point: morality aside**, when's the last
time you've seen a collective of some sort achieve the same economic results
as a similar business/entrepreneurial analogue? Keeping in mind that a
business venture has to be - and remain in perpetuity 1) profitable, and 2)
an ongoing concern, which in today's conditions leads to an endless set of
necessities and goals.

 

** I say 'morality aside' because I find it nonsensical for anyone to 

   condemn an inanimate idea, construct, or concept for a quality that 

   is uniquely human, so I leave that out.

 

For example, can the unions or tribes duplicate the same results on an equal
scale as the Big 3 car companies did (before the stupid shitnanigans began)
1) per employee, 2) per unit produced, and 3) also achieving the same long
term goals and measures as the Big 3? Maybe they can, maybe not, but my
question and bias is, "when's the last time anyone saw that done?" and, how
likely is it to happen at any given moment. 

 

There's a lot to be said, and plenty of justification for, 1) a private,
centralized, and economically oriented effort to get things done (w/in
reason and morals, of course), and 2) specialization and concentration of
efforts and abilities as bundled in a business, NGO, a gov't., union, or
similar groupings. You're right, it may not be "inherently necessary," but
without it, it's hard to see other existing examples that give the same
results. 

The thing wrong with Big Business and capital per se' are the abusive
a-holes who ride it roughshod over the people, but then that's now a moral
issue, not a business issue.  How can an inanimate
idea/thing/construct/quality(i.e. "profit," budget cuts,etc.) be morally
judged ("profit is bad," "tax oppresion is good", etc.) 

 

P.S. And aren't tribes, governments, etc. (co-ops or unions.. not so much)
jsut as often hijacked by the same type of a-hole morality that Big Business
is? So how can one assume any additional safety in them? Or maybe I am just
too distrustful.

 

 

 

 

... ... ... ... ... ... 


[looking at the current state of things..]

 

'Save me...

  save me from Tomorrow..

    I don't want to sail in this Ship Of Fools...'   

 

 

 

  _____  

From: Brendan Quinn <bq at soundgardener.co.nz>
To: A list about all things Killing Joke (the band!) <gathering at misera.net>
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 7:56:37 PM
Subject: Re: [kj] OT-ish: Top 10 Conspiracy Theories (one ofJaz's faves ison
here)

To the extent that a capitalist can provide these vitals for the worker, he
is entitled to profit from it.

 

The assumption in this is that the capitalist providing the capital is
inherently necessary, when in fact the capital could come from a collective
whether that be tribe or government or co-op or whatever.in which case,
theoretically, the total reward of production is distributed amongst the
participants, perhaps evenly. Capitalist companies are forced through
competition to compete as effectively as possible, meaning the lowest
possible wages, to create the highest profit / profitability / market share
etc (whatever combination will make the company more powerful and
competitive). This leads to capital heading to countries that have the
lowest standard of living of workers. China and India . It can therefore be
argued that capitalism and the profit motive are negative and result in
modern day slavery.at least without proper regulation / controls. 

 

And the issue with those controls is that capitalists use lobby groups,
media / PR, bribery, anti-competitive behaviour, illegal behaviour etc to
reduce 'natural' Ayn- Rand-perfect-self-correcting-market competitiveness,
i.e. Intel recently being busted for 1.4B Euros for making deals with
customers to only stock their products. So that's another problem with
capitalism.it's inherently monopolistic. Look at a lot of the rich
lists.there is an over-representation of people / companies who have a) sewn
up one particular market or a good chunk of it. Then they can milk it for
'superprofit'.the ultimate goal of capitalism.

 

  _____  

From: gathering-bounces at misera.net [mailto:gathering-bounces at misera.net] On
Behalf Of sade1
Sent: Sunday, 31 May 2009 12:28 p.m.
To: A list about all things Killing Joke (the band!)
Subject: Re: [kj] OT-ish: Top 10 Conspiracy Theories (one ofJaz's faves ison
here)

 


> profit means how much of what you produce profit means how much of what

you produce someone else TAKES from the people who produced it. it. 

 

That use of the word  "profit" is off a bit. 

Profit is also when either 1) all factors (including pay) being equal, extra
product/service/cash is produced, or when extra gain is had over an increase
in costs (usu. to create said gain).  Profit "after payroll" is a separate,
though related, item, and it doesn't need someone else to "take" it from
someone in order to define it as such; it can also stay w/the original
producer and still be profit, so, Profit per se' is not bad at all. To
condemn it, demand it back or even to "take' it from someone who may never
have "taken" (read, stolen) it from you in the first place makes a person a
thief. 

 


> ..profit means how much of what you produce someone else TAKES from the

people who produced it. 

 

..the way you wrote it made profit sound intrinsically evil and only as the
result of someone stealing from someone else. "Ill-gotten gains," etc. 

 


>  I think people are more productive when less is taken from them. 


 

Yes but only to a point; there is a practical "floor" to that. There are
indispensable, minimum necessities and conditions that need to be met that
cannot be met by the average worker alone (plant, tools, proper management,
etc.) in order for the worker to produce, even if only to his usual level of
satisfaction (meaning, pay/benefits as profit of the worker). To the extent
that a capitalist can provide these vitals for the worker, he is entitled to
profit from it.

 


> in fact a large part of what we do or make is legally stolen by the

boss/owner.

 

How can one gauge what is legitimate profit for the boss/owner, and at what
point the rest of it just robbery?

 


> Don't you feel more productive when working for yourself..


 

Yes, but to a point, depending.  I've had well paying jobs where I've
forgone the opportunity to work for myself because after comparing the two,
at that time, my employer offered me better conditions and facilities to
earn a living, so again, it depends**. Peopel are not universally "forced"
to work for others. 

 

** it's not always better to work for yourself. 

   Think "safety in numbers," "economies of scale," unionizing, lobbying,
etc.etc.et.c.

 

 

   So I get what you're saying and I agree more than I don't, but as you
present these things, a lot of people would feel entitled to lash out and
fuck people up and take more than was taken from them "just because..."
There's a fallacy among  the unwashed Masses, the vulgar Rabble (j/k of
course) that "because I am oppressed, i am therefore 1) entitled to act-out
'however' I want, and 2) I can do NO WRONG." 

 

   My own "boots on the ground" p.o.v.: when we had riots here in Los
Angeles and people were eyeing both my dad's business and my family's home
and cars to see what they can, um,  'get away with' (because, ya know, they
were 'downtrodden and oppresed' ergo entitled), if my dad still owned his
set of guns, I would've taken one or two and gone to the rooftop of his
office or our home and start popping off any of those "entitled" types who
would've dared break in and threaten us, most of all because 1) I do know
that my fam' has worked hard and honestly for those things, and 2) because
the way they were "understanding**" the issue of their 'oppression' wasn't
gonna leave much room for them to give a fuck about my family's safety.  

 

**meaning, how the issues are misstated and misconstrued.

   

   Yet to a lot of htose rioters the simple fact that my folks had honestly
profited from both Business and Labor (theirs and others'), nevertheless
automatically made my family capitalists, Robber Barons, Landed Aristocracy,
whatever sounds right to beat up on.

 

   Shit this ran on too long. D'Oh!

 

... ... ... ... ... ... 


[looking at the current state of things..]

 

'Save me...

  save me from Tomorrow..

    I don't want to sail in this Ship Of Fools...'   

 

 

 

  _____  

From: GREG SLAWSON <gregslawson at msn.com>
To: gathering <gathering at misera.net>
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 6:31:54 PM
Subject: Re: [kj] OT-ish: Top 10 Conspiracy Theories (one ofJaz's faves is
on here)

It sounds like you're confusing profit and productivity. Productivity means
how quickly/efficiently you produce stuff (goods and services); profit means
how much of what you produce someone else TAKES from the people who produced
it. I think people are more productive when less is taken from them. The
trick here is that when we work for a wage it seems like we're getting
something, when in fact a large part of what we do or make is legally stolen
by the boss/owner. Don't you feel more productive when working for yourself
(fixing your house up), friends (helping someone move), or family (cooking
at home, reading to your kids) than working for your fuckhead boss?
 

  _____  

Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 16:18:03 -0700
From: saulomar1 at yahoo.com
To: gathering at misera.net
Subject: Re: [kj] OT-ish: Top 10 Conspiracy Theories (one ofJaz's faves is
on here)


> all the more need to end profit and just produce things simple for USE.


But Profit per se' aka productivity is indispensable and justified. We'd
never have 

gotten out of the caves without it, if you think about it (even though we
may very well 

be forced back into the caves because of (also our sociopathic immaturity
towards) it.).


If all we only did was replace what we use, we never would've come out of
the caves in the first place. 

 

..just sayin'..... 

 

 

 

in local news.. damn, someone's backyard party is blasting, yep, Lady Gaga's
"Poker Face". Must notify Brendan.

 

 

... ... ... ... ... ... 


[looking at the current state of things..]

 

'Save me...

  save me from Tomorrow..

    I don't want to sail in this Ship Of Fools...'   

 

 

 

  _____  

From: GREG SLAWSON <gregslawson at msn.com>
To: gathering <gathering at misera.net>
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 12:30:11 PM
Subject: Re: [kj] OT-ish: Top 10 Conspiracy Theories (one ofJaz's faves is
on here)

Bankers? Actually, the "ruling class" is made up of all kids of people who
usually serve in government, private industry, academia, and sit on all kids
of boards of directors, belong to major think tanks (Council on Foreign
Relations, Trilateral Commision, etc). And you got the point about business
moving on to more profitable things right--so all the more need to end
profit and just produce things simple for USE.
 

  _____  

Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 19:34:50 +0100
From: ade at the-lab.zetnet.co.uk
To: gathering at misera.net
Subject: Re: [kj] OT-ish: Top 10 Conspiracy Theories (one ofJaz's faves is
on here)

Revolution. Who do you suggest we start killing first?

 

Take the profit out of oil & big business will move on to something else
with a larger profit margin.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: gathering-bounces at misera.net [mailto:gathering-bounces at misera.net]On
Behalf Of GREG SLAWSON
Sent: 30 May 2009 18:30
To: gathering
Subject: Re: [kj] OT-ish: Top 10 Conspiracy Theories (one ofJaz's faves is
on here)

The main way to affect climate change is not the bullshit we hear in the
media about everyone turning off a light, but by forcing the capitalists
(who care nothing about the planet, only about making immediate short-term
profits) to abandon their oil, gas, and coal industries and switch to solar,
wind, etc. And since that it not immediately profitable for them to do this,
the only way to get this done is through revolutions!

 


  _____  


From: stephen.l at live.com
To: gathering at misera.net
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 12:43:06 +0000
Subject: Re: [kj] OT-ish: Top 10 Conspiracy Theories (one of Jaz's faves is
on here)

to all those concerned about climate change just try not to contribute to it
in whatever way and however small that contibution may be 
 

> Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 00:49:21 +0100

> From: ade at the-lab.zetnet.co.uk

> To: gathering at misera.net

> Subject: Re: [kj] OT-ish: Top 10 Conspiracy Theories (one of Jaz's faves

is on here)

> 

> Can't say I'm not concerned about ice-fields full of methane & defrosting

permafrost...

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: gathering-bounces at misera.net

> [mailto:gathering-bounces at misera.net]On Behalf Of B. Oliver Sheppard

> Sent: 30 May 2009 00:44

> To: A list about all things Killing Joke (the band!)

> Subject: Re: [kj] OT-ish: Top 10 Conspiracy Theories (one of Jaz's faves

> is on here)

> 

> 

> Even if one thinks Al Gore and/or his movie are full of crap, that 

> doesn't mean climate change is. Al Gore and climate change are obviously 

> two different things. The idea of climate change isn't false just 

> because Al Gore's movie might suck. (I wouldn't know, I haven't seen 

> it.) I hope I am preaching to the converted! :D

> 

> -Oliver

> 

> 

> Darren A. Peace wrote:

> >

> > Oh, just read Crichton's State Of Fear for an eminently reasonable, 

> > non paranoid expose of the fallacy that is global warming...

> >

> > Actually, it's a pretty perfect example of thrusting your own head so 

> > far up your arse you can't hear or see a thing.

> >

> > Darren

> >

> > Hungerford , UK

> >

> > *From:* gathering-bounces at misera.net 

> > [mailto:gathering-bounces at misera.net] *On Behalf Of *sade1

> > *Sent:* 29 May 2009 8:52 PM

> > *To:* A list about all things Killing Joke (the band!)

> > *Subject:* Re: [kj] OT-ish: Top 10 Conspiracy Theories (one of Jaz's 

> > faves is on here)

> >

> > OK, I'll bite: why is Al Gore's movie (incovenient truth?) crap?

> >

> 

> _______________________________________________

> Gathering mailing list

> Gathering at misera.net

> http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering

> 

> 

> _______________________________________________

> Gathering mailing list

> Gathering at misera.net

> http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering



  _____  


Windows Live Messenger just got better. Find out more!
<http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665230/direct/01/> 


  _____  


HotmailR goes with you. Get
<http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutoria
l_Mobile1_052009>  it on your BlackBerry or iPhone. 

 

  _____  

Windows LiveT: Keep your life in sync. Check
<http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_BR_life_in_synch_052009>  it
out. 

 

  _____  

HotmailR has a new way to see what's up with your friends. Check
<http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/WhatsNew?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutor
ial_WhatsNew1_052009>  it out. 

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.46/2144 - Release Date: 05/30/09
17:53:00



 

  _____  

HotmailR has ever-growing storage! Don't worry about storage limits. Check
it out.
<http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutori
al_Storage1_052009> 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.46/2145 - Release Date: 05/31/09
05:53:00


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://four.pairlist.net/pipermail/gathering/attachments/20090601/d85e336f/attachment.htm>