You don't want to be divided from the miners who extract the minerals and the factory workers who assemble the crappy tech that we design? I do. It's absolutely squalid over there.
You want to trade off positions with those 10 year olds in the quarries? That's fine. I'd rather go home at night to my family, watch The Wire with my wife for the tenth time, and then when everyone goes to sleep I'd like to come here and post on Hacker News. Please report back with your experiences.
I didn't say that, or anything close to it. Funny how in your eyes the only way to not separate yourself from them is to literally do their job. Maybe you can ignore those 10 year olds in the quarries, but I think it's our responsibility to use our positions to improve their situations. It would be kind of neat if there weren't 10 year olds in the quarries, and they could instead go to school, no?
Then who's going to do the mining? Adults? Do you want your iPhone, your car, your video games, your shoes, your plane trips, or not? All that stuff is gonna be "cost prohibitive" if all of these quarry kids go to school and all if these factory workers go home early. Cause: These unfortunate saps work 14 hours a day, eat straw, and have the philosophical thoughts whipped out of their brains. Effect: We live like kings and post all kinds of philosophy online. Don't believe me about this causality? Good, then we can go back to living like kings. You keep posting about ethics, and I'll keep posting about epistemology.
Yes, it should be adults with good compensation. Child labor should never be acceptable to anyone, especially if you reap the rewards as described! I'd rather not live like a king quite as much, and have them have a better life. Or better yet, I'd rather have billionaires not exist and have both of us live like a king.
I don't know about that. I'm on a first name basis with my CTO. I hope to never see in person those wretched souls mining the cobalt for my Tesla. Ghastly!
This is my first time hearing "central sensitization syndrome." I know back ~5 years ago John Sarno's "tension myoneural syndrome" was still the dominant diagnosis in the self-help circles of mindbody illness, and it at least had the mechanism of repression to enrich its explanatory power. Still a far cry from the richness of psychoanalytic theory, but at least it was a move in the right direction after such an epic retreat from Freud. Central sensitization syndrome seems like such a concession to the medical model, which I guess puts it in alignment with the poverty of therapy ("mindfulness," etc.).
Yes, there's a lot of terminology out there to describe this constellation of symptoms/the process of CSS. The sarno stuff is getting a lot more attention these days as "psychopysiologic" therapy. Things are moving in a good direction and I'm hopefull that repression will be characterized neurophysiologically. See the references I posted to another comment.
Well empirically lower demand does not lead to higher prices. The hopes and dreams of sustained profits are dashed by the coercive forces of competition. It's very sad.
Within a single firm, particularly large ones, surpluses and deficits can be communicated absolutely and crises can be practically eliminated. (It would be unthinkable for Amazon to leave the coordination of its processes up to some sort of internal free market.) As for action between firms, the anarchy of the market is fundamental to capitalism. Real competition is a basic characteristic of capitalism and so perfect information is not a tendency of the system (despite its theoretical elevation in neoclassical economics).
So, no, there is no solution. To avoid crises of overproduction (including the subsequent adjustments), the planning that takes place within the capitalist firm has to be extended to the global network of production.
It seems you're advocating for a centrally planned economy, but from history we see that it doesn't work. It seems that there is simply too much in an economy for one entity to wholly plan. It can work in a smaller organization like Amazon (and even then, I'm sure teams compete for allocation of resources, it's not all centrally planned) but not at large. We see that people in centrally planned economies revert to underground black markets, signifying that somehow markets are a key to functioning economies.
There are differences between the systems of a private capital and of a nation (or for that matter, the entire globe, which has never been planned centrally; incidentally this explains black markets).
The difference in goods is a mere quantitative difference. (Amazon sells literally everything.) Still, the amount and diversity of crap managed by Amazon is much greater than that of North Korea (comparing net sales vs. GDP). "It seems that there is simply too much in an economy for one entity to wholly plan" has to be tongue-in-cheek if it's not simply a mindless mantra. It's a staggering ideological contradiction whose poles the Hacker News crowd must oscillate between. On one hand, we're on the cusp of generalized artificial intelligence, and on the other we can't figure out the linear algebra needed to maintain a input-output table that changes over time.
But the difference in competition is a qualitative difference. The laws that determine the "competition" between teams at Amazon are different (opposite, even) than the laws of competition between capitalist firms. This is an empirical question. We can certainly imagine Amazons teams undercutting each other's "prices" in order to maximize private "profit," leading to a centralization and concentration of "capital" in the hands of a "monopolistic" team, but this simply does not happen in practice. The categories of intra-firm operation are totally different than those of inter-firm operation.
Time, as component of the universe, itself "sprang into existence?"
Despite "sprang" being a fantastical word to use in this context, it at least carries with it one thing for sure: a temporal component. "Springing" on its own indicates some sort of motion, which can only take place in time. Furthermore, "sprang" indicates a past tense, so that this "springing" took place at some (primordial) moment in time. According to your account, time presupposes itself.
You're applying the terms of experience to non-experience. The error is in a sophism of figure of speech.
Unfortunately you haven't explained anything at all. All you've demonstrated is that Kant was justified in writing the Antinomy.
Did you read the article? I put "sprang" in quotes for a reason. Speech (and writing) is how we express ourselves, but our languages are biased by the experience of our forebears, and linear time is a part of that bias.
> Before the existence of our universe, there was no time.
This is just a logical error. Unless you're using "before" in some novel way that needs clarifying.
To be clear: The author is saying that the universe has no beginning in time (and no outer bound of space). Once you remove your logical error of presupposing time before time, you are saying that the universe has a beginning in time (and presumably is enclosed within spatial bounds).
Is this not what you're saying?
The esteemed author, in saying confidently that there is no "before" the universe because the universe has no beginning, falls into the same trap that you do but lands on the other side of Kant's Antinomy: the author takes the empiricist stance in the dialectic, and you take the dogmatic stance. But even so, at least the author's stance is amenable to the infinite empirical regression of scientific practice; your stance just "puts speculative reason to slumber."
Reading the first chapter alone (in particular the section on commodity fetishism) will tell you all you need to know about how economists think, because it tells you why economists think. This is a domain of inquiry that is necessary for any science, but that the economists since Marx have ran from for reasons Marx exposed in Capital itself. Notice that the OP article doesn't even try to justify its categories. How do economists think? Marx responds very simply: ideologically, dogmatically.
Marx identifies 5 functions of money in the 3rd chapter of Capital Vol 1 called "Money," not to mention the expanded treatment of money by Capital Vol 3.
They're company companies, meaning that their goal is to make profit, not do something that's "interesting." You can't take Apple seriously when its spokespeople explain the logic that drives its production. It's a load of horseshit. You can't take BP seriously when they says that it's an "energy company" and you can't take Apple seriously when they says that it's a "tech company."
European oil majors invest in "renewables," American oil majors basically do not at all (unless you count carbon sequestration for the purpose of further oil extraction as "renewable"). Here's a source:
If the oil companies were acting in the best interests of the shareholders, they would be all-in on renewables. But US oil companies act in the interest of corporate officers, who are all close to retirement.
For me its more like old 'dinosaur' cooperate mentality slows down r&d on alternatives, maybe its more of a fear taking a major step, while other startups with main focus on green energy taking the field and attention. Yet still countries like Norway recognized this years ago and started investing on green.
