I'm surprised no one has mentioned mixi.jp which is a bit like a Japanese Facebook.

HonyakuJoshua Wrote:I'm surprised no one has mentioned mixi.jp which is a bit like a Japanese Facebook.

What's that got to do with capitalism?

HonyakuJoshua Wrote:I'm surprised no one has mentioned mixi.jp which is a bit like a Japanese Facebook.

Jarvik7 Wrote:As for advice on locations, mixi is the only realistic place to look. Deai-kei sites exist but the vast majority are scam sites or legit sites mostly populated by 3rd party scammers.

Also, mixi requires a keitai mail address to sign up, so unless you're in Japan you're pretty much screwed.

thecite Wrote:

HonyakuJoshua Wrote:I'm surprised no one has mentioned mixi.jp which is a bit like a Japanese Facebook.

Jarvik7 Wrote:As for advice on locations, mixi is the only realistic place to look. Deai-kei sites exist but the vast majority are scam sites or legit sites mostly populated by 3rd party scammers.

Also, mixi requires a keitai mail address to sign up, so unless you're in Japan you're pretty much screwed.

You can sign up if you have a .EDU email.

@zigmonty I loled

@jarvik7 sorry I missed your post I love your kanji and am trying to find out how it is read.

EDIT: it isn't a kanji it is a Chinese character.

HonyakuJoshua Wrote:@jarvik7 sorry I missed your post I love your kanji and am trying to find out how it is read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bi%C3%A1ngb...ng_noodles

Back to Capitalism:
Because IceCream is a primatologist, I thought I would mention a BBC documentary I heard about the dwindling numbers of critically endangered orangutan in Kalimantan. These are being killed to make way for oil plantations, either through lose of habitat, or through being shot. This is not a problem of market failure -the market is (by one set of measures) ruthlessly efficient at producing palm oil - rather, it is a value / paradigm failure. The intrinsic value of the orangutans lies outside of, and cannot be captured by, market economics and thus is not commensurable with a market based system. Regulations, or traditionally a strong social taboo, are thus required to tame the market. How this is best done is of course another debate. Solutions may contain elements of market thinking (ie seeing orangutans as a tourist resource) but these exist only as elements within a non-market framework. The orangutans die in a system where only market logic prevails.

@HonyakuJoshua
Wow, 6001 kanji! I had wondered about Jarvik7's avatar / kanji as well. I always read it as Jarvik7.

Icecream Wrote:but how much autonomy are you really willing to let companies have?

Any government regulation of business is likely to hurt small/medium sized businesses more than the multinationals. This is because large corporations have vastly more influence and capital they can use to get around it, or lobby to have regulations changed in favourable (to them) ways. Business regulation just makes it harder for the little guys to compete and thus contributes to the formation of monopolies.

Icecream Wrote:Business "morality" is always driven by profit. So are you fine with there being no holidays, 15 hour work days, no weekends? Because that would make more profit. There's always some line you have to draw between profits and personal life of employees. There's a certain quality of life that isn't bought with money, but just by having free time.

Yes businesses are primarily motivated by profit. Businesses succeed by providing products and service that people want or think they need not necessarily what is good for them. Is a business morally obligated to run at a loss to provide services that benefit society? What if nobody wants them? Who decides what is beneficial? Bureaucrats or consumers? Are businesses morally obligated to run at a loss to provide you with a job? or a salary above what you could reasonably negotiate elsewhere?

Workers are also motivated by profit. When available, they switch jobs to one that provides a provides more money/free time/enjoyment.

Icecream Wrote:Saying that people can always go and start their own business at least requires some regulation on equality of borrowing money. Banks owned by white owners under an apartheid regime don't freely lend to black people.

Equality of borrowing? are you serious? Supposing you had a spare $50k sitting around, would you loan it to a business owner or a beggar at a train station?

Now I don't know about apartheid but I presume they had determined that the loans would not have been repaid, ie. business decisions. Irrational discrimination would have caused them to lose business to black owned banks. Regulation would likely hurt the black banks most in such a situation.

I had left this post half written, and just got back to it, but have forgotten what I was writing.

I edited my post to say it isn't a kanji but a Chinese character - you can't actually input it in unicode! I wonder if there is anyway of typing it...

nadiatims Wrote:Supposing you had a spare $50k sitting around, would you loan it to a business owner or a beggar at a train station?

Considering the mess Fred the Shred made probably the beggar.

Icecream Wrote:If the governments had taxed business more rather than borrowing so much, there wouldn't be the ever escalating problem of higher interest on bonds leading to higher risk of default, leading to higher interest on bonds.

Taxing big business more hurts a country's economy and increases unemployment. In the long run it will hurt the GDP, and decrease government revenues. If you tax less and more equitably, business can thrive, unemployment drops and you increase your base of tax payers leading to increased government revenues. We should treat our governments like a business and not be so keen to hand it money. Why is the government borrowing so much money?

Quote:We should treat our governments like a business and not be so keen to hand it money. Why is the government borrowing so much money?

That's the most efficient way to improve the lives of the people of the country. But that's not a concern for Americans. Freedom is more important. Even when you're below poverty line.

I really don't want to get into politics but this is just...

nadiatims Wrote:Taxing big business more hurts a country's economy and increases unemployment. In the long run it will hurt the GDP, and decrease government revenues. If you tax less and more equitably, business can thrive, unemployment drops and you increase your base of tax payers leading to increased government revenues.

The US government has been taxing big business and the rich less and LESS over the decades and look where it has gotten us. Much of the wealth sits disproportionately with the wealthy now and unemployment has been at record highs, currently 8% (but I argue 15-16%). You assume that by cutting taxes it encourages companies to hirer more workers because they have more capital to work with. But if your populace is struggling to make ends meet and is worrying about job security then they aren't consuming. Demand drops and corporations will then scale back production and workforce because its not in their best interest to keep excess workers so they lay people off, increasing unemployment and further offsetting demand. In the meantime businesses will shore up capital because it makes no sense for them to spend it if they won't be making anything profit from it. So you have a deadly loop that continues until the country sinks into depression. There really isn't a "free market" solution to this. The best option is to have the government inject stimulus into the economy by employing people and providing ample capital for people start their own businesses. But the government is broke as shit because they have been cutting taxes and allowing the wealthy to keep more and more money ever since the Reagen years, so they can't enact any plans that will actually jump start the economy.

Quote:We should treat our governments like a business and not be so keen to hand it money. Why is the government borrowing so much money?

Because there is no revenue (ie: taxes) for the government to pay their bills. They've been blowing all their money and raising a massive defecit over the years thanks to 2 wars (ie: defense spending).

nadiatims Wrote:

Icecream Wrote:If the governments had taxed business more rather than borrowing so much, there wouldn't be the ever escalating problem of higher interest on bonds leading to higher risk of default, leading to higher interest on bonds.

Taxing big business more hurts a country's economy and increases unemployment. In the long run it will hurt the GDP, and decrease government revenues. If you tax less and more equitably, business can thrive, unemployment drops and you increase your base of tax payers leading to increased government revenues. We should treat our governments like a business and not be so keen to hand it money. Why is the government borrowing so much money?

Because once the time comes to repay that money someone else will have to deal with it.

To get back to feminism, I think that it's quite idealistic to expect the market to automatically give a fair chance to women. The market failed to do that in the 1950s and actually, before that too. Even today, the market does not give equal chances to women in many countries. Businesses will simply not hire women or will give them much lower pay. So you need some laws and regulations if you want equality.

nadiatims Wrote:Taxing big business more hurts a country's economy and increases unemployment. In the long run it will hurt the GDP, and decrease government revenues.

There are arguments saying that tax cuts don't actually help the economy that much.

Corporate tax cuts don't spur growth, analysis reveals as election pledges fly
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/poli...le1972599/

Companies Shun Investment, Hoard Cash
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...09568.html

I think the question isn't that the markets need regulation but in what form, and how much.

I am not a fan of Keynesian pump priming / big government spending either, and agree most things are best left to the private sector. I used to shudder in the early 90s in Japan as the whole archipelago got increasing littered with costly and unproductive white elephant schemes that would drain further revenue for their upkeep: Concrete in rivers, empty public halls, roads to nowhere (Great cycling though), all draining resources while expenditure that would benefit the citizens was ignored, and small companies were starved for funds.

I know it's an old book now but I guess most people have read Dogs and Demons. I don't agree with everything but I thought Kerr summed up that period perfectly. Ironically our government / local government is getting down with big infrastructure spending here as well while the debt gets racheted up.

vix86 Wrote:You can sign up if you have a .EDU email.

Nope, they disabled that ages ago.

it is quite easy to imagine market economy which is terrible for women: trafficking, prostitution, and exploited Chinese factory workers come to mind.

HonyakuJoshua Wrote:I'm surprised no one has mentioned mixi.jp which is a bit like a Japanese Facebook.

I actually do have a mixi account, but havent gotten any women from there.

ps someone mentioned inside job as being a good movie. That movie gave the elites and bankers such a free pass and was way too apologitic of the federal reserve too. I dont think they criticized bernanke once in that movie. Here is a way better movie

Harpagornes Wrote:I am not a fan of Keynesian pump priming / big government spending either, and agree most things are best left to the private sector..

Private sector is more efficient but some things can't be left for private sector to handle. Health care and supporting the poor must be done through government to ensure that as many citizens as possible are taken care of.

Harpagornes Wrote:it is quite easy to imagine market economy which is terrible for women: trafficking, prostitution, and exploited Chinese factory workers come to mind.

I thought most feminists were for legal prostitution. It will always happen no matter what so it is best for it to be open and regulated so that prostitutes can be protected from violence and the spread of disease can be checked. It would also cut down significantly on trafficking.

thecite Wrote:

vix86 Wrote:You can sign up if you have a .EDU email.

Nope, they disabled that ages ago.

If by ages you mean in the last 4-5 months, then ok.

Otherwise, no. I signed up for an account using my school email about 4-5 months ago to test it, because back then people kept saying the same thing; "They disabled that, you can't do that anymore." And it worked.

vix86 Wrote:Otherwise, no. I signed up for an account using my school email about 4-5 months ago to test it, because back then people kept saying the same thing; "They disabled that, you can't do that anymore." And it worked.

Pretty sure it was longer ago than that when I tried; I tried multiple .edu addresses and none of them worked. Maybe it's just luck of the draw.

Zon70 Wrote:

HonyakuJoshua Wrote:I'm surprised no one has mentioned mixi.jp which is a bit like a Japanese Facebook.

I actually do have a mixi account, but havent gotten any women from there.

ps someone mentioned inside job as being a good movie. That movie gave the elites and bankers such a free pass and was way too apologitic of the federal reserve too. I dont think they criticized bernanke once in that movie. Here is a way better movie

Do you know anything about social engineering? I am just too abrasive and ebullient for it to work, but I do think there is a lot of truth in it.

thecite Wrote:

vix86 Wrote:Otherwise, no. I signed up for an account using my school email about 4-5 months ago to test it, because back then people kept saying the same thing; "They disabled that, you can't do that anymore." And it worked.

Pretty sure it was longer ago than that when I tried; I tried multiple .edu addresses and none of them worked. Maybe it's just luck of the draw.

Its possible they have a whitelist for ones they allow. All I know is I used a an EDU address and never had to verify with a cell phone.

nadiatims Wrote:

Icecream Wrote:but how much autonomy are you really willing to let companies have?

Any government regulation of business is likely to hurt small/medium sized businesses more than the multinationals. This is because large corporations have vastly more influence and capital they can use to get around it, or lobby to have regulations changed in favourable (to them) ways. Business regulation just makes it harder for the little guys to compete and thus contributes to the formation of monopolies.

Yes, it does. However, a unrestrained market would also do the same thing. Suppose there were no regulations on monopolies and mergers, for example. Then there would be nothing to stop big business from driving small businesses to extinction completely. It's naturally harder for any small to medium sized business to compete with a large corporation even in general, but in a totally free market, it would become impossible.

Good regulation would include giving tax breaks or other benefits to small businesses to offset the costs of regulation set up to help workers, and thereby aid competitiveness. At least in a regulated society this is possible, though yes, there are problems with corporate influence on government policy. Trying to tackle that seems better than the alternative though.

nadiatims Wrote:

Icecream Wrote:Business "morality" is always driven by profit. So are you fine with there being no holidays, 15 hour work days, no weekends? Because that would make more profit. There's always some line you have to draw between profits and personal life of employees. There's a certain quality of life that isn't bought with money, but just by having free time.

Yes businesses are primarily motivated by profit. Businesses succeed by providing products and service that people want or think they need not necessarily what is good for them. Is a business morally obligated to run at a loss to provide services that benefit society? What if nobody wants them? Who decides what is beneficial? Bureaucrats or consumers? Are businesses morally obligated to run at a loss to provide you with a job? or a salary above what you could reasonably negotiate elsewhere?

Workers are also motivated by profit. When available, they switch jobs to one that provides a provides more money/free time/enjoyment.

It's not about business being forced to run at a loss to provide a service that's beneficial. I'm in favour of regulation, not idiocy.
Although, i can't say that there would never be a time when that was the right thing to do, either. Sometimes the effects of such services have a more widespread and subtle good effect on the economy, as well as people's lives in the long run. And in these cases, it's better for tax to pay for it, because the effects aren't going to show up on any businesses next quarterly spreadsheet.
Take for example services provided to drug users. We know that drug use is one of the biggest factors in crime. Obviously crime has fairly widespread negative effects on the economy. We also know that intervention in families where parents of drug users can break the cycle being continued by their children, and is often a better choice in those terms than taking the children into care. There's also the extra work force that's mobilised by helping people live a healthy, drug free life.
If you leave it up to charity, it's quite likely that you'll end up with patchy results, or none at all if people don't feel like donating.

Anyway, rather, it's about regulating companies so they provide us with the best standard of living possible rather than taking every penny of profit they can get their grubby hands on for themselves. Because they will if they can. Without regulation, companies will provide the least good working conditions they possibly can, to make more profit. So, rather than simply allowing them to do that, we can regulate to make sure they have (at least) minimal standards of humane working conditions. It's not so they make a loss, but so they do not accumulate too much profit at the expense of their workers.

nadiatims Wrote:

Icecream Wrote:Saying that people can always go and start their own business at least requires some regulation on equality of borrowing money. Banks owned by white owners under an apartheid regime don't freely lend to black people.

Equality of borrowing? are you serious? Supposing you had a spare $50k sitting around, would you loan it to a business owner or a beggar at a train station?

Now I don't know about apartheid but I presume they had determined that the loans would not have been repaid, ie. business decisions. Irrational discrimination would have caused them to lose business to black owned banks. Regulation would likely hurt the black banks most in such a situation.

Well, if the beggar at the station has a good business plan...

You're operating under the illusion that business always acts rationally. It doesn't, because those who make the decisions in business are humans, and humans don't always act rationally. If there's a group which is very negatively stereotyped in society, banks can rationalise their bad decision making to themselves by believing that it IS rational. Of course they are going to see black people as a business risk if the general notion is that black people are lazy and irresponsible. It doesn't have to be based on evidence, they may consider it not worth the risk to even bother trying.

In some cases, even if they know that it is irrational to not lend money, they may do so anyway in order to maintain the status quo. For example, if white owners of capital are accustomed to a certain quality of life by using black people as slaves / men are accustomed to women keeping the house and children / etc. and it'll harm their life in a personal way, they may just prefer keeping things as they are to making the extra profit.

And it's not like there ARE black banks, (or oppressed group-Y banks) in those circumstances to compete with, because one of the ways that oppression shows itself is in the oppressed group not owning capital. At best, you're going to have loan sharks charging obscene interest to the oppressed group, which they'll need to take if they want to make a break, because they don't have any better options. But loan sharks tend to damage the economy rather than helping it, because it's very difficult for small business to pay off those loans and survive. That's why there are laws and regulations on how much interest banks can charge. Well, there's other reasons too, but they all come down to loaners shortsightedly making the most money possible in the shortest space of time at the expense of the longer term economy (as well as people's lives) in general.

Harpagornes made good points too about where things that aren't given a monetary value in our economic system are overlooked in favour of profit.

***
I'd really like it if you could watch the Adam Curtis documentary "all watched over by machines of loving grace" and let me know what you think of it. I think you'll find it really interesting because because he taps directly into a lot of ideas you're interested in and talk about, such as the self regulating society, although from a different perspective.
Part 1: http://vimeo.com/29344836 "Love and Power". It's about Ayn Rand and how her ideas have influenced economic thinking.
Part 2: http://vimeo.com/29365522 "The use and abuse of vegetational concepts". This one's about the idea of ecological systems being self regulating.
Part 3: http://vimeo.com/29418090 "The monkey in the machine and the machine in the monkey" This one's about genes, and the influence of the "selfish gene" theory.