what are we talking about when we talk about Capitalism (not quite R.Carver)

[davar55]

Originally Posted by only_human

ok, you are against fantasy sports brackets but how using a vuvuzela?

Some posts are explanation, others are just declaration.

[only_human]

Originally Posted by davar55

Some posts are explanation, others are just declaration.

Fair enough. What I'm saying is that you clearly want to support team Capitalism.
http://youtu.be/U2e7VkHwYbI

[only_human]

It's not just the price slump killing jobs connected to the oilpatch. It's the robots.

Suncor, which eliminated 1,200 positions this year, plans to save $200,000 annually for each of the 800 truck drivers it replaces with autonomous vehicles by 2020, Alister Cowan, chief financial officer, said at an investor conference in June.

Husky Energy Inc. is saving money with a walking drilling rig, chief operating officer Rob Peabody said at the conference.

The rig doesn’t need workers to tow it from one spot to another.

The replacement of workers with machines is on top of slower growth, as companies scrap or delay projects.

[davar55]

Capitalism and Industrialization !

Better jobs, not more lousy ones.

Go team!

[jasong]

If I may comment on some stuff said earlier, sometimes definitions amount to moving targets. For instance, the 60s definition of feminism, as I understand it, is something I totally support, while today's feminists seem to want to be treated as equals while simultaneously having men treat that as princesses, which I don't support.

I post the above simply as an example of a moving target definition. The word I'm actually concerned about is libertarian. When I call myself a libertarian, I'm simply saying that some of the present legislation is either unneeded or misguided, NOT that I support removing ALL regulation.

Of course, it's been years since I've been interested enough in current events to have an opinion about them. Maybe if read the same news my father reads I would be ashamed to call myself a libertarian, I have no idea.

[ewmayer]

o Media Hypes Praluent, the Next Expensive 'Blockbuster' Not Yet Shown to Benefit Patients | naked capitalism

So this is what the FDA has devolved to - a rubber-stamp for Big Pharma interests peddling hyper-expensive 'chronic treatment with no persistent benefit, much less a cure' drugs with oodles of nasty side effects and best of all - no evidence whatsoever of medical benefit ... and this is the result of the manufacturer-sponsored clinical trials, which are almost by definition guaranteed to paint the rosiest possible picture w.r.to both efficiacy (if any) and adverse effects (guaranteed to be numerous, often severe, and always worse than reported by the drug manufacturer). New and dubiously-tested non-curative 'lifestyle drugs' (whose side effects often require other drugs to alleviate) provide a much steadier revenue stream than cures and/or older drugs that are actually effective but whose patent protection has expired.

o The Previous Sole Superpower: From the Opium Wars to the Origin of the Species | Tom Dispatch

Poetically-concluding essay by the recently deceased Latin American writer Eduardo Galeano on Victorian-era Britain, the Opium Wars, genocidal imperialism in China and India, and with unmistakable referemces to the former North American colony now carrying on that grand tradition. Because free markets, dontchaknow.

[One can quibble with several of the 'the only ones" (among the animal species on earth) statements in the closing if one is so inclined, but as with all good literature that part is more about moral than literal truth.]

[davar55]

Free markets does not include in poisons, or nuclear bombs, or in body parts, or etc.
Such materials have a basis by which free purchase and sales must be interdicted.
This is of course their extreme relationship to the generation of death.

We mustn't assail the basic principles of life-giving free markets because of the
abuse of trafficking in death (or violence). This is not to say that a free country
lacks the right to defend itself against those who act to harm it.

[kladner]

Originally Posted by davar55

Free markets does not include in poisons, or nuclear bombs, or in body parts, or etc.
Such materials have a basis by which free purchase and sales must be interdicted.
This is of course their extreme relationship to the generation of death.

We mustn't assail the basic principles of life-giving free markets because of the
abuse of trafficking in death (or violence). This is not to say that a free country
lacks the right to defend itself against those who act to harm it.

Did you read the article? Can you really call a market "free" which is established at gunpoint? Is it a "free" market which strips enslaved countries of food, creating surpluses in the empire's capital, while millions starve to death in the fiefdoms? Rapine and pillage are "freedom"?

You are welcome to your contortions of language and your paucity of compassion and ethical sense. Don't tell others what we must or mustn't assail. Some people have other perceptions than those commanded by your religion of "Free" markets.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by davar55

Free markets does not include in poisons, or nuclear bombs, or in body parts, or etc.
Such materials have a basis by which free purchase and sales must be interdicted.
This is of course their extreme relationship to the generation of death.

Yet again you have your own definition of "free" which differs in several important respects from the commonly accepted definition.

Arguing with you has close similarities to arguing with Humpty Dumpty.

[ewmayer]

DuPont and the Chemistry of Deception | The Intercept

[Spherical Cow]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

DuPont and the Chemistry of Deception | The Intercept

Guess I am just not jaded enough- seems unbelievable that all the people in DuPont who suspected or knew about those problems would just keep pumping that stuff out.

Norm