ilovefuzz.com

That said, there's a reasonable chance that Romney would approve another Justice who would be in favor of overturning Roe vs. Wade.

That's yucky.

I'm not saying that large corporations haven't considerably improved our quality of life, but saying they've improved it "in almost every way imaginable" is a stretch.

D.o.S. wrote:That said, there's a reasonable chance that Romney would approve another Justice who would be in favor of overturning Roe vs. Wade.

That's yucky.

Legit. And we don't need Citizens United going any further. Excuse me while I go assassinate Scalia.

And yeah, jwar is kinda right. I feel like cynicism and demonizing of a broad and abstract concept such as corporatism are generally anti-intellectual.

I like all the amenities and comforts that big business provide, however, big business is still a bad thing. If you're looking at a market for any good, the bigger the business the the more power they have to influence prices. When big business can influence prices they are essentially robbing consumers of the benefit they would recieve from lower prices. And not only that, they are robbing the potential benefit to additional businesses by pushing the price lower than they can sell for.

So, it would be better if businesses were so small that they had no ability to affect prices. This would maximize the benefit to consumers. By allowing big business to persist, as a nation we are only hurting ourselves. Because we are allowing them to influence prices and, in doing so, are allowing them to steal from us what would be ours under ideal market conditions. It would be better if we had a lot of businesses providing these things instead of only a few, and in the areas where market competition leads to a decrease in quality, the government should step in and provide the service to eliminate the inefficiencies created by market competition.

Whether or not we are better off as result of all this newfangled technology is irrelevant.

Chankgeez wrote:I'm not saying that large corporations haven't considerably improved our quality of life, but saying they've improved it "in almost every way imaginable" is a stretch.

I should have perhaps said "in most objective ways" - so things like access to medicines, information, transportation, life expectancy, etc., by which I mean to say, things that are measurable and which impact a majority of people's lives day to day over the course of their life. One of the few things I dislike about talking over the internet is that you can't ever really convey the nuance you can in a face to face conversation. Also, at the end of something, you can't be like "Well, want to have a beer?"

snipelfritz wrote:And yeah, jwar is kinda right. I feel like cynicism and demonizing of a broad and abstract concept such as corporatism are generally anti-intellectual.

You mean jfrey?

wfs1234 wrote:Whether or not we are better off as result of all this newfangled technology is irrelevant.

I should think that well-being is always relevant. I know what you meant, but I don't really think you can separate the things like that. Also, if everything you said is true, then things should be getting more expensive. On average however, most things - as a percentage of income - are actually getting cheaper all the time. Also, advances in technology are constantly allowing small businesses to compete with larger entrenched businesses, and this is likely to happen at an increasing rate which will over the course of steps of time allow for more competition, involving price adjustments, increases in availability, etc. that benefit the consumer.


Anyway... Onto the serious issues of life. I have a fucking piece of wood stuck under the skin in my hand and it's totally healed over and too deep to cut out without causing more damage than it's worth. Have to just wait for the thing to fucking decay.

goddammit, you two and the wsomethingthreenumbers.

I have to watch The Family Stone for a class project. It is incredibly painful to watch.

jfrey wrote:I should think that well-being is always relevant. I know what you meant, but I don't really think you can separate the things like that.

You're right that well being is always relevant. What I should have said was that in a discussion of whether or not big business is a good thing, an additional discussion of whether or not we are better off because of technology is irrelevant because both big and small businesses can provide new technology.

While I can't say for certain why the trend you said is true, what you said might be able to explain some apparently inconsistent observations. In the last 20 years the income disparity in the nation has grown exponentially, while incomes have increased and the prices in relation to income have become lower. It would seem to me that either you could have growing income disparity or increasingly cheap goods combined with higher incomes, not both. What might be happening is that technology has actually reduced the cost of production by so much that, while consumers are able to benefit from it, suppliers of goods are benefiting more; hence the increase in income disparity.

So, the reduction of prices in relation to incomes doesn't necessarily mean that I'm wrong, it could simply mean that technology is more effective at lowering cost than businesses are at keeping prices high.

That is true what you said about cost of production.

The income disparity data though can also be misleading. I'm going to plagiarize somebody here - I forget who - but it was explained like this: It may be that the poor used to get a slice that was 1/6th of the pie, and that now they get a slice that is 1/9th of the pie. Even though the fraction has become smaller though, the pie is so much larger that the 1/9th of the current pie is larger than the 1/6th of the old pie.

Also, when we talk about "the poor" it's typically thought to mean a consistent group of people. Really though, the majority of poor tend to move upwards in income at a faster rate than those already of high income, and are unlikely - statistically - to remain poor. New people take their place as "the poor" so while there is a consistent low income group, the people that comprise it are inconsistent.

If that's true, then I have no idea. I am suspicious of that though, because it's not hard to manipulate data to say stuff like that. I'll have to look into that more when I have the time.

When did I become extremely clumsy and how can I make it stop?

greyscales wrote:When did I become extremely clumsy and how can I make it stop?

The seventh beer...And the eleventh.

But I'm straightedge...

The solder fumes man, the solder fumes

skullservant wrote:The solder fumes man, the solder fumes

Always makes me hungry.
Dude, hold your iron straight out. Watch as the fumes go for your face.
Now hold it to the right.
THEY STILL GO STRAIGHT FOR YOUR FACE WHAT THE FUCK

I KNOW! I was woring on Bassus' delay last night and there was seriously a cloud of lingered RIGHT AT MY FACE LEVEL for a good 2-3 minutes before vanishing. Like WHAT THE FUCK WHY DONT YOU ACT LIKE NORMAL SMOKE.