Superkapitalizam

[Indy]

+1 za namenskog.

https://medium.com/@ykahan9/top-10-libertarian-lies-5b2033994ee6

Quote

Lie #9: The problem is crony capitalism, not capitalism

When we point out the injustices within the capitalist system, libertarians will often claim that the real problem is “crony capitalism.” While it is sadly true that the rich often do get favors, blaming “crony capitalism” reflects a disturbing naivete. The poor both pay less to and receive more from the US government than the rich, yet our system is still grotesquely unfair and tilted against the disadvantaged. It’s not crony capitalism that’s behind this unfair tax system - it is capitalism. It’s also not crony capitalism that allows employers to pay their workers starvation wages - it is capitalism. Nor is it crony capitalism that incentivizes collusion, fraud, and the creation of barriers to entry - it is capitalism. Finally, it’s not crony capitalism that rewards class privilege, white privilege, and intellectual privilege- it is capitalism. The reality is that the neoliberal destruction of the middle class did not come about through crony capitalist giveaways, which are barely reflected in the government budget. It came about through the tax cuts, spending cuts, and deregulation championed by libertarians.

 

[Budja]

Indy, ovo sto si okaci je obican pamflet bez ijednog izvora ili evidencije. Stancovanje parola.

 

Narocito mi se svidja ovo za "Intelectual privllege". Sta li je baja hteo da kaze.

[Indy]

Budjo, imam osećaj da štagod ja odgovorio, ti to uvek možeš - tako pucajući s boka kao iznad - da okarakteriše kao pamflet i štancovane parole.

 

Pa, bolje da se ne zamaramo.

[Venom]

In 2017, Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos became the richest person in the world with a net worth of over $100 billion. But a new report from the non-profit Policy Matters Ohio shows that Bezos-owned company had 1,430 Ohio-based employees or family members on food stamps as of August last year.

 

Amazon employs over 6,000 workers in the state, according to the report that looked at data from August 2017. In that month alone, 700 workers received benefits, meaning that one in every 10 of those locals were beneficiaries of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The report revealed that Amazon warehouses also receive significant state and local subsidies.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/jeff-bezos-amazon-employees-food-stamps-782714

[Hella]

1 hour ago, Venom said:

http://www.newsweek.com/jeff-bezos-amazon-employees-food-stamps-782714

 

svi ti čobani na bonovima bi bili još gori od bezosa samo da imaju Znanje 

[hazard]

On 1/28/2018 at 1:34 AM, Indy said:

+1 za namenskog.

https://medium.com/@ykahan9/top-10-libertarian-lies-5b2033994ee6

 

 

"Crony capitalism" je u ovom tekstu shvaćen prilično usko. Uopšte, pitanje je da li je to dobar termin.

 

Npr. kažu nije crony capitalism sjebao srednju klasu, nego tax cuts. Ali kakvi tax cuts? Npr. ako ja smanjim poreze bogatima a ne učinim isto za srednju klasu (ili njima smanjim daleko manje) - kao što je upravo uradio Tramp btw, zar to nije nekakav "crony capitalism", u smislu favorizovanja bogatih koji su politički povezani, lobiraju i imaju i nesrazmerni uticaj na zakone koji se donose?

 

Ili kaže "the poor pay less and receive more" - čini se da je opet usko definisano. OK, siromašni sigurno plaćaju manje u apsolutnom iznosu, to su one statistike gde tipa 50% poreza plaća 5% ljudi ili kako već bude. No nije li Voren Bafet (ili tako neko) pričao kako je suludo što je njegova efektivna poreska stopa manja od poreske stope njegove sekretarice? Ako on da 10% svog prihoda državi, a njegova sekretarica 25%, to nije baš onda slučaj gde sekretarica ,,plaća manje". OK, Bafet ja platio 10 miliona, a sekretarica 15 hiljada, ali njoj znači mnogo više tih 15k nego njemu tih 10 mil. Hoću reći, bitna je poreska stopa i kako to relativno utiče na prihode ljudi, a ne samo apsolutni novčani iznosi.

 

Nije samo u tome šta neko daje u budžet, nego koliko daje u odnosu na svoj prihod. Ako srednjoj klasi uzimaš 3 (5, 10...) puta veći deo prihoda nego bogatašima, naravno da će bogataši da prosperiraju, a srednja klasa da stagnira, i ako možda u apsolutnom iznosu oni daju istu količinu novca u budžet kada se sve sabere.

 

Fazon je što GOP večito ulazi u izbore sa pričom "tax cuts for the middle class!" a onda kada vidiš šta zapravo rade, shvatiš da su srednjoj klasi snizili porez za 1% a bogatašima za 20%. Bogataši su ti koji plaćaju kampanje...pa ako to nije crony capitalism na neki način, onda ne znam šta jeste.

 

(Da se razumemo: ne zastupam hardkor liberterijanski stav gde je nekontrolisano tržište super. Nekontrolisano tržište pravi svoja sranja ihoho. No treba razdvojiti 2 stvari: 1) neželjeni ishod koje pravi tržište samo po sebi 2) neželjeni ishodi koji su proizvod namerne distorzije tržišta i privrede u nečiju korist).

[hazard]

http://time.com/money/4371332/income-inequality-recession/

 

Quote

The 1% Pocketed 85% of Post-Recession Income Growth

 

While millions of American workers still struggle to regain their pre-recession standard of living, none have recovered quite so well as the top 1% earners, a new report has found.

 

The study, released Thursday from the Economic Policy Institute, found that the top 1% of U.S. citizens, in terms of income, took home 85% of income growth between 2009 and 2013. In 15 states, the top 1% captured all income growth during the same four-year period.

 

Naturally, that disproportionate income growth has helped bolster their salaries. By 2013, the top 1% of families nationwide made more than 25 times as much as the other 99% of households. In New York, Connecticut and Wyoming, the highest-earning households had average incomes that were 40 times those of everyone else.

 

That gross income inequality is in part a result of workers in the financial sector profiting from speculation in the markets during the recession. Still, it doesn’t tell the full story. While New York and Connecticut rank as the most unequal states, in terms of ratio of income of the top 1% to that of the rest of the population, that ratio is also higher than the national average in an additional seven states, 54 metro areas and 165 counties.

 

Additionally, certain metro areas stand out as having higher-than-average income disparities between the ultra-rich and the rest of the population. In the Jackson metro area, spanning Wyoming and Idaho, the top 1% earned an average of 213 times more than everyone else. Jackson was followed by the Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk area in Connecticut, where the uber-wealthy earned about 73.7 times more than the bottom 99%, and Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island in Florida, where the super-rich took home 73.2 times more.

 

In order to be classified in the top 1% nationally, a family needs an annual income of $389,436. The states with the highest minimum salaries to become a member of the 1% are Connecticut, at $659,979; the District of Columbia, at $554,719; and New Jersey, at $547,737.

 

The report points out that, between 1928 and 1979, the share of income in the hands of the 1% fell in every state except Alaska. To reduce income inequality going forward, it calls for a return to full employment, restoring bargaining power to U.S. workers, and for more proportionate executive compensation.

 

[Takeshi]

ekonomisti su nas i doveli dovde.  

 

An Economist Argues That Our Education System Is Largely Useless 

 

 

Spoiler

 

Economics, it has been said, is the dismal science, and Bryan Caplan is pessimistic indeed. A professor of economics at George Mason University, Mr. Caplan argues that education ­— his own profession, and a bedrock benefit of the welfare state — is largely useless, at least for what we think it provides: learning.

Most of us assume that school and college make us smarter or more prepared for work. But the main benefit of a degree, Mr. Caplan argues in The Case Against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money (Princeton University Press, 2018), is the signal it sends to employers: that a college graduate has the tenacity and the submissiveness to get through years of pointless busywork. That signal — and not higher levels of skill, which education may actually not confer — is what leads people into lucrative careers after graduation. Meanwhile students who drop out of college, no matter how smart or industrious, are punished for bucking the system.

True to his libertarian values, Mr. Caplan believes that more of the cost of education should be shifted away from government and onto individuals. But he’s pessimistic on that point, too: With the United States spending hundreds of billions of dollars on education, and the payoff of a diploma, we’re probably locked into the status quo, he says.

Mr. Caplan talked about the irrelevancies of education with The Chronicle.

•

In The Case Against Education, you deride subjects like art, history, and foreign languages as "useless." Does education have to be useful in one’s job every day to be valuable?

No, but it needs to be either useful or enjoyable. And for most students, these subjects are neither, unfortunately. There is an enormous gap between the education that people receive and what they actually use in most of the jobs they have. I mean, there may be some small amount that they’re able to glean from it. But most of the stuff, right after the final exam, they’ll never need to know again. And if these are required classes that the student was not interested in, and they just took those classes to get the diploma, then that seems wasteful from almost any point of view.

You write: "As far as I can tell, the only marketable skill I teach is ‘how to be an economics professor.’ " But isn’t that a failure of your imagination to make your subject relevant, not a failure of education itself?

In order to make my subject relevant, I would actually have to learn a lot about the occupations the students are doing and just teach, really, a completely different subject. Economics is not designed to be occupational training for bankers or salesmen. In terms of raising the job performance, I can’t honestly say that I’m raising the job performance of students who are doing a bunch of jobs that are really quite unfamiliar to me.

Some of the most useful skills that I do try to give to students are, for example, "walk out of movies if you’re not enjoying yourselves." That’s what economics tells us to do. But even there, I’m not optimistic that students actually change their lives based on what they’re taught. Most people think of education as writing some answers on a test, then getting on with your life and going back to what you were doing before.

Most kids are philistines — they are that way deep in their souls. In the book, I quote Steven Pinker, the psychologist at Harvard, who regularly wins awards for his teaching. Yet he looks at his classroom a couple of weeks into the semester and sees that half the students aren’t there. How can it be that these are the best students in the world, with the best teacher, at arguably the best school in the world, and half the students don’t think it’s worth their while? And they’re getting a grade, so they actually have an extra reason to be there, and yet they’re not. The only thing you can say is that even the best teacher in the world is boring to these kids, compared to what else they could be doing. It’s sad and hard to face, but that’s the truth.

Isn’t there value in forcing people to march through topics they might not be interested in? They might discover some interest in it.

Once in a very long time, it happens. But there’s a greater number of students who suffer through it and don’t get any value from it. People who don’t like school rarely write essays about how terrible it was. Instead they just suffer in silence or complain to their friends, and then they go and get a practical job and we never hear their voices again. The whole conversation about education is really driven by people who did enjoy school and who work with students. Part of what I wanted to do is give a voice to the voiceless and say, "They may not talk about it, but they are suffering." It’s not a real mystery if you actually go to a classroom and look at the faces. Students are generally not happy. They’re bored.

But if you talk with employers today, many laud the liberal arts and say they want well-rounded, broadly thinking people.

In this book I talk a lot about social-desirability bias. People say things, and often believe things, that sound good, but if you look closely at their behavior, you’ll see that either they are being dishonest or they don’t believe it all the way down. When employers say they want people who are well-rounded, you can see who they actually reward when they hire. I don’t see any signs of rewarding the well-rounded people. They’re rewarding people who do the job well and make the employers money. Employers want to sound like nice, open-minded people. They don’t want to say, "I don’t care if you’re a troglodyte as long as you bring in money." Ultimately, that is what they’re thinking. Liberal-arts degrees are great from the employers’ point of view because it’s a way of selecting good workers. Once they’re on the job, who cares if they really like high culture or anything else?

You advocate cutting government spending on education and sending fewer people to college. Instead of diminishing education, why not reform it?

In the book, I have an analogy: You have a friend who is using a toenail-fungus cream that doesn’t work, and you tell him to stop using it. He says, "I’m going to keep doing this until you find a cure that works." Well, it’s really hard to find that cure. So why don’t we look around for something that works, and maybe we’ll find it and maybe we won’t, but at least we won’t be wasting all this money in the meantime? That’s really the way I see education reform. We have a lot of stuff we’re doing right now that we know is wasted money. Step one is to stop wasting money. Then, in step two, we can have an open-ended conversation about better things to do with the money. It might actually be something that has nothing to do with education.

It seems like we have a system that is so dysfunctional that when we find things that work, they don’t get adopted. On my blog, I talk about a literature review of which pedagogical techniques are effective and which ones are not, evaluated by the gold standard of research. What’s striking is how the methods that work are used so rarely, while lots of methods that have proven to be ineffective are popular. For example, highlighting is totally ineffective, yet it’s used all over the world. That’s the problem: It’s a dysfunctional system where people don’t seem to be interested in improving it. Let’s say you’re charged with fixing American education. Paint a picture of what your solution would look like.

To start, a much bigger role for vocational education. For the kids who are not interested in academic subjects intrinsically, an age as young as 13 or 14 is a good time to start actually preparing them for a job. This doesn’t mean you’re destined to become a plumber. A good thing to do is to expose them to a large number of occupations and see what actually interests them and what they have a talent for, getting them into workplaces to try things. Of course, at that age, continue to train them in reading, writing, and math, but cut the other stuff down to a minimum.

In terms of enriching people’s lives, I’d been more inclined to have money not focused specifically on the young. I could actually see spending money at modest levels much later in life if you just want to give people a chance for enrichment.

In higher education, focus money on majors where there are actual practical job opportunities, greatly cutting spending or not having government support for majors that are primarily for personal enrichment or hobbies. I don’t see why some hobbies get government support and others don’t. Why is it that comic books don’t get government support but poetry does? In terms of artistic merits, I think there’s a lot more going on today in comics than in poetry. But poetry is high status.

 

 

ima standardnih bisera:

Quote

 

In The Case Against Education, you deride subjects like art, history, and foreign languages as "useless." Does education have to be useful in one’s job every day to be valuable?

 

No, but it needs to be either useful or enjoyable. And for most students, these subjects are neither, unfortunately. There is an enormous gap between the education that people receive and what they actually use in most of the jobs they have. I mean, there may be some small amount that they’re able to glean from it. But most of the stuff, right after the final exam, they’ll never need to know again. And if these are required classes that the student was not interested in, and they just took those classes to get the diploma, then that seems wasteful from almost any point of view.

 

 

ali i zanimljivih delova:

Quote

In the book, I quote Steven Pinker, the psychologist at Harvard, who regularly wins awards for his teaching. Yet he looks at his classroom a couple of weeks into the semester and sees that half the students aren’t there. How can it be that these are the best students in the world, with the best teacher, at arguably the best school in the world, and half the students don’t think it’s worth their while? And they’re getting a grade, so they actually have an extra reason to be there, and yet they’re not. The only thing you can say is that even the best teacher in the world is boring to these kids, compared to what else they could be doing. It’s sad and hard to face, but that’s the truth.

 

 

 

 

[Indy]

 

[Shan Jan]

Ima istine, malo ti bejbibumeri vole da seru po mladjim generacijama kako su lencuge dok su sami uzivali u najboljem periodu istorije za radnike. 

[Indy]

Jeste, samo je ovde bila poenta u sindikatima.

[Eraserhead]

 

[bigvlada]

Problem sa tom listom je što silikonska dolina više ne zna gde udara pa sipa novac i u gluposti tipa Lyft ili još grđe Juicero. 

[eumeswil]

Članaka od 1 ekspertkinje, može na bar tri teme.
 

 

3 Reasons Millennials Should Ditch Karl Marx for Ayn Rand

 

Quote

The fact of the matter is that Karl Marx doesn’t align with what’s important to us Millennials. If it were up to him, we’d be starting more violent wars, we’d be widening the gap of distrust between one another, and we’d strip ourselves of all incentives to make the world cooler than it already is. So it’s time we adopt a new philosopher. Let’s look up to people like Ayn Rand

 

Quote

Leisa Miller is a marketing coordinator at FEE. Driven by a desire for adventure, she moved to Warsaw, Poland in 2015 to work for a serial entrepreneur she met on the internet. 15 months and several hundred pierogi later, she came back to the States to hone her marketing skills at a tech startup in Charleston, South Carolina, before eventually making her way to Atlanta and joining the FEE team. In her free time, Leisa enjoys listening to 20th century classical music, learning languages, preparing Gongfu style tea, and swing dancing. You can follow her writing and personal projects on her website.

 

Edited February 24, 2018 by miki.bg

[Plavimost]

Ekspertkinja/ ekspert i Karl Marks ne idu u istu rečenicu.