carl vs capitalism.

[poly800rock]

continued from recent purchases...

After this im done...someone please post some denim to drool over

Oh, of course i would...every damn time. What i lack in logic i make up for in heart.

It's thinking like this thats ruining the world. Whatever happened to looking out for your fellow man?

It took me 7 minutes. And if he does donate money then more power to him! I dont make much but i try to give a little money each year to causes i believe in, as well as volunteering.

Joke or not, what a horrible thing to say.

in saying the grass roots thing is dead, it wasn't a joke, and it isn't horrible....i was talking to a teacher that works for teach for america this weekend, and his setiments were exactly the same. feed the homeless, educate the immigrants....you can make a difference of how many vs. changing policy to actually make change?

too much politics for this topic, i say we head over to styleforum. they might have some interesting things to say as well, being it is an older clientle....

[Carl]

I lose!

I will say this, as a tried and true "hippie" mantra that means now more then it ever has;

Think global, act local

[Servo2000]

Poly is right in a way, the old style of Grass roots movement (in reference to groups joining to try and change government policy) is more or less extinct, without necessarily needing or attempting to change the government in any way. What's taken it's place is groups of people devoted to attempting change on their own. Secondly, time commitment has taken a backseat to "grassroots" monetary movements.

What is becoming more common is for "leaders" to take initiative with money, and simply request money for a cause. With the power of the internet, this allows for thousands of thousands of people to donate small amounts of money which allow the "leaders" to enact change on their own terms.

Anyway...

In my opinion, I think it's important that everyone ask themselves: why should I spend money on myself when there are starving people out there? I can't remember which philosopher it was, but he argued that every dollar that was spent on unnecessary things was a dollar wasted.

I try to justify it in my own mind by spending time and not money (although I do donate a bit when I can), but primarily by performing acts of community service, donating old clothes, as well as driving an Hybrid.

Discuss.

[Chicken]

ah i miss the bay area.

[Servo2000]

chicken brings the relevance

holla

[Miles]

I think we'd all agree it's our civic duty to do good in this world. Whether by donating money, donating time, whatever.

Carl, I think where people take exception is that we -- as guys who spend countless hours discussing $250 jeans -- are some of the most frivolous people on the planet. And you acknowledge that the money we spend on clothes is ridiculous, so it's not like you have to be educated on the irony.

The point is: no matter what good we do, we're still wasting too much time and energy on clothing to have the authority to preach to others.

[poly800rock]

I think we'd all agree it's our civic duty to do good in this world. Whether by donating money, donating time, whatever.

Carl, I think where people take exception is that we -- as guys who spend countless hours discussing $250 jeans -- are some of the most frivolous people on the planet. And you acknowledge that the money we spend on clothes is ridiculous, so it's not like you have to be educated on the irony.

The point is: no matter what good we do, we're still wasting too much time and energy on clothing to have the authority to preach to others.

thats exactly what i was getting at.....

[Carl]

The point is: no matter what good we do, we're still wasting too much time and energy on clothing to have the authority to preach to others.

Why? Just because we spend money and time on clothes? Everyone has there vices.

I hate to come off "preachy" as im sure i did in the pick-ups thread. I just think there is so much in the world that needs to be addressed.

And so what if i spend 250 dollars on a pair of jeans or buy cashmere sweaters on ebay like its going out of style...i do my part. It makes me feel good. It makes others feel good. I volunteer and my job enriches the community

I dunno what im trying to say as these types of things are hard for me to get across over the internet.

I guess i just feel that my generation has completely fucked up so far and we could do so much more.

Sure its silly for an upper middle class white boy to get on a soap box and rant but if no one else is gonna do it then why not me?

i wish we could discuss this in person, its hard for me to articulate hwo i feel about this typing

[Miles]

You know what, I should've rephrased my schpiel.

You're right on a couple major points:

1) Our generation is self-absorbed, and it's seemingly getting worse. But then again, I think just about every generation says that.

2) Speaking out on community enrichment is great. You should keep on doing it. If you can influence people and affect they're behavior, you will have succeeded.

What I should've said was that while it's totally cool to try to get people involved, guys like us have no place telling others that they're being wasteful with their money.

Go ahead and tell people to get involved. But in the process, don't shit on them for buying unnecessary luxury goods. It's a hypocritical message coming from guys like us, and because of that, it make the rest of your message (which is important) fairly distasteful.

Edit: And we will discuss this at the Jan. 6 party. Unless we're too drunk. Which we will be.

[Carl]

Im looking forward to it. A drunken rant basically agreeing with eachother that we can then take out on some poor soul.

And i understand the point you are trying to make. I am a bit blind to my own hypocrsy but arnt we all?

[keri]

There's nothing wrong with giving time instead of money, you can throw money at children with AIDS all day (or any group), but have you really done anything for them spiritually, emotionsally, in the way that matters? Money pays for the necessities, but most of the people in need are in need emotionally and intellectually as well. Me, I'd much rather go down and bust my ass helping out at AIDS serives Dallas, then sit and chat with patients about their lives, and play with children, and be there for them.

AIDS is a particular point for me, because people are afraid for no reason to touch these people, to hug them, to hold their hand, to pat their back when they are crying. It's a shame more people can't put their irrational fears aside and give these people the comfort they need.

The biggest gift you can give anyone is yourself, money falls far behind that.

[Miles]

The biggest gift you can give anyone is yourself, money falls far behind that.

Yes and no.

Lots of people are marginalized through illness and poverty, and the happiness that you can bring by treating them like a human being is immeasurable. That's incredibly important, and in the scope of things, probably more impactful per person that the $50 or $300 or $1000 that most people can afford to give.

But it's clear that money -- serious money -- is actually becoming more important than ever before. The new money in this country (namely, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet) have done a novel thing with charity: they've made organizations accountable. The Clinton Global Initiative is doing this as well.

For past generations, it was the job of high society to annually write large checks to charitable organizations, and then turn a blind eye to what was done with that money. But now Gates and Clinton have begun running their programs like businesses, and charitable groups that apply for money are only getting grants if they can demonstrate tangible results.

It's actually an amazing thing. And it's getting better. But this requires tens of billions of dollars -- hardly the money that you and I have -- and is being provided by a very small handful of individuals.

My only point is: both time and money are needed. But widescale reform is going to come from money. Big, fat, huge, serious money.

[freshtakk]

I think we'd all agree it's our civic duty to do good in this world. Whether by donating money, donating time, whatever.

Carl, I think where people take exception is that we -- as guys who spend countless hours discussing $250 jeans -- are some of the most frivolous people on the planet. And you acknowledge that the money we spend on clothes is ridiculous, so it's not like you have to be educated on the irony.

The point is: no matter what good we do, we're still wasting too much time and energy on clothing to have the authority to preach to others.

I understand the logic behind this, but what I got from Carl was the amount of money actually spent on the vehicle...it's a little difficult comparing a $400,000 car to a pair of $250 jeans (well for me at least)...

[horriblyjollyjinx]

It's great to help those who need help, but it is very wrong to see capitalism, or rather, freedom, as the cause for their situation. In fact, the free(well..) market is the sole reason that you are able to care for others than yourself. The only reason that we don't have to spend all of our time just to find food for the day is hundreds of years of free trades and technical innovations, that lead to the creation of higher values every day.

A thousand years ago, not many cared, or were able to care, about some stranger on the street corner. Today we care about so many more than our friends and family. This is only because we have more than we need to survive, and the wealthier we get, the less important materialistic things become.

If you criticize freedom, you lack basic understanding of human nature and knowledge of our history. Go read a book, I recommend Johan Norberg, especially his latest book, hopefully it will be translated soon. It will only cost you a few bucks and not the equivalent of a kingdom, as a book did 500 years ago.

It is also important that you direct your money to where it actually does good. I will never ever give money to homeless people or foreign aid to Africa and Lebanon. I will give money to things like research to find a cure for AIDS or cancer, which is actually a good thing in practice and not just a good intention.

[mike lowrey]

generally speaking, I agree with you. capitalism or globalization can't be blamed for the fact that there is poverty in the world. it would exist without it. lots of countries have benefited from capitalism, but then again not all countries are able to use it for their advantage. to be honest, thats why I dont have a very clear opinion about all of this.

I mean, good examples of the benefits of capitalism are most of the emerging markets at the moment, for example china, india, thailand.. they've all managed to use an open economy for their benefit. foreign trade and investment helped thailands economy to recover from an economic crisis. Argentina is a bad example on the other hand, by freeing their market the whole country went almost bankrupt in 2001. so I guess its up to how well you use the freedom, but what about countries that cant "exploit" it?

interesting that you mentioned Nordberg, he definately brings an interesting perspective to the discussion which is usually filled with blame towards capitalists, big companies, globalization, the wto..

maybe this is a bit against the forum policies, but I think it could be kept open as long as its a clean conversation?

[lil brown brother]

i agree with lowery on most points ... but most emerging markets ie thir world countries are not self sufficient enough to take advantage of the capitalist model ... so maybe capitalism isnt for everybody .. i say we bring back the barter system ....

[cheapmuthafukr]

When can I go into the supermarket and buy what I need with my good looks?

im still waiting on this day

[denimdestroyedmylife]

My national resources consist of two joints of marijuana millions of genitals

an unpublishable private literature that goes 1400 miles and hour and

twentyfivethousand mental institutions.

.................

[Brienneoftarth]

my biggest fear is that mass capitalism is just going to completely destroy this planet. I mean, the environment is already in semi crisis and thats without billions of free chinese people adopting the western culture of consumerism..a billion more cars, a billion more blenders, a billion more george foreman grills, a billion more of the billion idiotic things we have in the US and Europe. Can the planet take that? and is there enough raw materials>?

[Double D]

A dollar spent isn't a dollar wasted. A dollar spent on an American Apparel t shirt goes directly into LA worker's wages and into expansion of the company and further job creation in LA, for example.

In reply to the conditions needed for a third world country to successfully adopt free market economics, it's quite interesting to see which countries have been most successful from what I've picked up in Development Studies. The Four Tigers (HK, Singapore, Taiwan & South Korea) all come from a confuscianist tradition, which historically has always had strong principles of welfare, and confuscianist societies probably represented the first welfare states in the middle ages.

Basic point of the findings on growth is that during the UN development programmes initiated around the 1960s nations with a strong tradition of social welfare have fared far better than those nations with more feudal systems and gross fiscal inequality. I suppose the simple observation to be made is that severely inequal distribution of wealth is a very, very bad market condition.

[lil brown brother]

Basic point of the findings on growth is that during the UN development programmes initiated around the 1960s nations with a strong tradition of social welfare have fared far better than those nations with more feudal systems and gross fiscal inequality. I suppose the simple observation to be made is that severely inequal distribution of wealth is a very, very bad market condition.

... but most third world countries are former feudal colonies

[Double D]

Exactly. I think you'll find that's why diving immediately into the free market has either gone tits up or growth has completely failed to meet any targets beyond the initial fast growth at the beginning of the UN development programmes.

I was just pointing out that nations have to meet certain social conditions before joining the free market. The European countries that began capitalism, starting with England, had chosen science over religion during the Age of Enlightenment, moved to social democracies often via revolution and via the industrial revolution had put business in the hands of individual businessmen - the newly founded 'middle class', rather than free market industry falling into the hands of feudal overlords.

So it's little surprise that the confucianist nations with values of equality and economic regulation without the rejection of personal wealth and ownership that is entailed in Marxist socialism were by far the most successful nations in terms of economic development.

[down4nyhc]

I kinda feel like there are people that can afford to achieve significant things as far as donating money for a good cause. But it's not really a priority for most in our society. Why can't Louis Vuitton ask their customers to donate $5 with every purchase. People who drop over a grand on an accessory which they prolly already have in 3 other colorways can easily afford that. But it's just not something that is a priority in the society. You have small amounts of people breaking their backs for charitative causes and the only way these things get some recognition is when douchebags like Bono step behind them.

Little things like that. It's kinda like with the hybrids. All the celebrities have them so every little U.S. Weekly reading, UGG wearing cunt is aware of them. But if that wasn't the case would most people even know what a hybrid is?

[horriblyjollyjinx]

A dollar spent isn't a dollar wasted. A dollar spent on an American Apparel t shirt goes directly into LA worker's wages and into expansion of the company and further job creation in LA, for example.

In reply to the conditions needed for a third world country to successfully adopt free market economics, it's quite interesting to see which countries have been most successful from what I've picked up in Development Studies. The Four Tigers (HK, Singapore, Taiwan & South Korea) all come from a confuscianist tradition, which historically has always had strong principles of welfare, and confuscianist societies probably represented the first welfare states in the middle ages.

Basic point of the findings on growth is that during the UN development programmes initiated around the 1960s nations with a strong tradition of social welfare have fared far better than those nations with more feudal systems and gross fiscal inequality. I suppose the simple observation to be made is that severely inequal distribution of wealth is a very, very bad market condition.

But all of this is completely wrong.

Hong Kong was the world's freest market under the Brittish rule and had no welfare whatsoever, and that is the sole reason for their development. When the Brittish first came to Hong Kong in 1841 they described it as "a barren island with barely any houses on it."

After the Japanese occupation during the WW2 the island was ravaged, there was no natural resources and water even had to be imported. Only one tenth of the land could be cultivated. If the area had instead been led by a socialist regim, its complete failure, because it would never have achieved what the free Hong Kong has, would have been explained with these facts by the "experts."

In only 25 years Hong Kong became one of the world's wealthiest territories and went from a low-wage area to the financial center of the world. This was without any welfare system whatsoever, and only in the 1990's I think did they get publicly financed schools.

If you still believe in welfare, socialism and protectionism as factors for economic growth you need only compare Hong Kong with mainland China.

Hong Kong is the example after which China is now led and is that country's salvation.

Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea also did not in any way develop because of any socialistic influense. All of these countries were too poor for any sort of public welfare, I might add.

Following the military coup led by general Park Chung-hee in 1962, South Korea embarked on a series of ambitious five-year plans for economic development. Emphasis shifted to foreign trade with the normalization of relations with Japan in 1965 and a subsequent boom in trade and investment. Rapid expansion, first into light and then heavy industries, in the 1960s and 1970s followed. During this period, the South Korean economy grew at an average annual rate of 8.6%.[11]

This phenomenal growth is often called the "Miracle on the Han River", the Han River being the main river that runs through the nation's capital and largest city, Seoul. In the 1980s and 1990s, growth continued as South Korea transformed itself from an exporter of mostly textiles and shoes into a major global producer of automobiles, electronics, shipbuilding, and steel and later, high-technology fields such as digital monitors, mobile phones, and semiconductors.

Administrative district centered around Sungnyemun in Seoul metropolitan area.

Enlarge

Administrative district centered around Sungnyemun in Seoul metropolitan area.

The South Korean model of encouraging the growth of large, internationally competitive companies through easy financing and tax incentives led to the dominance of the family-controlled conglomerates. These companies, known as chaebol, flourished under the support of the Park regime. [12] Some such as Hyundai, Samsung and LG became global corporations. In 2004, through all of this combined, South Korea joined in the trillion dollar club of world economies.[13]

Norberg about Singapore:

I am in Singapore for the first time. A wealthy country that is a paradox. The world´s most globalised economy, the country where it is easiest to do business, with an economy that is less corrupt than Sweden´s and Switzerland´s. And yet, it´s an undemocratic country with government control of the courts and the media, where opposition figures are bankrupted by absurd legal processes. That paradox in itself makes it worth studying.

With unilateral free trade and liberal rules, Singapore has succeeded in becoming a meeting place, a regional hub for global businesses. But as other countries liberalise their economy and attract the same companies, can Singapore really encourage local entrepreneurship and innovation, while at the same time discouraging people from thinking for themselves and acting in strange, unpredictable ways, that are not welcomed by the establishement?

The jury is still out.

http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=displayblog&month=11&year=2006#1996

I don't understand why you wrote what you did because all of it is completely wrong.

[horriblyjollyjinx]

i agree with lowery on most points ... but most emerging markets ie thir world countries are not self sufficient enough to take advantage of the capitalist model ... so maybe capitalism isnt for everybody .. i say we bring back the barter system ....

surely you mean "most emerging markets ie thir world countries are not self sufficient enough to take advantage of the socialistic model"?

Only protectionistic, socialist countries need to be self-sufficient, and they never ever are. Look at North Korea and the Soviet Union. A little rainy weather and the koreans starve. The women started demanding hygiene products and the country collapsed.

The whole point of free trade and globalisation is that you do NOT have to be self-sufficient. You simply do what you do best, and buy things that you are worse at producing. In every free transaction, all involved parties benefit. THIS and nothing else leads to economic growth.

[Double D]

I don't understand why you wrote what you did because all of it is completely wrong.

Well I guess the university textbooks I wholeheartedly quoted in an essay I wrote a year ago and got a few marks off a first for were completely wrong on why the Four Tigers have been so successful...

[horriblyjollyjinx]

Well I guess the university textbooks I wholeheartedly quoted in an essay I wrote a year ago and got a few marks off a first for were completely wrong on why the Four Tigers have been so successful...

It said Hong Kong's economic growth is because of public welfare systems?

It's a completely unreasonable claim, these countries were much too poor to have anything of the like.

You can also look at Ireland and the Baltic states.

After 2000, the Baltic Tiger economies implemented important economic reforms and liberalisation, which, coupled with their fairly low-wage and skilled labour force, attracted large amounts of foreign investment and economic growth. Between 2000 and 2004, the Baltic Tiger states had the highest growth rates in Europe, and this is continued in 2005. In 2004, for example, Estonia grew by 7.8% in gross domestic product, while Latvia grew by 8.5% and Lithuania by 7.3%. In 2005 economic growth accelerated even more, reaching 10.2% in Latvia, 9.8% in Estonia and 7.6% in Lithuania. All three countries by February 2006 saw their rates of unemployment falling below average EU values. Additionally, Estonia is among the ten most liberal economies in the world, and Lithuania and Latvia have been praised for their macroeconomic stability, especially low inflation and low budget deficits. All three countries joined the European Union in May 2004, and all three are slated to adopt the Euro (Latvia and Estonia in 2008, Lithuania in 2010).

[dismalfuture]

without talking too much textbook economics here, I want to say that living in Korea (and related to the posts this thread was spawned from), the really gross displays of wealth are tough to digest in this country. We can walk through downtown or in the nice suburbs in America and see some guy driving in his orange Lamborghini and think 'whatever, guy must be a smart fellow who's made a his money work for him' but in countries like Korea where both the disparity of the rich and poor is large and the history of poverty is recent, you can almost taste the blood, sweat, and tears of people when you see shit like that.

I'm not saying everyone sitting in an exotic car in this country is a total capitalist pig, but it really is tough to comprehend watching a hundred people waiting at the crosswalk waiting for the bus living out their lives under the thumbs of some real fatheads, as the fat pot-bellied old man kicks back the recliner in his Maybach and almost runs a few people over at the crosswalk as his driver runs the red light...

20 years ago, you could walk up and down the streets here and buy Nike and Reebok factory rejects for a few bucks a pair, and everything was sold on the sidewalk; nowadays you still have the ones who won't die sitting on the sidewalks trying to sell $20 worth of greengrocer's surplus choking on the fumes of people's Flying Spurs and S600s. I live in a pretty posh neighborhood (not the one that most people who've been to Seoul think of) and it's basically fruits and veggies being hocked on the street by grandmothers sitting on the sidewalk who look like they haven't been able tell whether it's cold or warm outside for the past 60 years, while Phantoms and Maybachs zoom by, taking 'important people' where they need to go. We're not talking middle class vs. upper middle class like it is in America, this is the absolute lowest coexisting in the same space as the absolute richest, bizarre.

The real point of discontent among people in this country regarding this topic is the fact that the people who succeeded and got the head start in the post-war economy were people who collaborated with the colonial pre-war Japanese imperial government, which is obviously a sore spot with people around here as it is only remembered as a 30 year stretch of abuse and rape of the masses. In cases like this, what do you say?

I'm by no means a local here, and I walk around in $500 jeans and don't think too much of it, so I'll probably end up having to eat my words one day, but times like these that we will romanticize 100 years later are really not that rosy in the day to day.

[englandmj7]

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that Greed -- for lack of a better word -- is GOOD. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed -- you mark my words -- will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.

- Gordon Gekko

[Double D]

It said Hong Kong's economic growth is because of public welfare systems?

It's a completely unreasonable claim, these countries were much too poor to have anything of the like.

It implied that the confucianist economic tradition was successful both because the nations were more prepared for such economic frameworks than other more feudal third world nations, and that the principles of welfare in the confucianist principles aided growth. It didn't suggest that HK etc had public welfare, but greater principles of welfare and equality than other third world nations that completely failed to grow. That was the rough claim of some of my sources, I can't go much further without digging out my bibliography. But by no means was a fully fledged social welfare system implied.