I honestly feel like sometimes maybe you could probably show up to a meeting with absolutely nothing of meaning or interest to contribute or bring to the table and still get positive marks for being on time or early to it.
I also am coming to the notion that you could turn in pages of complete shlock and drivel and as long as everything was perfectly exactly formatted to the anal-retentive specificity of the person reviewing it,- if not your boss or instructor & graders,- many people would think it was the best essay/homework/assignment ever and give it a good score because they had an easier time understanding it.
More disturbingly I noticed (not to be classist but this shows up alot more in predominantly blue collar and no collar environments) that there are a decent proportion of people who are SO VERY FEELINGS GUIDED that they will rationalize and justify in a perfect textbook case cognitive dissonance reduction manner doing all sorts of horrible and rotten things to you under the table because you momentarily made them feel awkward or rubbed them the wrong way during a brusk interaction or by an offhand remark. Some of these people will use that as a reason to exact retribution and attempt to see to it to if not ruin your life or career in what manner they can,- to be a roadblock and speedbump to impede progress if you need to request something from them or some assistance. Not the most highly mature reaction to being made to feel slightly uneasy during some interactions but hey...
Lastly, you can be a smug and smarmy bastard and lead people down a course of action that leads to large amounts of unnecessary death and/or ancillary destruction but people will gladly sacrifice their lives or livelihoods to support your corrupt and inept idiotic plans because you seemed overly-confident about the likelihood of the success of your actions if implemented.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
My, my - how unimpressive in the morning: (In progress):
I've been having an interesting conversation with my coauthor about how part of the decay in society or its dysfunction surging may stem from the replacement of social values with market (driven?) values and thought a topic as rich as that deserves some fleshing out.
In the meantime I noticed that perhaps our values are skewed and backwards in that regard but perhaps taken a different way. Specifically I observed out in the public discourse collective/sphere making fun of individuals seems to be all fine and good but as soon as you start making fun of products sooner or later a brand-loyalist fanboy (who seems to derive an almost sort of tribal sense of self-identity associated with preferring his or her brand of thing A, B, C of choice and how much better he or she thinks it is than all X, Y, Zs) will blow a gasket.
P.S.: The snide sounding title refers not to his conversation I picked up bits and pieces of that stuck with me but to the latter observation where (some) people will go "How dare you suggest my favorite ______[insert blank brand thing] isn't the very best in the world and furthermore, why won't you agree with me on my opinion that everything else that isn't that one sucks mightily?"
In the meantime I noticed that perhaps our values are skewed and backwards in that regard but perhaps taken a different way. Specifically I observed out in the public discourse collective/sphere making fun of individuals seems to be all fine and good but as soon as you start making fun of products sooner or later a brand-loyalist fanboy (who seems to derive an almost sort of tribal sense of self-identity associated with preferring his or her brand of thing A, B, C of choice and how much better he or she thinks it is than all X, Y, Zs) will blow a gasket.
P.S.: The snide sounding title refers not to his conversation I picked up bits and pieces of that stuck with me but to the latter observation where (some) people will go "How dare you suggest my favorite ______[insert blank brand thing] isn't the very best in the world and furthermore, why won't you agree with me on my opinion that everything else that isn't that one sucks mightily?"
Saturday, September 24, 2011
The End is Annoying:
Noticed an increase in the number of sandwich board style street preachers outside the college and library.
They like telling us how the Bible should be the only book a person will ever need. I am tempted to ask one if there is a patron saint of calculus. Everything which is not part of their ideology but still exists causes these people to become uncomfortable enough they feel a need to rant and rave in public spaces about how everybody is a sinner and how there are all these debauched depravities they project onto us from their imaginations (uh, a good chunk of people go to colleges to learn and teach things... these guys maybe need to watch a bit less TV).
It is perhaps ironic that the only people who seem to really give a damn about things also come across as stark raving nuts.
The Bible itself has something to say about public preaching.
Matthew 6:1-7 (21st Century King James version):
1 "Take heed that ye do not your almsgiving before men, to be seen by them; otherwise ye have no reward from your Father who is in Heaven.
2 Therefore when thou givest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward.
3 But when thou givest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth,
4 that thine almsgiving may be in secret; and thy Father who seeth in secret, Himself shall reward thee openly.
5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward.
6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father who is in secret; and thy Father who seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions as the heathen do, for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."
I'm going to interpret this passage as saying that if you are praying to try to materialistically show off how religious you are to other mortal people then this is probably doing it for the wrong reasons. I believe it to be saying one should strive to be humble and try to keep it between you and God. It also might be suggesting that it is the quality of spirituality and not the quantity of religiousity that should make up a person's faith?
Then in Matthew 6:8 it goes a bit further by saying:
"Be not ye therefore like unto them, for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of before ye ask Him."
See? The Bible itself is saying you don't need to show off to other people what it is you are praying about because God already knows and He isn't particularly impressed by that. Or at least that's how I'm choosing to interpret it.
They like telling us how the Bible should be the only book a person will ever need. I am tempted to ask one if there is a patron saint of calculus. Everything which is not part of their ideology but still exists causes these people to become uncomfortable enough they feel a need to rant and rave in public spaces about how everybody is a sinner and how there are all these debauched depravities they project onto us from their imaginations (uh, a good chunk of people go to colleges to learn and teach things... these guys maybe need to watch a bit less TV).
It is perhaps ironic that the only people who seem to really give a damn about things also come across as stark raving nuts.
The Bible itself has something to say about public preaching.
Matthew 6:1-7 (21st Century King James version):
1 "Take heed that ye do not your almsgiving before men, to be seen by them; otherwise ye have no reward from your Father who is in Heaven.
2 Therefore when thou givest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward.
3 But when thou givest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth,
4 that thine almsgiving may be in secret; and thy Father who seeth in secret, Himself shall reward thee openly.
5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward.
6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father who is in secret; and thy Father who seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions as the heathen do, for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."
I'm going to interpret this passage as saying that if you are praying to try to materialistically show off how religious you are to other mortal people then this is probably doing it for the wrong reasons. I believe it to be saying one should strive to be humble and try to keep it between you and God. It also might be suggesting that it is the quality of spirituality and not the quantity of religiousity that should make up a person's faith?
Then in Matthew 6:8 it goes a bit further by saying:
"Be not ye therefore like unto them, for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of before ye ask Him."
See? The Bible itself is saying you don't need to show off to other people what it is you are praying about because God already knows and He isn't particularly impressed by that. Or at least that's how I'm choosing to interpret it.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Misogyny and Misandry: Misanthropy?
Men and Women can have different socioculturally ingrained ways of thinking about the same things. This doesn't mean that either of them are necessarily always right but also means that neither one is necessarily always wrong.
It is this author's belief that subjecting members of the opposite sex to a battery of increasingly horrific and difficult MINDGAMES and psychological tests is not a good way to try to enjoy each other's company. If you like someone, then say so. If you are okay with just being friends, yes, do that. If you are mature enough to understand that people can still flirt even without being sexually attracted to you then good for you, you get to have a cookie (yes, sometimes this is easier said than done, particularly when it is someone you find yourself possibly attracted to, but it is possible,- everybody just has to be mature, reasonable and civilized adults... which is part of the problem).
Trial and error taught me to never apologize to someone for liking them if you tell them that (yes, even if it turns out they do not like you in return). This, you see, is a compliment. What it means is that you find the other person likable and a worthwhile human being. Do not pester them about liking them however, as this will drive them away and lead to much misery for all parties involved.
In closing: MEANINGFULNESS is a salve to the MEANINGLESSNESS of this SHALLOW AND SUPERFICIAL CESSPOOL. I DON'T RUN FROM MEANINGFULNESS, I EMBRACE IT.
It is this author's belief that subjecting members of the opposite sex to a battery of increasingly horrific and difficult MINDGAMES and psychological tests is not a good way to try to enjoy each other's company. If you like someone, then say so. If you are okay with just being friends, yes, do that. If you are mature enough to understand that people can still flirt even without being sexually attracted to you then good for you, you get to have a cookie (yes, sometimes this is easier said than done, particularly when it is someone you find yourself possibly attracted to, but it is possible,- everybody just has to be mature, reasonable and civilized adults... which is part of the problem).
Trial and error taught me to never apologize to someone for liking them if you tell them that (yes, even if it turns out they do not like you in return). This, you see, is a compliment. What it means is that you find the other person likable and a worthwhile human being. Do not pester them about liking them however, as this will drive them away and lead to much misery for all parties involved.
In closing: MEANINGFULNESS is a salve to the MEANINGLESSNESS of this SHALLOW AND SUPERFICIAL CESSPOOL. I DON'T RUN FROM MEANINGFULNESS, I EMBRACE IT.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Why Marx was wrong
Corporate Overlord here. Yes I’m a capitalist ideologically… Of sorts anyway. Maybe a reluctant capitalist. I can see where capitalism produces inefficient and non socially optimal outcomes. (I’m an economics student, remember?) When I was younger I was very into Marx. Reading Marx can in fact be enlightening. But Marx was wrong on many points. The biggest point being his labor theory of value. Marx believed that a product has value based on the labor put into it. If one expands on this idea they come to the conclusion that any profit made by the capitalist (Capitalist can mean two things: one who owns capital, and one who holds the view that economically capitalism works the best. I hold that view, but now we are talking about an owner.) must be the result of exploitation, for profit must come when something is sold for greater than its value.
The problem with this notion is that a capitalist must be induced into acting. If one can only make personal profits from one’s own labor, than one will try to avoid contributing capital, for doing so would be at a cost. If ones decisions on capital only lead one to make exactly what one has put in, contributing capital is not at a cost, but not at any profit either. A capitalist MUST therefore purchase labor at a bargain price in order for the expenditure of capital to be justified. Given multiple choices between a little profit, and a large amount of profit, the capitalist will seek the largest amount of profit possible. This means purchasing labor at the greatest discount possible.
Is this exploitation? Truthfully it can be, but it depends. How free are the laborers to refuse work? If they are free to refuse work then it is not exploitation because workers will only seek employment if the marginal product of their labor is greater than the marginal dis-utility of labor. If the marginal dis-utility of labor is greater than the marginal product of labor for workers, workers will only work under coercive circumstances. In some countries such circumstances do in fact exist. Ironically they don’t tend to be capitalist countries. Providing labor when its marginal product is greater than its marginal dis-utility cannot be considered exploitation.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
On Disappearing:
Maintaining friendships with some types of people.Only two reasons I avoid:
I have repeatedly found myself defending why I'm not around, AKA online whenever the person/people in question wanted to talk to me. Over and over and over.Here's a thought--if you can't behave like a decent, rational human being in public, you probably can't behave like one online. Not to mention, some people have way too much time on their hands to spend stalking and harassing others-- and maybe they shouldn't be given a computer...
So, two reasons:
1.) If it's somebody who is disrupting my work, trying to distract me from it or basically shitting on the vast majority of my ideas, I may disappear to get away from that. When you get bombarded too much, it's pretty normal to want to take a breather since this allows you to think a little more clearly.
2.) I'm a STUDENT. We spend time STUDYING STUFF! Like, FOR TESTS. Which are REQUIRED. It really helps with things like, say, GOOD GRADES. So in fact, I may actually be doing student things, which can lead to being tied up in research or needing some time to myself.
If it's important, people do know how to reach me. Seriously, I don't just go AWOL without making allowances for emergencies. Key words here are "important" and "emergencies."
I have a phone, email, and this page here. This is not exactly a total off-the-grid situation where, I don't know, someone would have to start up a fire and get busy sending smoke signals.
I do remember somebody getting mad that I didn't make a superb effort to talk to her at length every single day. Well, I didn't mean to upset her, but things do come up.
Another person got mad if they saw me spending any time with other people who weren't them. Then I had to draw a line in the middle of their rant and explain that I was spending time with the other people because those "other people" were folks I was discussing an idea with for a project. You know, fellow students, teachers, etc?
It bothers me, this notion of being constantly connected and always available, be it through the internet, cell phones, what-have-you.
Sometimes you're trying to talk to specific people about specific stuff, which with me often involves school; and you don't want to be torn away from that to deal with somebody else being mad at you because they think you aren't paying enough attention to them at that exact moment.
Not to mention, sometimes you just don't want to talk to anybody because you need some solitude to work on something that's complicated. These are not evil things, or they weren't before instant gratification via being constantly plugged in resulted in people thinking that not being immersed at all times was wrong, even socially offensive.
I even had one person who couldn't get used to the idea that I wasn't around to chat when I was AT SCHOOL IN CLASSES. Right, yes, because clearly the student thing is a cover story. I must really be living in my parents' basement with a Matrix-style jack directly into the back of my skull (btw, would so not want to get a computer virus from one of those).
He got sort of paranoid and kept trying to "prove" that I was signed into my regular IM program as Invisible, when it was really just that I was logged out or not online. The way I'd find out that he was doing that would be when I finally did get out of class or finish work, I'd sign into my email and there'd be yards and yards of increasingly angry "messages that were received while you were offline."
To liken this to something "in RL," think of it as being at work or at school and having people fill up your voicemail and/or your answering machine with increasingly angry messages, all insisting that you must really be home and you need to pick up RIGHT THAT SECOND!!!1!!
This would not be considered socially acceptable behavior--in a way, it's a type of harassment. So why is it considered OK just because it happens over the internet? It still involves a type of verbal harassment that escalates in tone.
Sometimes I have to disappear, from anywhere from a few days up to a whole week or more at a time if I get embroiled in something exceedingly complicated. It's one of the perils of being friends with somebody who studies science and research for a living.
These people who would get mad would always choose right near my finals week or if I was doing a term paper to do their blowups. It's the damnedest thing. It would consistently happen, whether I had repeatedly told them that I was trying to study or not. If I said that I was trying to study, they'd insist that studying was irrelevant, or try to make it my fault for not signing out. Of course, if I had signed out, then I would have gotten a ton of offline messages demanding to know why I wasn't online. Lose-lose situation.
I do try to be patient and explain at first, but at this point it's like, YOU DON'T OWN ME. Get back to where proper boundaries are or eff off.
The other ugly thing about arguing online is when the other person insists what they are doing (religion, school, career, hobby, etc) is real, but what you're doing...well, it just isn't important on any level, according to them. And then, satisfied that they've made their points, the person goes "I'm going to bed!" and then signs out leaving you to puzzle out just what the hell they were mad at you about in the first place--that, or unable to explain your side of things because you'd be just talking to yourself.
(Because, well, talking to someone through your computer who's offline is pointless. BECAUSE THEY ARE OFFLINE.)
One last creepy thing that sometimes people do is passive-aggressively wait and stalk you in your IM list on stealth the whole day. Essentially, they wait until you sign in unawares to check your inbox, flip to online, and blast you away about whatever it is that they are mad at you about (sometimes in caps--only ever had that happen twice but it's a surefire way to a quick block and delete and never being spoken to again ).
(Edited by Mary this week who is made of awesome... Go see her blog The PMS Project. DO IT).
Update 10/23/11: It said you can't use the icons from the other site externally without permission, so I removed them.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
The Battle for Relevancy:
One of the ongoing difficulties in persuasive writing and education and a common complaint among professionals is trying to work with an increasingly apathetic and lazy audience. One that seems to be getting shorter and shorter attention spans as time goes on.
We are experiencing a cultural shift, a push toward increasingly visual and less textual communication. Literacy is going down! Or so they say...
People like being spoon fed why things matter more than having to piece together for themselves how and why different things are important.
We are experiencing a cultural shift, a push toward increasingly visual and less textual communication. Literacy is going down! Or so they say...
People like being spoon fed why things matter more than having to piece together for themselves how and why different things are important.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Oh politics and proletariat dictatorship:
How you never fail to behave predictably and amuse.
For expressing the counter-mainstream opinion that gee, maybe I find it a bit disturbing that the only thing all parties can seem to agree on is cutting funding for programs I get called in this order: A commie, UnAmerican, a bleeding heart liberal, and an out of touch academic who needs to go GET A JOB or is wishing doom upon the United States.
For suggesting that you need to spend money in order to make money so maybe controlled spending in investments in key growth areas is still good for the economy, yes even during a recession, I get branded some sort of a scumbag and the above.
SO saying you want everything to self-destruct by there being no gov't spending and that nobody should invest in anything privately either (which btw is guaranteed to affect the economy negatively) makes for folk wisdom, and saying that trying to spur job growth is a good idea... becomes the folk blasphemy of a minor folk devil. Interesting. Oh wait, you mean we had a debacle with speculative real estate again? Really? Where have I heard that one before?... oh yes, American History. Florida. Some time around between the 1930s and the 1950s-ish, ballpark figure?
It is but all the more water off a duck's back. Let them argue and reaffirm the beliefs they have faith in that they were fed in such a way as to continue one sided conversations and stalemate arguments...
Ugh, enough politics for awhile...
Update: 8/5/11: So... they say the USA lost it's AAA credit rating. S&P got honked off and bumped it down to AA+. And still, lots of Republicans and Democrats are apparently blaming each other rather than trying to come up with ways to go about rebuilding the US economy. I keep hearing more of the same. Spending cuts on programs, tax cuts for the rich, extensions of entitlement programs... ugh. I don't think "use a bigger hammer" is going to fix it. Now, I know, in politics we take pride on being stubborn and "sticking to our guns" so to speak but this is stuff that affects the livelihoods of the American citizenry we're talking about here so doing stuff to create more jobs should not be considered such anathema. Why don't we agree that everybody is a shithead and set aside our differences and get to nation-building at home. I've been watching the infrastructure decay. I know people would howl bloody murder if somebody were to impose tariffs and issue penalties for outsourcing but I think SOMEBODY needs to address these neglected ingredients that are part of what's gotten us into this mess. We seem to import more than we export and be trying to self-destruct internally. Yuck.
For expressing the counter-mainstream opinion that gee, maybe I find it a bit disturbing that the only thing all parties can seem to agree on is cutting funding for programs I get called in this order: A commie, UnAmerican, a bleeding heart liberal, and an out of touch academic who needs to go GET A JOB or is wishing doom upon the United States.
For suggesting that you need to spend money in order to make money so maybe controlled spending in investments in key growth areas is still good for the economy, yes even during a recession, I get branded some sort of a scumbag and the above.
SO saying you want everything to self-destruct by there being no gov't spending and that nobody should invest in anything privately either (which btw is guaranteed to affect the economy negatively) makes for folk wisdom, and saying that trying to spur job growth is a good idea... becomes the folk blasphemy of a minor folk devil. Interesting. Oh wait, you mean we had a debacle with speculative real estate again? Really? Where have I heard that one before?... oh yes, American History. Florida. Some time around between the 1930s and the 1950s-ish, ballpark figure?
It is but all the more water off a duck's back. Let them argue and reaffirm the beliefs they have faith in that they were fed in such a way as to continue one sided conversations and stalemate arguments...
Ugh, enough politics for awhile...
Update: 8/5/11: So... they say the USA lost it's AAA credit rating. S&P got honked off and bumped it down to AA+. And still, lots of Republicans and Democrats are apparently blaming each other rather than trying to come up with ways to go about rebuilding the US economy. I keep hearing more of the same. Spending cuts on programs, tax cuts for the rich, extensions of entitlement programs... ugh. I don't think "use a bigger hammer" is going to fix it. Now, I know, in politics we take pride on being stubborn and "sticking to our guns" so to speak but this is stuff that affects the livelihoods of the American citizenry we're talking about here so doing stuff to create more jobs should not be considered such anathema. Why don't we agree that everybody is a shithead and set aside our differences and get to nation-building at home. I've been watching the infrastructure decay. I know people would howl bloody murder if somebody were to impose tariffs and issue penalties for outsourcing but I think SOMEBODY needs to address these neglected ingredients that are part of what's gotten us into this mess. We seem to import more than we export and be trying to self-destruct internally. Yuck.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Social climbing:
The myth of social climbing with upward social mobility is the one by which we tell ourselves that attempting to buddy up with or that sleeping with people who are rich, powerful or otherwise important that it is somehow going to help us become important. This is rampant in society. Both men and women do it. It's fairly transparent and obvious to actual important people though.
Everybody wants somebody who has already passed the finish line and has already succeeded. Nobody wants to take a risk on somebody who is still going through the paces and on their way. There is an almost primal and preternatural fear of being a "doctor's first wife."
Okay so you recognized they are an important person. The hell do you have to offer them? Your fake friendship and some sex? I don't think so. Eventually the climber will get dumped too by somebody who is even more ruthless about it than they are.
Cee-Lo Green humorously regales us (perhaps semi-autobiographically?) about golddiggers in the following song clip:
It was hard to find an uncensored version of the song you could still watch without having to be logged in to prove you were 18. Whatever happened to freedom of speech people? He only drops a couple F-bombs for Chrissake. Anyway...
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Science:
That I should be wasting time explaining to someone that we don't sit there actually trying to make monsters and/or take over the world and that Hollywood always tends to portray it as a bad guy says something about how science gets viewed in our culture, both as the cool givers of really neat stuff (consumer electronics anyone? Materials that have special properties cool much? Thought so! Medicine convenient! You can thank science for that!) and also as "Omg aah, those freaks who seem to care more about numbers or plants or animals or germs than people! Eek! And/or want tax payer money & funding to do who knows what (because I'm too lame to try to read up on any of it so I'll sit and gripe rather than try to understand it!)."
Mysticism:
Religions attempt to control our beliefs even in things outside the physical realm.
Extreme atheist skeptics try to shatter people's beliefs.
I find funny parallels between the two at times.
One may note the conceptual attack on mysticism by our culture is multi-pronged. Religions dislike it because it suggests a lack of necessity for organized religions and has historically been rather hard to subjugate and control other than through persecution and extermination. Consumer society hates it because it's really difficult to market supernatural kinds of arcane things. Science, we'd rather just plain not deal with it given the opportunity because, as you know, the domain of science and modis operandi of science people tends to be concerned with the physical world and things you can measure empirically.
Now, before you can get your anti anything-that-isn't-empirical game on, tighten your tinfoil hat a little tighter, point at & use the drugs and psychosis thought terminating cliche that Thomas Szach (sp?) was talking about, or shove a cross at me really hard this is already going to be the last entry I am going to write on this topic for a good long while to begin with...
Extreme atheist skeptics try to shatter people's beliefs.
I find funny parallels between the two at times.
One may note the conceptual attack on mysticism by our culture is multi-pronged. Religions dislike it because it suggests a lack of necessity for organized religions and has historically been rather hard to subjugate and control other than through persecution and extermination. Consumer society hates it because it's really difficult to market supernatural kinds of arcane things. Science, we'd rather just plain not deal with it given the opportunity because, as you know, the domain of science and modis operandi of science people tends to be concerned with the physical world and things you can measure empirically.
Now, before you can get your anti anything-that-isn't-empirical game on, tighten your tinfoil hat a little tighter, point at & use the drugs and psychosis thought terminating cliche that Thomas Szach (sp?) was talking about, or shove a cross at me really hard this is already going to be the last entry I am going to write on this topic for a good long while to begin with...
Friday, May 13, 2011
Our Society has Problems:
We tell people to never complain, to suck it up, to pretend everything is great, stuff is awesome and act extra super cheerful, no matter what. Then we have the gall to act surprised at the level of violence and crime.
Except, in truly schizoid fashion we also teach people to be afraid of everyone and everything most especially each other and their neighbors. Yet, we do not also teach them to properly fear themselves at the individual level. Oh, sure, religion tries but you should have a more personal reason for people to want to behave well than some giant angry deity in the sky is going to cause some really messed up stuff to happen to you eventually if you keep being a dick to people. My beef with established & organized religion shall perhaps have to go into another entry at a later point in time. We'll not get into that here and right now.
One concluding thought: Why does the news seldom ever do any spread about an investigation into the possibility of a correlation between decreased funding for social programs (which results in the shutting down of libraries, community centers and after school programs) and the level of crime in cities?
Except, in truly schizoid fashion we also teach people to be afraid of everyone and everything most especially each other and their neighbors. Yet, we do not also teach them to properly fear themselves at the individual level. Oh, sure, religion tries but you should have a more personal reason for people to want to behave well than some giant angry deity in the sky is going to cause some really messed up stuff to happen to you eventually if you keep being a dick to people. My beef with established & organized religion shall perhaps have to go into another entry at a later point in time. We'll not get into that here and right now.
One concluding thought: Why does the news seldom ever do any spread about an investigation into the possibility of a correlation between decreased funding for social programs (which results in the shutting down of libraries, community centers and after school programs) and the level of crime in cities?
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Oops Almost Forgot a title.
Corporate Overlord here. I've been thinking about something. Now I'm not a lawyer, but so what? (For the record I'm an economics student, but I also take classes in business and accounting from time to time. ) A few years ago there was a suit brought on by WAMU shareholders against the FDIC and Chase.
This was after WAMU failed, and was taken over by Chase. I'm not a huge fan of Chase, but as far as im concerned this
suit was arrogant and wrong headed.
First, a few terms to be defined: Assets: Assets are anything owned by a firm
that furthers its position, defined in this case by it's economic or financial value. Liabilities: In this case
liabilities are NOT hinderences, or things to be avoided, or legal issues. Liabilities are simply defined as financial
obligations that are the result of doing business. Owners equity: Owners equity is the financial value of what is owned
by a firms owners. Therefore we come to the fundamental accounting equation: Assets = Liabilities + Owners Equity
In other words, what a firm owns = what it owes + what is left over belonging to shareholders. One of the key points
of this equation is that it is supposed to be a balanced equation.
What the Wamu shareholders were suing for was to get their hands on deposits, an asset. But how do depository institutions
work? When you make a deposit to a bank they write down your deposit as an asset. But what is on the other side of the
equation? Is it a Liability, or Equity? It is a liability. The only reason banks are legally allowed to write down your
deposit as an asset is because at the same time they must book a liability to be paid to you when you make a withdrawal. Since
Wamu shareholders have no viable financial institution with which they can make good on these liabilities, why should they be
granted access to these assets? If you are a Wamu shareholder, I feel for you and your loss. But that is a risk you take
as a shareholder. You also have a responsibility. As a common shareholder anyway, you are responsible for electing the firms
board of directors, who in turn select the CEO. WAMU's failure is not the fault of chase, or the fdic. Ultimately the failure
of WAMU falls on the shoulders of the CEO.
Then there is the question of how assets are divided when a firm fails. Legally this is unambiguous. There is a hierarchy
of rights as far as these assets are concerned. Generally a firms creditors are placed first on this hierarchy. This should not
be surprising. Depositors are somewhere in the middle, shareholders however are the last considered. There is a reason for this.
It may be possible that the FDIC and Chase were not looking after the rights of shareholders. However this is not their job.
At the end of the day it is those who have been given legal reason to expect their deposits will be available who the FDIC
must put first. Those who gamble on a companies performance are not as high of a priority. To sum this up,
deposits belong to depositors, not shareholders.
*Cue a picture of the old RCA Indian Head cable test pattern*
This was after WAMU failed, and was taken over by Chase. I'm not a huge fan of Chase, but as far as im concerned this
suit was arrogant and wrong headed.
First, a few terms to be defined: Assets: Assets are anything owned by a firm
that furthers its position, defined in this case by it's economic or financial value. Liabilities: In this case
liabilities are NOT hinderences, or things to be avoided, or legal issues. Liabilities are simply defined as financial
obligations that are the result of doing business. Owners equity: Owners equity is the financial value of what is owned
by a firms owners. Therefore we come to the fundamental accounting equation: Assets = Liabilities + Owners Equity
In other words, what a firm owns = what it owes + what is left over belonging to shareholders. One of the key points
of this equation is that it is supposed to be a balanced equation.
What the Wamu shareholders were suing for was to get their hands on deposits, an asset. But how do depository institutions
work? When you make a deposit to a bank they write down your deposit as an asset. But what is on the other side of the
equation? Is it a Liability, or Equity? It is a liability. The only reason banks are legally allowed to write down your
deposit as an asset is because at the same time they must book a liability to be paid to you when you make a withdrawal. Since
Wamu shareholders have no viable financial institution with which they can make good on these liabilities, why should they be
granted access to these assets? If you are a Wamu shareholder, I feel for you and your loss. But that is a risk you take
as a shareholder. You also have a responsibility. As a common shareholder anyway, you are responsible for electing the firms
board of directors, who in turn select the CEO. WAMU's failure is not the fault of chase, or the fdic. Ultimately the failure
of WAMU falls on the shoulders of the CEO.
Then there is the question of how assets are divided when a firm fails. Legally this is unambiguous. There is a hierarchy
of rights as far as these assets are concerned. Generally a firms creditors are placed first on this hierarchy. This should not
be surprising. Depositors are somewhere in the middle, shareholders however are the last considered. There is a reason for this.
It may be possible that the FDIC and Chase were not looking after the rights of shareholders. However this is not their job.
At the end of the day it is those who have been given legal reason to expect their deposits will be available who the FDIC
must put first. Those who gamble on a companies performance are not as high of a priority. To sum this up,
deposits belong to depositors, not shareholders.
*Cue a picture of the old RCA Indian Head cable test pattern*
More Crap:
Do we not have a responsibility as consumers to ask producers and manufactures what it is their products do? We get handed the same pitch again and again about how fabulous a NEW product or service is but people don't seem to pipe up and ask what the things actually do.
I think we should demand quality goods rather than just ride along with whatever crap gets churned out.
I think we should demand quality goods rather than just ride along with whatever crap gets churned out.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Further Disgust with Mainstream Media Coverage of Politics and Crises:
Some nut will be yelling about: Let me guess, they are going to blame everything from crime to natural disasters on The Left, The Right, immigrants, the poor, the rich, gays, intellectuals, other races and on there being people who aren't Christians existing. So predictable.
They'll lack proof and yell about how proof is one of the tools of the enemy and can be argued with and the faith and belief in their hearts means they don't need good solid facts and basically try to shout you down so perhaps don't bother. Or they'll yell at you how their facts are better than your facts and it'll just eat up time. Not very productive. I've even seen people citing the exact same sources of similar and comparable quality do that to each other. They get... over-emotional.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Our materialistic Culture:
Tells people to throw things away rather than repair. It makes fun of people who are creative enough to make (things) and ridicules them for not buying it premade. It also tells us to use and throw away people. That's the dark side of consumerism. Also, in fighting to produce things the cheapest usually human rights and ethics go out the window. Thank third-world sweat shops for your shoes and storing your e-waste. Going paperless is sometimes browner for the environment than using recyclable paper.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Functional Fixedness in understanding competition in markets
Corporate overlord here. Time to go over an interesting (maybe) economic concept. Functional fixedness is a concept in psychology in which the use of an object can only be understood by an individual in the way that that object is traditionally used. Im not sure if what im talking about can specifically be called functional fixedness, but essentially it is the same idea. When people are taught about markets and competition they tend to assume the most obvious relationships in a market are the only ones that exist. In short in a market producers compete based on cost to sell to consumers. This is econ 101 stuff. Like most Econ 101 stuff it doesn't tell the whole story. I am learning slowly to avoid arguments with people who think they understand economics because they took such a basic course. That is a story for another time of course.
Actually competition in any market can exist in three ways, or some combination thereof. Competition exists between producers and producers of course. Competition also exists between consumers and consumers (sometimes.) Now here is the one that may surprise you. Competition exists between consumers and producers! Now obviously when you go to the store to pick out a bottle of coke the clerk does not argue with you on price. This would be foolish. Here's what many people don't see about markets: behavior in aggregate can differ widely from behavior on an individual level. Now to explain this concept lets set out some terms. Internal competition is competition between members of the same group... That is to say consumers and other consumers or producers and other producers engage in internal competition. External competition is the competition between opposing groups. In short external competition is the way in which consumers compete with producers during an interaction.
A housing market is a good example for looking at some of these concepts. When there are 5 parties trying to buy the same house internal competition emerges between consumers. The price goes up. When there are 5 home owners trying to sell to two parties, internal competition emerges between producers. The price goes down. Now in either case of internal competition if one group becomes more internally competitive, the other group becomes less so. In other words, if those selling their houses have to lower prices (becoming more competitive) those buying houses don't have to offer as much (becoming less competitive.) So how does this relate to external competition? Quite simply both groups will in a way compete to try to force the other group to become more competitive, lessening internal competition. Why? Because internal competition hurts. So how may groups compete externally? Partially by controlling supply where viable. If there is a surplus of some item being offered on the market, the producers must become more competitive and lower prices. If there is a shortage the consumers must increase what they are willing to pay. It is conceivable that in some markets there may be cases of producers buying up or not releasing surplus, and or consumers dumping existing units, or not buying what they otherwise would to lower price.
Now obviously one cannot say that all three forms of competition exist in every single market. What you should get out of this is that all three forms of competition exist in some market or other. In short, yes suppliers compete with each other based on price and quality in markets. But this is not the only form of competition that exists.
Actually competition in any market can exist in three ways, or some combination thereof. Competition exists between producers and producers of course. Competition also exists between consumers and consumers (sometimes.) Now here is the one that may surprise you. Competition exists between consumers and producers! Now obviously when you go to the store to pick out a bottle of coke the clerk does not argue with you on price. This would be foolish. Here's what many people don't see about markets: behavior in aggregate can differ widely from behavior on an individual level. Now to explain this concept lets set out some terms. Internal competition is competition between members of the same group... That is to say consumers and other consumers or producers and other producers engage in internal competition. External competition is the competition between opposing groups. In short external competition is the way in which consumers compete with producers during an interaction.
A housing market is a good example for looking at some of these concepts. When there are 5 parties trying to buy the same house internal competition emerges between consumers. The price goes up. When there are 5 home owners trying to sell to two parties, internal competition emerges between producers. The price goes down. Now in either case of internal competition if one group becomes more internally competitive, the other group becomes less so. In other words, if those selling their houses have to lower prices (becoming more competitive) those buying houses don't have to offer as much (becoming less competitive.) So how does this relate to external competition? Quite simply both groups will in a way compete to try to force the other group to become more competitive, lessening internal competition. Why? Because internal competition hurts. So how may groups compete externally? Partially by controlling supply where viable. If there is a surplus of some item being offered on the market, the producers must become more competitive and lower prices. If there is a shortage the consumers must increase what they are willing to pay. It is conceivable that in some markets there may be cases of producers buying up or not releasing surplus, and or consumers dumping existing units, or not buying what they otherwise would to lower price.
Now obviously one cannot say that all three forms of competition exist in every single market. What you should get out of this is that all three forms of competition exist in some market or other. In short, yes suppliers compete with each other based on price and quality in markets. But this is not the only form of competition that exists.
Monday, March 28, 2011
And so begins my working vacation:
Vacation is an antiquated concept. Also possibly Unamerican. "Time off" as it were... is a wasteful and hurting thing. Or gets framed that way.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Work calls:
Mini-vacation over and now I have much catching up to do in it; it's not exactly going to get done by itself. New entries up soon though I promise.
Raise your hand if you've had this happen:
I've gained and lost friends when changing medications sometimes for different health problems. It's just one of those things that happens. They go, dude you seem a little off, what the hell and I go, trying to adjust to some stuff and then they refuse to believe it and go awol. Which makes you wonder if they liked you for you vs liked you for who you were under a particular pill. You're still you of course at the bottom of all of it but they treat you like you are possessed by a demon or something.
If you or some one else find yourselves fighting a shit ton more often and neither understand why the other is behaving that way it could be that something is chemically off. That doesn't really help anyone during the mess but it feels better than just assuming it's because the person who was your friend, lover, neighbor or whatever was just a superjerk.
People pick up on these little things and react accordingly but usually incorrectly.
If you or some one else find yourselves fighting a shit ton more often and neither understand why the other is behaving that way it could be that something is chemically off. That doesn't really help anyone during the mess but it feels better than just assuming it's because the person who was your friend, lover, neighbor or whatever was just a superjerk.
People pick up on these little things and react accordingly but usually incorrectly.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Depressing: Grade A Prickheadedness:
Human behavior in groups is depressing. The way our petty politics plays out. Particularly where I live. People take great delight in stabbing one another in the back while maintaining a false geniality. A special sort of seething disgust and ice is reserved for those of us who can see through their manipulations. Oddly those of us who are genuinely trying to be nice get attacked sometimes by mistake as we are confused at times for the former or thought to be "suckers"; Some of us do not feel like behaving as a dirtbag all the time and in every situation.
We don’t just not discourage people from being assholes, we actually encourage it. America is a land of meanies and weenies. You can’t blame it on immigration either because no one nation has a monopoly on all the jerks in the world. Everywhere has some mean and stupid people. However in America we seem to worship it.
We don’t just not discourage people from being assholes, we actually encourage it. America is a land of meanies and weenies. You can’t blame it on immigration either because no one nation has a monopoly on all the jerks in the world. Everywhere has some mean and stupid people. However in America we seem to worship it.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
So there I was
on my ass. Sitting there out the door, plotting my next move...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
=================================================================
Author's note: 4th wall: Okay took two friends to see a movie. Not here to do any sort of consumer reviews though. You'll find those on some other blog but not here.
Bit the bullet and joined a dating site (toe in the water)*. Not too hypocritical though, still hate the guts out of social networking places and all things flashy, gaudy and buy stuff-ish, pretty much. back to the story:
=================================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was sitting there wondering when something dawned on me. The thing to make the next entry about. Memes.
Okay somebody thinks something up then collectively lots of other people think it's funny or cool and start quoting it in other places. This ignores one of the fundamental rules of context and in some circles causes you to be read as an idiot for doing. Why do people do this to themselves?
1. The game. Okay you know what? Everybody lost the original one a long time ago and we don't even have the manual. We lost the original game, so we are playing a different one. There, happy? God man, let go of it already.
2. Oh hai ____. For this one I blame The Room.
Also, memes tend to be self replicating and repeating little adaptations of bits of pop culture. So in order to remain counter-cultural I purged them from my creative work then subverted them thereby unwittingly contributing even further to the jumbled mess that is our culture as it stands. No escape!
& that is one of the inherent complications involved in guerilla cultural subversion.
Creativity in a way is inherent subversion from the mold. Let's not be trite however and I hate how badly this sentiment seems to have aged. It's gotten to the point where you see corporations that are the biggest piece of the establishment ever churning out slogans about it. Also, hipsters, you do not own irony (I almost got run over by five people in expensive fixies purchased from a shop while crossing the street the other day who didn't look where they were going)!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
=================================================================
*Most of the people on it sucked (no big suprise), but there was one who seems a bit different. I kinda hope she sticks around for awhile. All I will say about it is unfortunately that one did not work out.
=================================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
=================================================================
Author's note: 4th wall: Okay took two friends to see a movie. Not here to do any sort of consumer reviews though. You'll find those on some other blog but not here.
Bit the bullet and joined a dating site (toe in the water)*. Not too hypocritical though, still hate the guts out of social networking places and all things flashy, gaudy and buy stuff-ish, pretty much. back to the story:
=================================================================
I was sitting there wondering when something dawned on me. The thing to make the next entry about. Memes.
Okay somebody thinks something up then collectively lots of other people think it's funny or cool and start quoting it in other places. This ignores one of the fundamental rules of context and in some circles causes you to be read as an idiot for doing. Why do people do this to themselves?
1. The game. Okay you know what? Everybody lost the original one a long time ago and we don't even have the manual. We lost the original game, so we are playing a different one. There, happy? God man, let go of it already.
2. Oh hai ____. For this one I blame The Room.
Also, memes tend to be self replicating and repeating little adaptations of bits of pop culture. So in order to remain counter-cultural I purged them from my creative work then subverted them thereby unwittingly contributing even further to the jumbled mess that is our culture as it stands. No escape!
& that is one of the inherent complications involved in guerilla cultural subversion.
Creativity in a way is inherent subversion from the mold. Let's not be trite however and I hate how badly this sentiment seems to have aged. It's gotten to the point where you see corporations that are the biggest piece of the establishment ever churning out slogans about it. Also, hipsters, you do not own irony (I almost got run over by five people in expensive fixies purchased from a shop while crossing the street the other day who didn't look where they were going)!
=================================================================
*
=================================================================
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Consumerism vs Consumerism
Corporate overlord here. Today we are going to learn about consumerism. There are several concepts that have at times been called consumerism. The worst concept that goes by that name is really just a synonym for conspicuous consumption.
This is purchasing what everybody else has purchased, and more to show status. Unfortunately having material goods does not really indicate what an individual is worth. This is especially true if the latest gadgets are fancy, have all the bells and whistles, and will last about 3 weeks. That leads us to the good form of consumerism: being a good consumer. No being a good consumer is not about conspicuous consumption.
Being a good consumer is about following classical microeconomic models of utility maximization. (Which so few really do, the homo economicus is pretty much non existant.) In other words, it is your money, if you must by item X, what is the best item X you can get for it? This is a very simplified form of Utility maximization, but long form utility maximization is tedious, and makes too many assumptions that probably don't hold.
Now how does one get the best item X for their money? Well in short, do your homework. One thing I like is headphones. If I have the money for a new pair of headphones (and I don't) then there are several resources. I could check online with headphone enthusiasts, who have several websites. I could check with a publication like consumer reports (although that particular publication tends to be a mouthpiece for certain manufacturers.) I could even try several pairs of headphones on myself. (Yes I know a store that will let me do this.)
What a good consumer does not do is say "Oh I've heard of brand Y, they must be good." Companies rely on this sort of thinking to dupe customers. Several companies ride on reputation even as their quality falters. Some brands (A certain audio company) never even had quality, but rely on the fact that most consumers are terrible at playing the consumer game.
This brings me to another point: Often you get what you pay for up to a certain point. A number of companies with high brand recognition actually give you less than you pay for.
This isn't saying go with "budget brands" (Although everyone should spend no more than they can afford at the most.) This is saying some brands will rip you off if they have a name. Its your money. If you must spend it, get the most you can with it.
A note about this post: A few may accuse me of misrepresenting utility maximization. The important thing to note is that I DO understand utility maximization, but I have to paraphrase somewhat as this post is not written for economics students. (although they are welcome to read it)
This is purchasing what everybody else has purchased, and more to show status. Unfortunately having material goods does not really indicate what an individual is worth. This is especially true if the latest gadgets are fancy, have all the bells and whistles, and will last about 3 weeks. That leads us to the good form of consumerism: being a good consumer. No being a good consumer is not about conspicuous consumption.
Being a good consumer is about following classical microeconomic models of utility maximization. (Which so few really do, the homo economicus is pretty much non existant.) In other words, it is your money, if you must by item X, what is the best item X you can get for it? This is a very simplified form of Utility maximization, but long form utility maximization is tedious, and makes too many assumptions that probably don't hold.
Now how does one get the best item X for their money? Well in short, do your homework. One thing I like is headphones. If I have the money for a new pair of headphones (and I don't) then there are several resources. I could check online with headphone enthusiasts, who have several websites. I could check with a publication like consumer reports (although that particular publication tends to be a mouthpiece for certain manufacturers.) I could even try several pairs of headphones on myself. (Yes I know a store that will let me do this.)
What a good consumer does not do is say "Oh I've heard of brand Y, they must be good." Companies rely on this sort of thinking to dupe customers. Several companies ride on reputation even as their quality falters. Some brands (A certain audio company) never even had quality, but rely on the fact that most consumers are terrible at playing the consumer game.
This brings me to another point: Often you get what you pay for up to a certain point. A number of companies with high brand recognition actually give you less than you pay for.
This isn't saying go with "budget brands" (Although everyone should spend no more than they can afford at the most.) This is saying some brands will rip you off if they have a name. Its your money. If you must spend it, get the most you can with it.
A note about this post: A few may accuse me of misrepresenting utility maximization. The important thing to note is that I DO understand utility maximization, but I have to paraphrase somewhat as this post is not written for economics students. (although they are welcome to read it)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)