The establishment vs Uber

[FireIceTalon]

I would say you know enough to ask difficult questions, but not enough to understand the answers.

perhaps you could be more specific? One of the strengths of Marxian analysis is being able to generate explanations for complex social and economic phenomena.

And... here is part in parcel of what I'm talking about. You don't get to redefine words to suit your purposes. Ideology is just that, a framework of thought or returning to our latin roots, thought narrative. Here is Wikipedia's view of what is defined there as Marxist ideology. Anti-ideology as discussed by Chomsky for example, was used to describe fear mongering propaganda and policy, such as in "anti-communism". Generally, anything followed by -ism can be described as an ideology. Marxism is an ideology. Luxemburg-ism is a more ultra-leftist schism of Marxism left of Leninism, left of Bolsheviks. Extreme is the concept of being not just to the left in this case, but to the extreme left. As opposed to centrist, or leaning left, or leaning right. You are, as we've discussed above, extremely outside the norms of political thought, and in fact, you appear pretty far outside the norms of Marxist thought.

So far out, in fact, that we're clearly using different dictionaries.

Yea, I don't really agree with this. The Wiki link you provided isn't a description of "Marxist ideology", but a description of how Marx observed the function and nature of ideology within a capitalist society. Marx wasn't pushing forth any ideology, but was describing the real world phenomena of class antagonisms. There is a huge difference.

To argue that anything ending with "ism" must be ideological is a deductive argument. Capitalism and Communism both end with "ism", but neither one is an ideology - they are a material condition of society defined by a particular set of social relationships that characterize them. They can be influenced by, driven, or otherwise justified by an ideological premise (in the case of capitalism, its driving ideological force could be Liberalism for instance, but capitalism itself isn't the ideology). Darwinism isn't an ideology either. Ideology can't simply be a mode of thought, it generally has to be something that has a particular goal with a set of views that is structured around that premise. Liberalism is ideological, as is egalitarianism. Marxism is an analytical mode of thought that is not structured around any belief system or an agenda, and therefore it can't be ideological. Rather, it is descriptive, meaning it describes and seeks to understand the world as it actually is....not as how it should or ought to be based on a particular set of beliefs or agendas (as seen in ideological thinking such as in most religions).

As far as my thoughts being far outside the norms of Marxist thought, this is a equally problematic notion.

Firstly, one would have to define the "norms" of Marxist thought, and outside of the basic tenets that make it what it is (a materialist understanding of history, analysis of class struggle, and many of the broader concepts in Marxian economics, etc) that is difficult to do, reflected by the fact there is literally dozens of different tendencies within it that have been developed by prominent Marxist thinkers through history. As you yourself mentioned, a Luxumburgist will have strong disagreements with a Leninist on a variety of key issues, and that is just two tendencies among many within the paradigm.

It is true that my politics lie farther on the left on the Marxist scale (i.e. I do not believe a Vanguard is necessary or even desirable for the working class to organize itself into a political force, and I disagree with the idea of Democratic Centralism and its rigid party politics), but there is nothing unusual about this, and in fact Leninism and its offshoots stands apart from most other tendencies in its advocacy of a vanguard party and Democratic Centralism - so in that regard my politics are well within the norm of most Marxist thought. Leninism comes across as too elitist in my opinion, and R. Luxemburg was proven correct when she noted that Bolshevism had the danger of slipping into authoritarianism (and this was well before Stalin even came to power).

Most Marxian tendencies have their merits and their weaknesses at the same time - ranging all the way from Left Communism to Marxism-Leninism. Wherever my politics lie though, I still think the things we analyze as Marxists (regardless of whatever tendency we identify as) are far more extreme than we are. For all intents and purposes, and for what its worth, I consider myself a non-doctrinaire communist, and I have influences from a variety of thinkers across the Marxist spectrum (as well as some outside of it). I'm not one who goes out of his way to promote sectarianism, as this has been more destructive for radical leftists than almost anything else. Sometimes I must engage in it, in particular when debating with loony Stalinists and Maoists, both tendencies which have far too many inconsistencies and diverge from the core tenets of Marxism.

At the end of the day, who cares really, where my politics lie? I don't see how this should even matter. Developing a proper material analysis for understanding the world (both in a social and economic context) using Marxism, is far more important. I have respect for anyone who does this regardless of their tendency, or even if they are some other type of leftist outside of the Marxist paradigm entirely. If all I cared about was being as far left as possible (which would be meaningless anyways), I'd just become an Anarchist and call it a day. And while I certainly respect the Anarchist mode of thought, there is a reason why I am not one.

Marxism is well outside the norms of political thought, but it's supposed to be, that is kind of the point.

[Jester]

There was something about cabs and innovation in here at one point. But hey, why bother talking about that, when we can talk about the world's most fascinating topic: How Marxist FIT is! We certainly haven't had any of those threads before.

-Jester

[Hammerskjold]

There was something about cabs and innovation in here at one point. But hey, why bother talking about that, when we can talk about the world's most fascinating topic: How Marxist FIT is! We certainly haven't had any of those threads before.

-Jester

Fine then. A brief scene depicting a day in the life of a brilliant young political scientist, named Carl. Stuck in the hell that is commuting. It does not happen inside a taxi, it happens in a far worse place.

Cast of characters:

-Carl, a unique snowflake character, average height. Camera should always be focused on him.

-Mom, disembodied voice only.

- Caitlyn, sibling, toddler sized, should only be in 1/8 of the frame at most, and always out of focus.


Concept art for establishing shot:



BG noise: Music playing from IPod earbud, vol to 11, band called "Slipknot" is playing in Carl's ears.

(Note from legal: Do -not- mention "Slipknot" again, we could not secure the rights currently, legal dept and the producers are meeting right now to cast a soundalike band.)

Close up focus on ear, shown with multiple piercing and ear gauge. Ear gauge shows crudely hand painted symbol of a hammer and sickle, but looks more like Arm&Hammer baking soda logo.


Mom: "Charley? Are you ok back there? Do you want some graham crackers?"

Carl: "NO MOM! And my name is Carl now! Charley is a bourgeois name!"

Mom: " That's great Charles, if you don't want any then give some of the snacks to Caitlyn."

Carl: "....so oppressive!!1111"

Mom: "What's that dear?"

Carl: "Nothing!111....mutter mutter *God!* mutter mutter"

Mom: "You really should be careful with those IPod things you know Charles. I heard on NPR young people in America under the age of 20, have more damaged hearing compared to a 70 year old rural African. They say it's because of those things you put in your ears."

Carl: "NPR is bourgeois Mom, they're totally statist, no better than Faux Nooz!"

Mom: "Oh that's my little Charles, you're always so revolutionary. Even your kindergarten teacher said so."

Carl: "It's Carl, now, mom!"

Mom: "Ok sure dear. Oh make sure Caitlyn's booster seat is on properly will you Charley."

Carl: "....(grumble mutter noises) soo...oppressive!"

[FireIceTalon]

You guys went there not me. But have at it.

[kandrathe]

You guys went there not me. But have at it.

Went there? Everybody south of the north pole lives there (in the capitalist free market economic system). I recall I mentioned regulation of Uber and the (lack of) possibility of creative destruction... then a left turn to Rue Marxism. I take the blame for opening the door to any discussion of economics...

At the end of the day, who cares really, where my politics lie? I don't see how this should even matter.

Except, you do keep going there. You tried to comment on Schumpter, but you don't understand (and came across ignorant). I offer you a reasoned approach to correct this, to read his most notable work, thus enlightening yourself and you decline as you are offended by the first few sentences of chapter one. But, study of economics isn't like the Gong Show. I've slogged through mountains of ideas I've directly disagreed with, only to better understand why they might be wrong, or possibly right. In fact, it is often the most convoluted and poorly written books (e.g. Hegel) which I painstakingly must spend the most time with to attempt understanding of the authors premise. You see, no one has all the answers, but many economists have some answers and in their ideas there are insights into a dynamic and complicated system.

Then you hurl out your truthi-isms, like;[... The theory has absolutely been through the wringer and then some, and yet it has come out unscathed. ...]Unscathed? Yet, according to you untested, unproven, and never properly implemented. Let me ask then? Who, in the "REAL WORLD", uses any of it on a day to day basis for solving "REAL WORLD" problems? If it's the cat's mewow, why isn't it more ubiquitous?

According to the rest of the world (those of us south of the north pole, mostly, utter dismal failure resulting in decades of suffering, mass executions, wars -- wasting lives, time and natural resources. Yeah, yeah, I know. Not really implemented. But, you know what? You really need to read some prominent Soviet economists, like Vasily Selyunin's reflections on the USSR, then comment on how responsible Marxism/Leninism (the IDEOLOGY) was in shaping politics and economics in the latter half of the twentieth.

Sometimes it's hard to admit that one man's ideas can shape the world towards evil, such as say Martin Luther. But, in reflection I don't believe there are many open minded people who would deny his role in bringing about the holocaust. I might say the same thing for any number of our US presidents, Wilson, FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon -- all had have done some good, and some bad.

It takes an open mind to reflect on people ideas and legacy honestly, especially the ones with which you wholeheartedly agree, or vehemently oppose.

[kandrathe]

There was something about cabs and innovation in here at one point. But hey, why bother talking about that, when we can talk about the world's most fascinating topic: How Marxist FIT is! We certainly haven't had any of those threads before.

-Jester

Back on track...

I see the same behavior in AirBnB. It seems more common where the political system is entrenched (vested) in establishing (protecting) markets for any special interest that might topple the reigning political hegemony. Innovation, free markets, and personal freedoms for that matter are less important in a Bloombergesque regime. I've yet to see how a Bill de Blasio asserts himself.

I'm very interested in Tesla, and anything Elon Musk is forwarding. A carbon free future will require a massive change in transportation. A change we really can't put off until the day its suddenly ready. An electric car is the easiest step that will probably have the largest impact, but on top of that we need to reassess the need to own our own expensive bit of transportation infrastructure entirely. Uber does a part of this. It means we don't need to always align our lives along defined transit corridors. Musk, has a good vision for a theoretical replacement for high speed, long distance transit.

But, we need to innovate. We need to try, fail, and improve it over time.

[Quark]

Oh look, a thread on Uber. I unhide all my hides, Ctrl+F "gouge", 0 results. Quick scan, nope, never came up.

Uber broke the law by price-gouging during Hurricane Sandy, among many other events. Yes, sometimes laws exist for a reason. And they should be enforced. Some of the laws blocking Uber are crappy, but they don't even try to get them changed, they just break them. And I have absolute 0% sympathy for a company that illegally price gouges during emergencies. They can burn.

[FireIceTalon]

Sometimes it's hard to admit that one man's ideas can shape the world towards evil, such as say Martin Luther. But, in reflection I don't believe there are many open minded people who would deny his role in bringing about the holocaust. I might say the same thing for any number of our US presidents, Wilson, FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon -- all had have done some good, and some bad.

You are giving Martin Luther way too much credit. There is no man (or woman) in history who has ever had that much power - ever. The "Great Man Theory of History" is reductionist and pretty discredited (for good reason). To reduce the cause of the holocaust or any other significant historical event to one person's set of ideas is indeed close-minded, as it neglects the complex myraid historical, social and economic factors that lead up to the holocaust or even made it possible. Not to mention, it is an unscientific approach to studying historical development.

To say that ML caused or even had a major role in the holocaust is pretty silly anyway, considering he died some 400+ years before it took place. You almost may as well say that the event was then inevitable and preordained. I don't know, maybe I am taking what you are saying wrong, but it seems wildly far fetched to me. And even ideologically speaking, there are inconsistencies between ML and Hitler. While both are obviously antisemetic, ML believed the Jews could be saved if they converted to Christianity so his antisemitism was in a religious context, while Hitler wanted them wiped out completely regardless because they were viewed as racially inferior. They were the scapegoat of German nationalism, and considered by the Nazis to be a communist conspiracy theory (cause Marx was born Jewish). Yes, the Nazis claimed ML on their side, but they also claimed many other things - such as that they were socialist and on the side of the working class (they weren't), or that the almighty Lord himself was on their side (obviously not).

“Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under circumstances of their own choosing, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past". Human agency certainly has (and must have to some extent) its role to play in historical development, but it is not the be all-end all as we are so often taught.

On another note, the first solid critique to the 'great man theory' that really put a big hole in it was not from a Marxist thinker, but from the social darwinist Herbert Spencer.

[kandrathe]

I hadn't looked into those details. Article: Uber Just Responded To The New York Attorney General's Surge Pricing Investigation.

I think often these types of laws put the force of government behind efforts to prevent people from entering into agreements or transactions that the lawmakers find objectionable (prima facie). These regulations are necessary at some level to protect needed goods and services in emergencies, which "private car service" is sort of a grey area. Do we really need a a light weight version of a "Limo" service? Should hotels be able to charge more when there are big events in town due to high demand? For me, I'd rather rely more on consumer choice, and the logic of supply and demand. Matthew Yglesias had a good bit in Slate on gouging, where he says, "Stopping price hikes during disasters may sound like a way to help people, but all it does is exacerbate shortages and complicate preparedness."

The government competes against the market with its own transit, and in times of high demand and shortage (of gas mostly due to mostly hording) all transit suffers. I'm not really advocating against some consumer protections, especially the deception parts (bait and switch, etc). Mostly, I'm concerned with the government protecting its own special interests and throwing a cold wet blanket on market innovation.

The alternative is for Uber, and similar services to opt out of business when their projected expenses exceed normal fares. Although, I'd guess its a strategy leading to bankruptcy and deprives the market of the service or good entirely. I'm unsure if a fixed limit (say 10%) on price hikes may account for the variability of expenses incurred by a business during high demands, and the trail of who charged who in the supply chain gets pretty murky and even leading to other states, and other countries where the laws are different.

My thoughts on government involvement, would be that some regs may be good during a state of emergency to hold business accountable for obscene profits (rather than price), although they'd do better by ensuring their own transit services are able to hardened to withstand and accommodate demands during these disasters.

[Hammerskjold]

Musk, has a good vision for a theoretical replacement for high speed, long distance transit.

Keyword in that article, is 'Hype'.

It's a CEO pitching it for investors. It's simply not ready for prime time at this stage.

Research into improving tech and innovation is one thing. But going for an untested, still mostly theoretical tech at this point, over options that are already here? Especially with a big project like public transit? During an election year in Toronto and Ottawa? Not. Habbening.

The last guy who proposed bold big steps for transit projects, to the point of tearing up a plan that was already approved, met budget and ready to go, for a more delayed, much more expensive, and poorly consulted and questionable contracts, all so he could shout SUBWAY SUBWAY SUBWAY!

Is really only a blowhard who was the last thing from a visionary. And he smokes crack. Which possibly explains a lot of things.

(edited, image link not habbening. Here's a youtube vid link instead.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ5CbLnSjo0

That CEO can pitch the hyperloop to investors all he want. Any politician that would say Hyperloop with a serious face at this time however, probably deserves to be asked, 'sir or madam, are you on crack?'

[kandrathe]

Keyword in that article, is 'Hype'. It's a CEO pitching it for investors. It's simply not ready for prime time at this stage.

Yes, which is why I said vision. The cheaper option is to get some needy municipality, be it LA to SF, or Ottawa to Toronto, who is willing to put up the cash, and patience awaiting them to figure out how to build it.

I am one who thinks it would be beneficial for them to buy up, or get permission to build a smaller prototype in a flat space east of palm desert. I'd get very excited if they had a working prototype.

[Jester]

Oh look, a thread on Uber. I unhide all my hides, Ctrl+F "gouge", 0 results. Quick scan, nope, never came up.

Uber broke the law by price-gouging during Hurricane Sandy, among many other events. Yes, sometimes laws exist for a reason. And they should be enforced. Some of the laws blocking Uber are crappy, but they don't even try to get them changed, they just break them. And I have absolute 0% sympathy for a company that illegally price gouges during emergencies. They can burn.

But... Uber is not a company with ordinary employees. Its drivers are essentially per-trip contractors, who can decide to work, or not work, and they get the majority (80%?) of the take. They determine their own hours - presumably also during Hurricanes!

Uber has (afaik) no power to coerce drivers into driving. All it can do is increase fares to attract more drivers into the system. They could lower their fares to be charitable to passengers, but then (I strongly suspect) the drivers will start reciting Jayne Cobb's "ten percent of nothing is... lemme do the math here" speech, and will decide it's more attractive to get the hell out of the way of a hurricane than drive people around for free.

-Jester

[Hammerskjold]

Yes, which is why I said vision.

And vision, in this arena at least is a dime a dozen.

It's the execution, proof of concept, scaling and transitioning from concept to production. All these little nitty gritty details of making 'vision' actual reality, especially on large scales, that are not always fun to think about.

Since you mentioned electric cars, have you heard of the documentary, 'Who killed the electric car'? There is a semi follow up sequel, 'Revenge of the electric car'. Worth checking out IMO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenge_of_...ectric_Car

Though the ending should not really be seen as an 'ending', since the story is still ongoing.

The cheaper option is to get some needy municipality, be it LA to SF, or Ottawa to Toronto, who is willing to put up the cash, and patience awaiting them to figure out how to build it.

I'm not in LA or SF, so those who knows first hand the transit and commuting situation there can chime in.

I am in the Canuckian area however, and I can tell you right now. I just had a provincial election. My city is also in the midst of a municipal campaign. Federal election is coming up next year. Transit is a fairly big issue, definitely a big issue in my province and city.

Cash, and patience is at a very low supply. Transit has been used as a political football for too long, and discussed with bumper sticker level discourse. There is palpable voter anger and tension with this issue.

Any candidates\pols who thinks giving public money to a theoretical tech plan, and waiting for them to 'figure it out' how to build it. Will be committing political seppuku.

Stranger and stupider things have happened, but in this election year, I repeat. Not habbening.

I am one who thinks it would be beneficial for them to buy up, or get permission to build a smaller prototype in a flat space east of palm desert. I'd get very excited if they had a working prototype.

Wait aren't you the libertarian who says gov't should stay out of picking winners and losers?

Ok seriously, if you mean gov't should invest more in broad based science foundation\education. You know, I'm quite with you on that one.

And if anyone has a working prototype of this hypertoob, hey I'd be interested and excited too.

But why should gov't, which includes -your- tax dollars, be carrying the risk for private enterprises, and eat the losses if it fails. But somehow get none of the benefits should success happens? Then all of a sudden it's strictly that company's exclusive profit?

If this was the other way around, you'd rail about it. And rightly so. Corporations, don't get a free pass on that just because you happen to dislike some or a large portion of gov't.

At least, it shouldn't if you want to follow your own advice.

It takes an open mind to reflect on people ideas and legacy honestly, especially the ones with which you wholeheartedly agree, or vehemently oppose.

[kandrathe]

I didn't really indicate who should pay for the experimental land space. Usually these days it requires a public / private partnership to get a big long tract of land because invariably you'll cross some wire, pipe, ditch, road, etc. plus, there are the lengthy environmental impact considerations, which are easier if you have local, and state authorities helping rather than hindering.

When it comes to these types of big society decisions I'm more pragmatic. Was Hoover dam a good idea? Probably it was the right thing, at the right time. I don't really care if mr. Musk and his investors get rich, but it is important for the whole of society to figure out a few big problems we've made by going down the dead end road of fossil fuels. They are heating, electricity generation, and transportation. I'm concerned we're running out of time arguing, and not even to the dabbling phase.

[Hammerskjold]

I didn't really indicate who should pay for the experimental land space.

Usually these days it requires a public / private partnership to get a big long tract of land because invariably you'll cross some wire, pipe, ditch, road, etc. plus, there are the lengthy environmental impact considerations, which are easier if you have local, and state authorities helping rather than hindering.

Ever went to a restaurant with two people, and they each act like the other was going to pay for the meal? Or at the very least, pay for their own share? But you, you don't have to worry about a single thing. You just enjoy the meal.

Then when the bill arrives, they both suddenly disappear, leaving you holding the check and not even a doggie bag? "I just gotta go to the bathroom real quick excuse me....Ooh a million apologies, I gotta take this phone call, emergency situation, be right back promise..."

I'm pretty blunt and possibly crass when it comes to wanting to know, who will be paying for this 'meal'. Because after a while, even the sweet talk of 'aw baby why you gotta be like this, didn't we have a nice night out together, who can put a price on that? And we helped that nice restaurant stay in business, 2big2fail, we're probably going to get free bread sticks next time we go there, again' starts to sour. Sour real quick.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/05...r-payback/

When it comes to these types of big society decisions I'm more pragmatic. Was Hoover dam a good idea? Probably it was the right thing, at the right time.

Yep. And we are now in 2014. I'll just copy \ paste something I read (possibly in this very thread) that I found relevant. Concept wise regarding large scale things and projects at least.

Mainframe computer manufacturers didn't do anything wrong for their elite cadre of dedicated customers so to speak, they just failed to see the threat in a cheaper, poorer-quality product that initially reaches less profitable customers but eventually takes over and devours an entire industry.

Contemporary complex problems might require a big scale project, and medium scale, and small scale all working together. Balancing against the reality that public coffers, resources, and public trust is not a limitless quantity.

I don't really care if mr. Musk and his investors get rich, but it is important for the whole of society to figure out a few big problems we've made by going down the dead end road of fossil fuels. They are heating, electricity generation, and transportation. I'm concerned we're running out of time arguing, and not even to the dabbling phase.

I'm not as carefree nonchalant, 'look at all the shrugs I give' when it comes to any companies and lotsa monies. I'm not anti business, or anti profit. I do like to reserve the same amount of scrutiny for any business, the way you would for gov't over-reach, mishandlings and general shenanigans.

Free enterprise does not mean to me, free pass. After a certain amount of monies\power level, I tend to become very curious, and I want to ask a some simple question. The 'Five W's, and How' did that company get that amount of monies?

Tesla Motors did a huge thing image wise, which was IMO dispel the notion that E-Cars are all glorified golf carts. Musk puts a smart, charismatic face to a company, which compares favourably to the competition's arrogantly clueless, dinosaur brained execs.

A Tesla Roadster, is very cool and styling, and possibly even pro-filing. And I mean come on, Elon Musk. Total man crush, "he's the real life Tony Stark!"

I think Tesla is a cool guy. Eh puts his own monies on the line and doesn't afraid of anything.

Still doesn't stop my curiousity about how much the ZEV credit plays into their business model. Or my skepticism about the battery swap doohicky demo because that's not what I envisioned when I heard, quick charging system.

Or my cynicism about Tesla patent release, while it is disruptively awesome. I wonder if that's not a ninja smoke bomb move for Musk to exit from Tesla. And I'm still a bit disappointed and frustrated that their Model S, is still more in the luxury car price bracket. Not really an affordable sedan for the majority of people. Yeah it's cheaper than the Roadster model, but that's not saying much.


Let's just say I'm really not keen on going out to yet another promised fabulous dinner, where I don't need to worry about bringing my wallet. "Really, promise honest, why would I lie to you?"

[kandrathe]

Ever went to a restaurant with two people, and they each act like the other was going to pay for the meal? Or at the very least, pay for their own share? But you, you don't have to worry about a single thing. You just enjoy the meal.

I'm upfront and ask for separate checks. So should we when it comes to spending money for public/private deals.

I do think the auto market bailout was wrong for all the reasons stated and implied in the article you linked. It's hard to play "what if", but I suspect we'd all be driving Ford or importing many foreign cars. I believe the federal interest/investment had more to do with Keynsian (FDR-esque) blunting the depth of the looming recession/depression by preserving as much economic activity as was possible. I'm just glad I'm not having to make the decisions made by Geitner and Paulsen.

Remember that the government doesn't just make the money out of thin air -- well, they do actually, but aside from that -- they ostensibly spend money they tax from people, yes, but also from business activity. If no one is working at GM making cars, and no one is buying GM cars, GM fails to earns a taxable income, then they don't pay taxes and the governments cash flow dries up.

Not that GM will be paying much in taxes for awhile. However, GM is just the top predator in the supply chain, many medium fish rely on GM's business, and many, many smaller fish rely on the orders of those bigger fish. Which is why Detroit is a stinking mess (population dropping from the peak 1,850,000 in 1950 to 701,000 in 2013.) -- if you want an actual glimpse into that show "Life After People" -- just take a drive through the urban prairies of Detroit.

And... Unemployed autoworkers losing their GM supplied benefits makes the powerful unions angry, and they won't be spending bazillions backing the elections of "those" guys again.

Yep. And we are now in 2014. I'll just copy \ paste something I read (possibly in this very thread) that I found relevant. Concept wise regarding large scale things and projects at least.

Mainframe computer manufacturers didn't do anything wrong for their elite cadre of dedicated customers so to speak, they just failed to see the threat in a cheaper, poorer-quality product that initially reaches less profitable customers but eventually takes over and devours an entire industry.

Contemporary complex problems might require a big scale project, and medium scale, and small scale all working together. Balancing against the reality that public coffers, resources, and public trust is not a limitless quantity.

You make a good point. When it comes to picking winners and losers, the government actually has a poor track record backing the right horse and might actually do more harm than good. However, the pragmatist in me believes that trying to do something, even if it may somewhat misdirected, is usually better than doing nothing at all. It is also true that I may be a bit too optimistic that people can rally together to solve these issues. I tend not to blame the bickering "nattering nabobs of negativism" -- but rather the ineptitude of leaders in selling the vision of where we need to move toward.

So, what do I mean? Well, like NASA. I don't know if going to the moon was worth it really, but it is a good example of how leadership can rally the nation to do something productive (as opposed to the other thing, like wars). Imagine if all the pointless spending and efforts devoted toward the mess in Iraq were instead focused on fixing some of our dependence on fossil fuels. The middle east would increasingly find itself a less relevant desert region setting atop an abundant mass of black goo we rely less and less upon. However, like NASA, the government can become "the only show in town" and get entrenched and therefore needs to know how and when to get itself "out of that business". The best way is to hire it out from the get go.

Ultimately, bad leadership on energy policy is bad. When is comes to energy I feel this was true for GWB who was an oil guy for oil guys, and it is also true for Obama. In some ways Obama has put us in a worse place for future energy since we have more regulation on production (screwing down emissions and higher CAFE standards), and less production now with less investment into future production. It might "force" us into a better place, but it does so by hurting people. That is, we will wake up one day and find we can't afford heating oil, or to drive anywhere, or afford the higher prices of energy driven into the entire supply chain. I'm much more in favor of engineering the "better future" carrot, rather than just beating us with the "fossils are bad" stick.

I'm not as carefree nonchalant, 'look at all the shrugs I give' when it comes to any companies and lotsa monies. I'm not anti business, or anti profit. I do like to reserve the same amount of scrutiny for any business, the way you would for gov't over-reach, mishandlings and general shenanigans.

Free enterprise does not mean to me, free pass. After a certain amount of monies\power level, I tend to become very curious, and I want to ask a some simple question. The 'Five W's, and How' did that company get that amount of monies?

I'm less curious, but yes, some regulation is important to protect the "commons". And, in general, "doing harms" to people and the environment is exploitation, and should not be tolerated in our free society. As you know, I'm less interested in the government swooping in to protect me from my own stupid mistakes, like taking a low paying job, or working for company that offers crappy benefits. I think those things would sort themselves out if "labor" were allowed to think for itself. We have a long legacy of government mothering of labor, which is due I suspect mostly because of the fear of allowing it to be independently free. Due to our history of labor riots, and politicking catering to labor, government has stepped into the labor union role and has become the adversary of the corporate side. Whereas, really, I think government should remain neutral, help arbitrate, and... you know... govern.

{Off topic aside; Consequently, this is also why the US government is paralyzed in dealing with it's immigration problems. It's core is protectionism. I suspect the real reason we see no progress, even with a progressive administration, is the resistance from labor in bringing in more lower priced workers. This "border" creates an artificial benefit for one side, and suffering for the other while ultimately being worse for efficient production as a whole.}

You might not suspect this, but I'm actually in favor of collective bargaining for the private sector. I see the natural flip side to the corporation (an organization of owners) is the unity of independent organized labor. My dad was in fact a Teamster.

Tesla Motors did a huge thing image wise, which was IMO dispel the notion that E-Cars are all glorified golf carts. Musk puts a smart, charismatic face to a company, which compares favourably to the competition's arrogantly clueless, dinosaur brained execs.

A Tesla Roadster, is very cool and styling, and possibly even pro-filing. And I mean come on, Elon Musk. Total man crush, "he's the real life Tony Stark!"

I think Tesla is a cool guy. Eh puts his own monies on the line and doesn't afraid of anything.

Still doesn't stop my curiousity about how much the ZEV credit plays into their business model. Or my skepticism about the battery swap doohicky demo because that's not what I envisioned when I heard, quick charging system.

Or my cynicism about Tesla patent release, while it is disruptively awesome. I wonder if that's not a ninja smoke bomb move for Musk to exit from Tesla. And I'm still a bit disappointed and frustrated that their Model S, is still more in the luxury car price bracket. Not really an affordable sedan for the majority of people. Yeah it's cheaper than the Roadster model, but that's not saying much.

Sexy sells.

Hard sell --


Easier sell --

Let's just say I'm really not keen on going out to yet another promised fabulous dinner, where I don't need to worry about bringing my wallet. "Really, promise honest, why would I lie to you?"

But, we're not asking. The reality is we do have a free enterprise system, and we do have semi-democratically elected government and you DO need to go to dinner with them. What then? I'd say we get it all in writing in advance. But, yes, we really DO need to get busy and start doing the dinners.

PS. As for the patent thing... I think it's more akin to why many startup dot com's start out as "a great deal" and figure out the profit thing later. It's better to get a billion loyal customers first, then move into asking them for a reasonable price later. Right now for Tesla, they have the Ferrari model. Owning one is a status thing, more than practical. In order for Tesla to sell many more affordable cars, they need more competition to drive down the price. I think what they are looking for is for their technology to become more ubiquitous. You can sell more VHS tapes when most people have VHS players. What would hurt Tesla would be if Ford or Toyota established a standard that made Tesla an odd duck. You'd need to consider not only the higher price of the vehicle, but also the difficulty in finding a compatible charging station, and the higher price for maintenance and repair (just like Ferrari in that regard as well).

[FireIceTalon]

And, in general, "doing harms" to people and the environment is exploitation, and should not be tolerated in our free society.

But you can't have capitalism without exploitation. The very nature of the system requires both exploitation of people (workers) and of the environment in general to some extent. While I obviously agree that these are bad things, saying it shouldn't be tolerated is just a moralist argument and not a materialist analysis that fits reality. Capitalism and its state agencies aren't driven or operated by moral codes, so arguing from a moral premise isn't very useful in either trying to analyze or combat the material reality of things.

As you know, I'm less interested in the government swooping in to protect me from my own stupid mistakes, like taking a low paying job, or working for company that offers crappy benefits.

Yep, that's the America I know - blame and demonize the poor for their own misery. This is all part of the phony capitalist narrative. Your poor-shaming is deplorable and reminds me of why I hate this country so much (not that I would be a patriot anywhere else). It really shows just how rotten, mean-spirited, and separated from reality libertarianism is at its core. It's nothing more than a prominent form of the right-wing populism that has become fashionable in America as of late; little man fascism.

Taking a low paying job or working for a company is not a stupid mistake, but rather the only option many people have to survive. They are making a rational economic decision that is available to them, cause all too often that is the only choice that is available, or the other alternatives are even shittier. That is the capitalist system - workers and their labor power are objectified because they are forced to sell it to the owners of capital in exchange for paltry wage in order to survive, while said unproductive owners of capital leech off the value produced by labor.

I think those things would sort themselves out if "labor" were allowed to think for itself. We have a long legacy of government mothering of labor, which is due I suspect mostly because of the fear of allowing it to be independently free. Due to our history of labor riots, and politicking catering to labor, government has stepped into the labor union role and has become the adversary of the corporate side. Whereas, really, I think government should remain neutral, help arbitrate, and... you know... govern.

Were you on LSD by any chance when you typed this out? At what point in our history has government catered for the direct interests of the working class for the sake of itself? Here's a hint: never.

The notion that government is an adversary of corporations is laughable. The Federal government and international capital have never been more symbiotic than they currently are - Unless of course you are talking about life on the fictional planet Freedonia Libertopia.

As for you thinking government should be more neutral, there you go again, thinking what "ought" to happen rather than understanding what actually "is", and why. The government is doing what it has always done and supposed to do since the concept of the state was developed: manage the affairs of the ruling class as it sees necessary and fit. Sometimes it does this extremely efficiently (in a place for instance, like Sweden), or not so efficiently (former Soviet Union). But its role and purpose is always the same.

Your entire analysis and view of how things are is reality turned upside. So much so, that it would probably make a great script for the next Quentin Tarantino flick.

immigration problems

No such thing.

[kandrathe]

But you can't have capitalism ...

Opinion noted.

[FireIceTalon]

Only facts in my post I fear, my misguided libertarian friend. There is no material evidence to suggest anything I said was an opinion as opposed to an empirical observation of how things currently are, and in this case, the totality of capitalisms' history as well.

And way to address the rest of my post. I'll take that as an acknowledgement that you know your analysis of society is the polar opposite of reality - especially the complete silliness that somehow the government and private capital are somehow fundamentally antagonistic.

[kandrathe]

Only facts in my post...

Nope. You have no sources to support you, no construction of logic, and therefore you have expressed only the opinions I already know you to have.

You do know that stating something to be true does not make it so.

1. This is the truth, by it's very nature it is true.
2. The above statement is correct.
3. Therefore, you are wrong.

We're not going down the Marxist road. NO! We will NOT divert this into an argument about the merits or nature of Capitalism. Either go make a sign and patrol your block and actually do something about it or accept that this is where we are, so it is what it is. I'm one of those deluded fools who like being able to sell my brain skills for money. Sorry that life sucks for you.