Isn't it ironic that

[Zenda]

Jester "10% of viewers 'boycotting' 10% of the time is equivalent to 1% all of the time."

Yes, equivalent but not the same. That's the whole point.

Kandrathe "Switch channels to a different commercial"

That would still help, because they measure the number of viewers, but they can't see where you went. Anyway, you can always shut it off for a while.

Kandrathe "I don't watch TV much"

It seems we have something in common. I don't even own one.

[Jester]

Jester "10% of viewers 'boycotting' 10% of the time is equivalent to 1% all of the time."

Yes, equivalent but not the same. That's the whole point.

The whole point of what? It doesn't seem to make any difference whatsoever to your argument, or to Kandrathe's response to it.

-Jester

[Zenda]

Jester, not sure I can explain much better without repeating myself, but I'll try.

People tend to think that boycots won't help unless everyone joins in, and/or that it requires total rejection of the product in question. However, for big companies only 1% less business means a lot of money. Apart from that, such losses don't go unnoticed by investors. Now, to reach this 1%, noone is required to keep away from said product forever. All it takes is 10% of all consumers to look away 10% of the time.

So, although the resulting loss would be the same for the companies, loosing 1% of their customers is not the same as having 10% of their customers buy 10% less, from the customers point of view. And that's us, and all that matters.

Believe it or not, you can make a difference, and it won't even cost you much trouble.

[kandrathe]

Believe it or not, you can make a difference, and it won't even cost you much trouble.

I would argue it is probably not us. First, Loungers, and gamers in general have above average intellect and so are not as easily swayed by advertising anyway (except DeeBye). Second, people here have already made choices with their time and entertainment dollars other than TV or Cable.

[Concillian]

I would argue it is probably not us. First, Loungers, and gamers in general have above average intellect and so are not as easily swayed by advertising anyway (except DeeBye).

Loungers, yes

Gamers?
When I was into FPS games I can't tell you the number of people who would be swayed into buying this or that piece of hardware they didn't need because they had some graph showing +10% performance... but that +10% performance took them from 100 FPS to 110 FPS... in other words, offering no perceptible difference given the monitor refresh.

In most cases it wasn't even advertisers who would sway them. They'd find the review themselves on some hardware review site and come to the conclusion they needed to spend that money all by themselves!

[kandrathe]

Gamers?

Well, not everyone who plays games is a "gamer" in my opinion. I guess my views were shaped from before video games when "gamers" would gather every weekend at a common location, dust off our RPG characters, or painstakingly re-establish the positions of their pieces in some Napoleonic campaign, or Naval battle, and then take turns discussing die rolls and obscure rules until 5am Sunday morning, when all would disperse to sleep. "Gamer" to me means something far more committed (and by that I mean somewhat certifiably insane) than owning an XBOX. So let's differentiate Gamers from Gamerz.

1. Gamers are interested in knowing and following the rules
2. Gamers are dedicated understanding the strategies needed to become excellent in playing the game
3. Gamers are committed to fair play, and insuring that everyone is on the same page
4. Gamers may find less sophisticated players boring, but will accept challenges to help them learn
5. Gamers don't quit in a huff if things progress badly for their side, and end the game with a handshake

I guess the prolific spread of gaming did to the word "Gamer" what the prolific spread of computers did to the word "Hacker".

[--Pete]

Hi,

Well, not everyone who plays games is a "gamer" in my opinion. I guess my views were shaped from before video games when "gamers" would gather every weekend at a common location, dust off our RPG characters, or painstakingly re-establish the positions of their pieces in some Napoleonic campaign, or Naval battle, and then take turns discussing die rolls and obscure rules until 5am Sunday morning, when all would disperse to sleep. "Gamer" to me means something far more committed (and by that I mean somewhat certifiably insane) than owning an XBOX. So let's differentiate Gamers from Gamerz.

1. Gamers are interested in knowing and following the rules
2. Gamers are dedicated understanding the strategies needed to become excellent in playing the game
3. Gamers are committed to fair play, and insuring that everyone is on the same page
4. Gamers may find less sophisticated players boring, but will accept challenges to help them learn
5. Gamers don't quit in a huff if things progress badly for their side, and end the game with a handshake

I guess the prolific spread of gaming did to the word "Gamer" what the prolific spread of computers did to the word "Hacker".

Yes!

Or clear out a lab over the Thanksgiving holidays to play Juteland on the floor at ship marker scale.

"And I say now these kittens, they do not get trained
As we did in the days when Victoria reigned
They never get drilled in a regular troupe
And they think they are smart just to jump through a hoop.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Dubya, of the party of "Fiscal responsibility" is not only spending us to death with A and I, but is now proposing that the US govt spend a metric crap ton of money on bailing out big finance.

I guess you weren't around for the Savings and Loan bailout of the late 80's. W is IMO trying to out do his dad.

He appears to be succeeding, in all the wrong ways.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Kandrathe "If they didn't, you would cease to find their media interesting and go do something else."

Are you saying they only provide sensation and keep away from real issues, because they have a business to run? Doesn't that imply they are actually doing what their customers like most?

Hi, are you unable to decipher the mysteries of the quote function?

Is it tech beyond your grasp?

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Many people who are in other ways smart, or even brilliant, are complete dunces when it comes to financial matters, especially prudent planning about debt. Take a look at the lifetime finances of Thomas Jefferson if you want confirmation that this is not only true, but that it has been true for quite some time.

Some people just don't have the knack, and when they're given the kind of rope that a totally free, power-drunk credit market will give them, they hang themselves, time after time.

-Jester

Bingo.

Also, Henry Paulson is so used to using OPM (Other People's Money) as the Goldman Sachs chair that as Treasury Secretary he can't help himself. So, he's got the printing press fired up again, so that is more OPM around to play with.

Leopards and spots, I hear . . .

[Taem]

What bail-out? Congress rejects the bail-out plan and now the Dow drops 800-points. 800-points! These are scary times we live in, make no mistake about it. I think there cannot be any more doubt that this needs to be taken care of ASAP; recession anyone? I feel my pockets running dry already. And its having a worldwide effect! Banks in the UK are falling now too. How long until the rest of the world starts to feel the pressure? It's funny how all of the other countries want to see America fail for their own selfish reasons, but when the giant falls, it will bring them down with it. Ironic!

[eppie]

How long until the rest of the world starts to feel the pressure?

You don't read newspapers or watch the news? You think the dow jones can drop 7 % and that in the rest of the world nothing happens?
In Benelux the 3 goverments took a 49 % minority share in a big bank. etc. etc.

It's funny how all of the other countries want to see America fail for their own selfish reasons, but when the giant falls, it will bring them down with it. Ironic!

Why would all countries like to see america fall? Why do you find something ironic? I think you have a twisted view of society and that just like occhi you see critisicm as anti americanism.
I personally think it is a good thing that it becomes clear that agressive capitalism based on personal interests is not the way to go. Something that is my opinion since I started thinking about politics. This is the reason why I am for a moderate capitalistic system that is social and has a good safety net for people that for reason beyond their influence don't manage to make a good living for themselves, fall ill, are handicapped etc.
If only the american people change their opinion a little bit and don't find socialism a dirty word I would be happy.
But does that mean I would be happy with this crisis? If you think so you indeed have a strange view of the current situation.
No I don't like this crisis because 1) the wrong people are victims (as well as some that deserved) while the big wall street stock brokers and stock owners don't feel almost anything 2) my shares are also down an average 50 % 3) (the selfish reason) crisis in the US means crisis in western europe 4) etc. etc.



Like I said in the beginning, lets try and make this crisis not for nothing so lets realize that the aggresive form of capitalism and loan-culture is not the way to go. However I am very sceptical that we will do something with those lessons.

[kandrathe]

Like I said in the beginning, lets try and make this crisis not for nothing so lets realize that the aggressive form of capitalism and loan-culture is not the way to go. However I am very skeptical that we will do something with those lessons.

This crisis is not an example of the sins of "Aggressive Capitalism", nor the merits of "Peaceful Socialism". Greed exists whether you call it a fox or a hound, and neither system would have told the emperor he was naked. There is a reason that some people like Warren Buffet, warned years ago that mortgage backed derivatives were "Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction", and counseled all his followers to stay away from them. The banks that did heed the warning will survive and those that got sucked into the siren song of easy money will fail or become wards of a State.

By the way, "Peaceful Socialism" has killed more people than wars ever will. Power in the hands of the State, will often result in the deaths of those citizens deemed unnecessary.

[Jester]

By the way, "Peaceful Socialism" has killed more people than wars ever will. Power in the hands of the State, will often result in the deaths of those citizens deemed unnecessary.

Got some calculations to back that up? Even taking the view that Maoist Communism falls under the "Peaceful Socialism" category (which seems crazy to me, since they were heavily armed revolutionaries, but maybe I'm a peaceful socialist), I don't see how you'd even come within a country mile of historical war deaths, let alone the limitless possible future war deaths.

(Even throwing Stalin in there, making the "peaceful" a wholly ironic category, I still think you'd be short by at least 100 million, probably far more.)

-Jester

[eppie]

This crisis is not an example of the sins of "Aggressive Capitalism", nor the merits of "Peaceful Socialism". Greed exists whether you call it a fox or a hound, and neither system would have told the emperor he was naked. There is a reason that some people like Warren Buffet, warned years ago that mortgage backed derivatives were "Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction", and counseled all his followers to stay away from them. The banks that did heed the warning will survive and those that got sucked into the siren song of easy money will fail or become wards of a State.

By the way, "Peaceful Socialism" has killed more people than wars ever will. Power in the hands of the State, will often result in the deaths of those citizens deemed unnecessary.

To me it seemed very clear from my post that I was opting for a system in which there is a free market, in other words, people can make a profit, own there own things etc. but are taxed enough so that a welfare system can be sustained.
I wasn't opting for a Khmer government.
You will always have people trying to profit from whatever system they are in (most of the new russian billionaires were also very powerful when it was still the communist soviet union) so that is not a point of discussion.
A government should moderate or balance greed motives from its citizens.

Your remark about peaceful socialism I don't understand.

[kandrathe]

To me it seemed very clear from my post that I was opting for a system in which there is a free market, in other words, people can make a profit, own there own things etc. but are taxed enough so that a welfare system can be sustained.
I wasn't opting for a Khmer government.

The problem is that once people begin to accept being fed at the trough of government, they forget how to hunt for themselves. We need people to be self sufficient, and not dependent on the trough. If the choice is a zero hour work week and 1/2 salary, or 40 hour work week and full salary, I can tell you that people will opt for the dole every time. In my State, over 50% of the people here work for some form of government. The other 50% of workers already support them, and the social system. I'm in support of a safety net that keeps people from homelessness and starvation, and propels them back into the work force. Even many of those with disabilities can find some productive use for their time. The purpose of Capitalism in my opinion is to allow the market to determine what "valuable" means when it comes to the use of labor and capital investment, rather than some bureaucrat.

You will always have people trying to profit from whatever system they are in (most of the new Russian billionaires were also very powerful when it was still the communist soviet union) so that is not a point of discussion.

The Russian Oligarchs were not suddenly spawned, and existed well before Gorbachev accepted free market reforms. They were a part of the system, until the system failed and then their power became transparent.

A government should moderate or balance greed motives from its citizens.

With drugs? With force? A law? What does it take to enforce a law? How do you moderate greed motives? How does this jive with your statement "you will always have people trying to profit"? Do you want your government to restrain that quest for profit? We have very different ideas about what "freedom" means. The best way to enslave a person is to keep them impoverished and dependent on the masters benevolence.

Your remark about peaceful socialism I don't understand.

The idealism of "all for one and one for all" is great for herding the masses into a paddock of tyrannical dominion. History has shown repeatedly that once a population is so cowed, it becomes the next simple thing to eliminate any threat to the fence or silence any voice of dissent. Go back and reread "Animal Farm" by Orwell. I believe the concept of egalitarian utopia is unrealizable in a world where any one person can obliterate a city with the press of a button. It might work at the scale of a kibbutz, but at a national level, there are too many Berkshire boars ready to kick the eppie Snowballs off the farm.

[eppie]

The problem is that once people begin to accept being fed at the trough of government, they forget how to hunt for themselves.

Again you mistake my proposal for communism.

We need people to be self sufficient, and not dependent on the trough. If the choice is a zero hour work week and 1/2 salary, or 40 hour work week and full salary, I can tell you that people will opt for the dole every time.

You see things too black and white. Do you think somebody that is such a bad example of a human being that wants to sit on his ass to get haf a salary would certainly become a hero if the government takes away his income? No he would problem become a burglar, a drug dealer or an investment banker.
Your example of 1/2 a salary does not make sense because even in Holland a single mother with small child living on welfare does not have a great life in terms of spending money. And I have 0 possibility to think that people would choose for that 'deal' if they were able to find a normal job. And if I was that single mother on welfare reading your post I would be very insulted.

In my State, over 50% of the people here work for some form of government. The other 50% of workers already support them, and the social system.

Because their work is of no use you mean???? Too black and white again, and on the edge of insulting.

I'm in support of a safety net that keeps people from homelessness and starvation, and propels them back into the work force. Even many of those with disabilities can find some productive use for their time.

I agree, and I never stated anywhere that I think otherwise. I am not for 'giving away money for nothing'.

The purpose of Capitalism in my opinion is to allow the market to determine what "valuable" means when it comes to the use of labor and capital investment, rather than some bureaucrat.

This has been discussed here before, and I stand by my opinion then.
The form of capitalism today finds investment bankers, photomodels, britney spears and professional athletes the most valuable people......this is of course NOT a basis for a sound economy.

How do you moderate greed motives? How does this jive with your statement "you will always have people trying to profit"? Do you want your government to restrain that quest for profit?

Sorry for the incorrect sentence. I mean the goverment should make sure these greed motives can be realized to the extreme. In the society in the west today it was seen as positive to be as greedy as possible; lend as much as you can, don't study but try to be a good basketballplayer because you will be rich, play with other peoples money and get very rich and if you screw up we will bail you out etc.

We have very different ideas about what "freedom" means. The best way to enslave a person is to keep them impoverished and dependent on the masters benevolence.

The more social countries in europe like denmark and sweden are also among the richest, most productive and happy places. It is not like soviet russia here, people drive big cars, makes lots of money etc.....the only thing we do is pay a little more tax.

The idealism of "all for one and one for all" is great for herding the masses into a paddock of tyrannical dominion. History has shown repeatedly that once a population is so cowed, it becomes the next simple thing to eliminate any threat to the fence or silence any voice of dissent. Go back and reread "Animal Farm" by Orwell. I believe the concept of egalitarian utopia is unrealizable in a world where any one person can obliterate a city with the press of a button. It might work at the scale of a kibbutz, but at a national level, there are too many Berkshire boars ready to kick the eppie Snowballs off the farm.

Again you are talking to me as if I was proposing a new maoist state.....which I was not.

And poor Orwell, he would turn around in his grave when he could here all those people using his books as an argument against communism.

[Jester]

And poor Orwell, he would turn around in his grave when he could here all those people using his books as an argument against communism.

Orwell was an ardent anti-Communist. He just also happened to be an impassioned Socialist.

-Jester

[eppie]

Orwell was an ardent anti-Communist. He just also happened to be an impassioned Socialist.

-Jester

That orwell was critical towards the USSR was because he was againts totalitarianism, not because he was an anti-communist.

[Delc]

This has been discussed here before, and I stand by my opinion then.
The form of capitalism today finds investment bankers, photomodels, britney spears and professional athletes the most valuable people......this is of course NOT a basis for a sound economy.

Our government has shown that they DO think that crap is valuable. Almost every single sports stadium in the country has been built with taxpayer's money. Bridge maintenance on the other hand is a complete waste of money it seems.