Perhaps people who rely upon centralised political power to protect them from competition in the supply of their chosen labour services should seek to differentiate themselves by developing more valuable skills. Yes, I know, it's a terribly radical idea, not blaming evil businesses and all.
Wow, I can't understand it, why hasn't anyone informed all these corporations that they are wasting so much money paying people to do nothing? Why hasn't anyone at these companies realised what's going on? It's crazy, there must be incredible competitive advantages to be had with all the savings up for grabs - just think of how much cheaper they could make their products, they could undercut the competition like crazy!
Man, you know what, I don't why this Graeber guy hasn't gotten there first, but I reckon I'm just gunna go break the good news - I bet I can charge top dollar for my advice too, these companies are gunna be so blown away, hehehe I'm gunna be rich!!
Sorry, didn't you hear? Internet discussions about economic inequality are logic-free zones. Please keep your clear reasoning and pragmatic realism to yourself.
Great idea, but this is too limited IMO. Such a law would only protect those who sell their labour under traditional wage contracts. However there are countless other people who sell their labour in different ways - plumbers, electricians, contractors, potato farmers, etc. And where are the protections for them? These workers are all vulnerable to horrendous exploitation from the greedy consumers who drive them to work like dogs, demanding ever more toilets unblocked, wiring systems installed, and potatoes produced.
We should shield these vulnerable workers from exploitation too - plumbers could be limited to only fixing three blocked toilets per day, for instance. Electricians could only be allowed to install one wiring system per day. And what about potato farmers? Why not limit people to buying four potatoes per person per supermarket trip.
These measures would help ensure protection of quality of life, and even promote the economy. Millions more could find opportunities working in these fields, and with the load spread more evenly, everyone could enjoy more leisure and rest.
I understand the nostalgia, but I don't understand the melancholy. Why should you feel sad for a company that was so inept? We should be celebrating the fact that a company that failed to adapt and produce products that people really wanted was trampled by more nimble competition.
After all, if you look at the phones Nokia put out over the last ten years, it's clear they had no clue what they were doing. Instead of really focussing on a few good ideas, they just kept throwing shit at the wall to see what would stick, adding bizarre features and more buttons and releasing phone after awkward useless phone after phone. All the while the big innovation was just turning the phone into a simple frame for the canvas, a big screen on which to run a flexible, updateable OS - then supporting and building a community around a single phone line.
And when that innovation came, they scrambled to cover their asses, but it just wasn't in their company DNA to show that level of focus. Instead you could sense that they were upset at having to buckle down and "get serious" - like someone took away their toys.
They were the consummate manufacturers of Homer Car phones. Their phones were pre-Cambrian experimental bodyforms. Well guess what, 99% of those random bodyforms were junk.
All food is "experimental" in this sense. Does anybody know exactly what is in every single food item they buy? How each item has been prepared, what substances have been applied to it? No. No one has any idea. People just buy and eat things and hope for the best.
Personally, I'd rather eat one thing which has been analysed and designed carefully, rather than a whole bunch of random shit, most of which hasn't been designed with any particular nutritional purpose, and hoping somehow that it averages out to a healthy diet.
Right. Unlikely that anything was done carelessly, and in the end, Ballmer had to go, even if he was a great CEO - only a new, hip CEO could get people's attention and project a new image. And they'd been building up to that moment (when they could withstand the world's attention for a while) - the new logo, the product and web visual unification, etc etc.
In the end, both cultures (Western and East Asian) have their own deficits, their own things worth learning from each other. Both cultures are missing pieces of the same puzzle.
The Asians have focus, the ability to set and meet goals, but those goals are generally poorly considered - born of too harsh a worldview, too competitive, too zero-sum.
The Westerners on the other hand have the spark and energy that can produce great things, but focus among individuals is generally poor, and Western cultures fail to set and adhere to clear guidelines about good and bad behaviour.
Spark and focus. Neither lesson is worth much individually. Both failings produce their own forms of individual and social dysfunction. But if both cultures would combine their strengths, the result would be largely unstoppable.
Great, I look forward to the day when you read The Gulag Archipelago and a first-year economics textbook and realise that you're talking out your ass. Maybe throw in some Hayek while you're at it. Good luck!
Liberty means allowing people to make their own decisions about how they live and use their resources, as long as they're not infringing on the liberty of others. It's a universal concept, not just tied to your vilification of wealthy conservative people.
What?!? Suggesting people use their own money to support their own beliefs, rather than expecting the rest of society to pay up while they make no sacrifice?? Heretic!!