Did you answer the OP, I think I missed it ?
Yes, why you think the labor theory of value doesn’t work. In a separate thread, ideally. Shouldn’t be too hard, if you think it’s already been done, eh? I disagree, obviously–previous attempts simply refused to understand what it says, as I tried to point out. This may be helpful to understand where I’m coming from. Also, remember I asked you to watch your reflexive hostility, and that I asked you not to offer blanket dismissals without specifics.
Looking at the Syria military action, it’s based on post 9/11 authorisation of military force law which means Obama doesn’t have to ask congress their opinion. I think that’s just one example of many
I think Lockheed Martin would prefer to work wherever it could get the largest margins, all else being equal. All else is not equal, however. Look what Russia has done to the oligarchs that don’t stay in line. So personally, if I could make a 5% margin and know I and my assets were safe, I would take that over a 10% margin with a constant fear that both my assets and my life could be forfeit at any time I crossed the wrong official.
I don’t know if that’s an equivalent case, really. Anyway isn’t it the oligarchs who choose the politicians in the US ? And if they get out of line they get what Elliot Spitzer got ?
So you all agree that democracy and capitalism are destined for a divorce, and that the West is heading for a new authoritarian period ?
No, pretty much no-one has agreed with you. It does not seem to have been a convincing argument.
It’s Zizek’s argument and nobody has seriously challenged it.
Well, he just asserts it’s going to happen in the video*, no methods of action are mentioned. So, it’s not really like I can argue against it without simply gainsaying it. He doesn’t even really mention why it might happen other than to vaguely describe some “malaise” by jumping from ecological to banking to copyright to genetics concerns, without addressing how divorcing capitalism and democracy would be a solution. After that, he decries that gated communities were our future without considering that they’re also part of our past.
So, I’m not convinced that the multitude of choices that people face in liberal democratic societies is going to lead to them devolving into a restrictive society like Singapore. Long-term, the general trend is toward more freedom and power for the individual (even though this process seems pretty damn chaotic) . To assume that trend will continue unabated forever isn’t really a theory, but it has more empirical evidence than his assertions.
*And now I watched your video, twice. Watch the one in my sig. Futurist blather in exchange for intentionally primitive rock and roll. It’s only fair.
No there is no evidence for this.
agreed.
This is precisely a real driver in decisions of investment.
the reality for investors is the authoritarian system appears more dangerous. It is more easy to expropriate the assets, more easy to have action taken against one if you are not part of the close circle - and then if the autocrat falls, to lose your assets. This happened for even some european (ahem, the French) investors into the Tunisia on the fall of Ben Ali and now you encounter among these French a great aversion to having such partners - they learned a hard lesson.
So the autocratic system from simply a cold calculus example does not look better for any capital ivnestor not already in the oligarchy. (a similar example from the Egypt is seen - and one has these examples in the sub saharan africa. For every capitalist who is naive or corrupt to associate, there are 10 others who avoid the investment as they know the lesson - not needing a morality, it is a cold calculation)
Why I would waste my time in such a circus I do not know, after this, but doing so would be like engaging in a “debate” about the Phlogiston theory. It has as much utillity. There really is no point in a discussion with a true believer in such things, particularly when there is the evidence - as the linked past discussion - that there is only circular witnessing to happen. It is enough to note that left or right, no non-marxist economics use this theory as it is a failure and based on a simplistic misconception of the generation of value - one that could be understood c. 19e century but not since. That the marxist true believers cling to it is interesting from a political evolution point of view in studying a marginal movement and its attitudes to the foundational ideas, long passed by, but not for the study of the economics which discarded the concept at the end of the 19e century already.
That’s right, that’s why I want bright boys like you to figure it all out for me.
Maybe for the examples you mentioned, but not for China, or Singapore - which are Zizek’s examples. Tunisia isn’t a manufacturing powerhouse. It’s fresh out of a revolution. On the contrary, dictatorships are often very good investment partners - look at Saudi.
How come all that money is invested in Chinese manufacturing - resulting in your computer ? Of all the places in which people are afraid to invest, China doesn’t seem to be one, what with it being the biggest manufacturer in the world.
And internal investment in weapons doesn’t seem to be a problem, judging by it’s recent military parade.
On the other hand, NSA over reach has made US tech companies hopping madbecause of it’s interference with the saleability of goods. But they will eventually get used to it won’t they, and cynically accommodate the new surveillance reality ?
The British government is investing in China to build its new nuclear plants, because for some reason as a democracy it decided not to invest in nuclear design skills, whereas the Chinese state didn’t have that problem.
[QUOTE=MrQwertyasd]
Maybe for the examples you mentioned, but not for China, or Singapore - which are Zizek’s examples. Tunisia isn’t a manufacturing powerhouse. It’s fresh out of a revolution. On the contrary, dictatorships are often very good investment partners - look at Saudi.
How come all that money is invested in Chinese manufacturing - resulting in your computer ? Of all the places in which people are afraid to invest, China doesn’t seem to be one, what with it being the biggest manufacturer in the world.
[/QUOTE]
You (and possibly Zizek) seem to be confusing several things. There isn’t a lot of foreign investment in Chinese companies…I don’t have the opportunity to look it up, but I seem to recall that less than 5% of investment in the Chinese stock market(s) are from foreign investment. Nearly all of it is internal (that’s why their Great Crash didn’t really affect people outside of China). No one is investing heavily in Chinese manufacturing…they are building manufacturing plants or buying products that take advantage of Chinese low cost labor and the lower cost of being able to ignore China’s environmental laws and regulations. You can bet, however, that if India or some other country can offer a better deal, that foreign companies will shift to those countries to build their manufacturing plants or buy their cheaper parts.
The problem is that they steal much of the highest tech (when they don’t buy it from places like Russia).
Doesn’t hurt that their bids are lower. I wish the UK good luck with this, though, as several projects in the US that used Chinese contractors to rebuild bridges and the like ended up costing a lot more because of the low quality materials and practices used. That’s bad enough in a bridge, but in a nuke plant it might be a bit more of an issue. 
Hmm, I’d say that he’s the only one that’s going to be able to answer that one for you. It’s his prediction/fantasy about how the future will work out. At this point it kind of reads like the people who thought that Bush (or Obama) was going to install themselves as dictator. No one who predicted this had a convincing method of how they were going to do it when pressed, and preferred to make wild claims about how horrible things were going to be.
And really, if you want a quick way to tell if a person’s predictions are worth looking into: check if they provide a time scale the prediction is supposed to happen in, and intermediate steps that will lead to their end prediction. If they don’t provide either of those; it’s probably either an unfalsifiable claim, or it is an end state they’d like, and they’re trying to work out how it might happen without considering if it will.
I did find this debunking article about ‘Zizek’s "bullshit"’ (there were more than a few if you google ‘debunking Slavoj Zizek’ but this was the smallest:
Anyway, he goes through a number of quotes from the guy and debunks them or points out the various contradictions. I didn’t see anything on this video in particular, but seems clear that the guys just throws stuff at the wall hoping something will stick and is more speaking for shock value as well as because he WANTS it to be the way he claims than from any seeming understanding of even the basics.
Thanks for the effort, but … small problem ?
Well that is an advert for running things the way they run them isn’t it ? Immunity from market crashes isn’t a bad thing. If bankers get out of hand, they execute them rather than throwing money at them.
Top destinations for foreign direct investment in 2014
China $128bn Hong Kong $111bn US $86bn Singapore $81bn Brazil $62bn UK $61bn
It’s not a problem for them. I suppose the idea here is that being authoritarian they lack innovation. But they don’t seem to have a problem with education, judging by the number of Chinese names on US academic papers.
I appreciate the sympathy, I do, our government are off their fucking rockers with this deal.
You should put in some effort. He qualifies this by saying he hasn’t read his BOOKS, but has read many of his articles, seen his interviews and his YouTube videos. So, no…I don’t think it’s a major issue. Have YOU read all his books and such?
Now you might say that those foreign firms going to China are factors that will bring democracy to China, yet they seem to do fine in an authoritarian environment. So when WILL we see Microsoft and Merck’s presence in china bring about a democracy ?
And why not simply invest in dictatorships instead of bombing them into regime change ?
I was mean wasn’t I ?
I have read a couple yes. I know he’s mischievous and uses a lot of jargon I don’t agree with or that is even incomprehensible. Chomsky recently called him out on it.
Haha a man after my own heart :p. For instance, didn’t you realise that XT is actually my other account ?
Ramira’s bitching is my third account, I enjoy sneering at myself for lulz. I’ll leave you to guess how many other accounts I run.
But I don’t care about those distractions, I just want to know about this one point.