Timex
5221
There is no REAL value. Even market values are not absolute: they are a function of time. Other values, such as the value of the right to bear arms, are a function of time AND a function of who you ask.
Well, when it to economic commodities, the price very much is the real value. Or at least, it is “the most real”. There is no underlying inherent value aside from that price. And certainly, i agree that the value fluctuates over time.
Like i said, for things like the right to bear arms, the value is basically determined by whatever you are willing to give in exchange for it.
magnet
5222
This is where it gets interesting. You’re right, once you have two willing parties (one side is not enough) you can arrive at a price. But the trick is to find willing parties.
Planet Money recently provided the perfect example. A guy in Baltimore realized that there is no free market for public (curbside) parking spots. So he built an app to solve this problem. It allows people to sell their parking spots, ie agree to move their car and let a buyer claim the spot.
Long story short, the app was a disaster. It turns out that people hate the very idea of private sales of public parking spots. In the podcast, one of the reporters himself tried to hawk his parking spot to passersby. That experiment went over as poorly as you might expect. In short order, Boston and other cities made this practice illegal, and the market was destroyed.
Technically, a market in parking spaces would be more efficient than the status quo. The same might be true of a market for living organ donors, which is also banned in the US. So why is the market rejected in favor of a less efficient alternative?
I think these examples show that humans have other ways of determining value, based on abstract principles. If the market value is roughly in agreement, then we use it. When there is a gross conflict, abstract principles trump market values, and the market value is replaced by a non-market evaluation.
Timex
5223
Technically, a market in parking spaces would be more efficient than the status quo. So why was this method rejected?
Eh, i don’t know if this is actually a real solid example. I mean, there are so many weirds things about it.
I mean, you suggest that it could be more efficient… Efficient at what? You also kind of run into the problem that people don’t actually own those spots. It also kind of messes up given that the idea there kind of hinges on the idea that you sell a spot to someone for a price… But in order sell, it that you have to hold it until selling… Which, since you have no actual property right to the spot, means that you have to stay there and can’t leave. Thus it’s actually costing you time and to continue possession of the commodity you are selling.
I don’t think demonstrates some kind of failure of market based systems, as much as it was just a badly thought out idea with multiple flaws on every level.
In other words, it’s a situation where a laissez-faire market based system cannot work optimally.
Teiman
5225
Before I buy a videogames, I don’t know how much fun I am going to extract from it. I have buy many games that I only have played a few minutes, because where boring to me. I paid 60$ for games I had 0 fun, and I have paid 10$ for games that have made me really happy for weeks. The free market failed to me.
There are a company, Obsidian, that consistently made good games (with a few unfun ones). They can barely survive, their size is enough to have 2 or 3 big games going on. If one or two fail, they risk having to close. Then theres a big company like EA, that can have 20 or 30 games in productions, 20 can be a failure and this don’t mean it close. EA may hemorrhage money like crazy, many hundreds of million dollars in a quarter, and still continue open. The market is failing to kill this company, because is to big to be killed by his failures.
Many people ends alone, they end without a partners, despite wanting to have one. They have a lot to offer, but they just don’t find anybody that is taking. The market fails to this people. Many people is unemployed, the system fail to find a job for them.
People talk about the free market like is a system that give other systems buoyancy, or describe it as a system that create equilibrium. But these ideas and opinions seems to be religious beliefs, because thats not how the real world seems to behave. In the real world the free market grown inequality. Rich people game the system. Lemons grown to the top. People fail to buy or sell what they want. People end alone. People end unemployed. This is not the All Glorious Free Market Utopia they seems to expect.
Free market (or more specifically, the libertarian ideal that free market forces push towards fairness) it’s like classical communism, anarchism… etc. Systems that work really well with frictionless spherical humans, but that fail when they meet the messy reality, and remain only as utopic ideals to guide real-world behavior at best.
I think what distinguishes free market from other such systems is the fact that we live in a society that champions this particular idea, and thus we perceive it differently than other ideologies that we can observe from a safe distance. Some people are going to be more prone to defend it against other ideologies because thye have lived with it, and some people are prone to attack it more than other ideologies because of the very same reason. It’s hard to be objective about it.
The free market works great in industries that are competitive, and have market power equality. If a market has those two conditions, then government should be minimally involved- mostly to protect against fraud.
The problem is what happens when markets aren’t competitive (which is market power inequality itself- see the broadband industry in the US vs in Europe) , or if capital has a large advantage over labor (like in the US), or if labor has a huge advantage over capital (old UK coal miners in the 70s).
Oh, I have no problems with free market regulating industries. I have a problem with it regulating people, or more precisely, services that have a subjective/human/humane value so high that they shouldn’t be left to “market forces” to be regulated, but should be regulated by the ethical principles the society decides by collective, direct choice (the laws and constitution). For example, I maintain that letting the free market regulate health care, even in perfect conditions, is foolish (that is, health has such a high subjective value for individuals, that, if left free of regulation, will always rise to unsustainable levels that will leave huge sections of the population underprotected. And it will cost more for a less efficient service).
That is, I believe the free market is a good idea, for certain areas, and a horrible idea for others. I have issues with all-encompassing ideologies, since historically they have all been disastrous. Much like I see socialism, communism and other ideologies. They all have sectors where they seem to be the most effective system. this is why I like the Nordic countries, they seem to have found a good balance (helped by some local idiosyncracies, resources, sure, but a decent balance nonetheless).
ShivaX
5229
Pretty much. If people weren’t human, then communism and complete libertarianism could work out fine (though I’d argue eventually the libertarian ideal is going to result in monopolies of everything - it’s the natural end state). But people ARE humans, so everything goes to hell pretty quickly.
These posters are being plastered around the E3 area.
Enidigm
5231
I can’t actually tell if those are pro or anti Sark.
Really? I think it’s pretty clear.
That’s a long way to go to harass one person. By removing it from the digital realm and doing something physical, it seems a lot more likely that police might take an interest.
Timex
5233
So are they anti Sarkessian?
Enidigm
5234
My first thought was that it was a “guerrilla” fem. frequency poster. Then i thought it was maybe an “ally” but not related to fem. frequency. I thought they were using “freak” in a positive way.
Yes.
- The black and white high contrast image is more menacing than adulatory. It feels like a political campaign attack ad imagery.
- Sarkeesian “claimed” the term tropes in our current discourse with the naming of her series. This is aggressively denying her ownership thereof.
- Use of the term “Honey” in a diminutive manner, indicates the poster is directed at a woman. It doesn’t make sense for the poster to be addressing the general public as “Honey”, unless that’s one of Sarkeesian’s vocal tics (which it isn’t as far as I know).
- Freak, as noted, can be positive or negative. Given the context, it appears negative.
It’s entirely possible I’m wrong, of course. But it reads as fairly menacing to me.
If I were the one on that poster, I would feel it was harassing me.
To quote Imperator Nikki, I’m sure they are all literally shaking right now.
The posters might be from political art collective Honey Badgers (and VFM weirdos) or an affiliate but I’m not sure they are really that subversive.
Quaro
5237
I’m imagining walking around E3 and seeing posters of my face randomly around the city like that. I’d be pretty creeped out.
Looks like there’s a match with this style from a third party who put up similar posters locally last year.
Well, that’s pretty weird.
Timex
5240
Heh, I didn’t even see the honey part. I think I stopped reading when I saw the AYBBTU. I was interpretting it as Sarkessian saying that all our tropes belong to HER.
