Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 06, 2013, 10:28

Quote from: Lizard on July 05, 2013, 22:29

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 04, 2013, 22:44

If it is an attack on capitalism then Tror should bear in mind that stock photography exists to serve one of the most quintessential capitalist activities of all - advertising - which is nothing more than investing capital to try to get people to give  you money for things that you probably don't really need. If you love being a stock photographer you can't hate capitalism.

Sorry but you are wrong completely,,  if for example u u pre-advertising a Permaculture farm and its products in your photos , you are doing absolutely no favor to capitalism and its food propaganda, food is something that all of us still need and if its healthy produced in natural environment without use of pesticides and other s..t even better. And if u or me or someone third is promoting that trough the chain of capitalism he can use its positive methods to promote thing that can make it better.

You are involved in creation of market...you pick whats behind the lens when u press the shutter and any thematic can sell if the photo is good enough. And u stand better chances to make a good photo if u shoot what u like that when u shoot because u have to because u follow the needs of the market.

And who says your lovely sustainable crops shot won't appear on a Monsanto advert for round-up ready? Or maybe it will be used by Hilton Hotels to encourage tourists to buy hotel-based environmental tours. You are feeding images to the advertising industry with no control over usage and the overwhelming objective of advertisers is to boost their business profits. 

Like it or not, you are feeding and profiting from the capitalist system.

So what makes u think  that one of the people on those tours will hear the seminar about what they are eating and what are the consequences of that and that one of those people will start buying food only from people growing it naturally as nature intended ?

Or that one of those people wont stop eating hormone and antibiotic  filled semi-animals and start to buy meat from people who treat animals in human way or even better become vegetarian ?

Now if one case happens try to calculate how much money is redirected outside corporatism to people who accually do something during the life of that man.

Or why are u certain that that one person even if he got there by Hilton or Park Plaza or whoever took him there wont share his experience and involve few friends in more natural way of life that is complete opposite of capitalistic propaganda especially about food and water ?

What makes u think a photo of a man messing with your food pesticides and other craps dressed up like he is going to space cannot make a difference for someone.


Yes again, u were and are completely wrong, even if your ego is hurt and if u try to invent any argument corporate capitalism lacks humanity and parts of that can surely be exposed inside stock photography even if its highly connected to capitalism as u rightfully claim.

All things are possible but microstock would definitely not be my choice of outlet for campaigning photography. I still think stock photography overwhelmingly assists capitalism and does nothing to overthrow it. By the way, aren't the people growing organic food and trying to market it engaging in capitalism, too?

I'm like everyone else - a Green campaigner through and through, as long as being Green doesn't make me poor.

Great, nice to hear it and keep it up
[/quote]

The trouble is that most ideas for tackling the problems seem to involve an erosion of living standards. In the UK, for example, lots of people are outraged that they pay extra for electricity to subsidise wind farms. Eventually, wind power may become cheaper than oil but during the transition people feel that their money is being taken for nothing.

People tend to worry more about losing $100 today to pay for some green initiative than they do about the idea that in five years they might or might not see their house destroyed by a tornado (which might or might not be the result of global warming).

As for fighting corporations - everybody wants to, as long as they can get the next iPad or upgrade Windows.

Humans are not programmed to be frugal, they are programmed to grab what they can for their families and themselves, regardless of whether it means some Pacific island disappearing or their neighbour's seafront property being washed away. That's why heartless big businesses emerge and it's why we've been so reluctant to address the massive problems arising from our consumption of resources over the last 250 years.

Being "Green" is heartless, too, really, because it means demanding that people give up the hope of achieving Western living standards and accepting that some will have to starve and die to keep resource consumption in acceptable limits. You'll probably say I'm wrong about that but a long time ago Jonathon Porrit (one-time chairman of the UK Green Party) told me that maybe making Europe sustainable would mean going back to the population there was in Roman times, when it was about 12 million according to a census. I don't know how we are going to get rid of the other 500 million or so and, of course, I and my family must be among the survivors.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 06, 2013, 14:01

All things are possible but microstock would definitely not be my choice of outlet for campaigning photography. I still think stock photography overwhelmingly assists capitalism and does nothing to overthrow it. By the way, aren't the people growing organic food and trying to market it engaging in capitalism, too?

I don`t think its about overthrowing anything, but about fixing the bugs in the system so that it can run more smoothly again...at least thats my POV.

But the concentration of power and wealth in an ever tighter circle isn't a bug, it is a logical progression of capitalism (and capitalism seems to be the natural social system of humanity).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2011/10/22/the-147-companies-that-control-everything/

Quote from: sharpshot on July 05, 2013, 16:54

I caught a bit of this programme and this 3 minute clip is worth watching.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00z0yb2

I couldn't get this to play, but I like this sentence from the front page:

The crisis comes when the workers don�t have enough money to buy what the bosses are trying to sell them.

What puzzles me is why the bosses don't see that, and the inevitable consequences.

But they do see it. That's why the "crisis of capitalism" has been spouted about by Marxists for 160 years of the 200+ since the Industrial Revolution but has never happened. Isn't "Quantitative Easing" about pushing enough money into the system to keep it rotating? You don't have to earn money to spend it, anyway, you can do it all on credit, guaranteed against whatever assets you might have.  Didn't the banks inflate US and UK property prices by lending large mortgages, thereby pushing more credit into the system for existing householders?

The real (but temporary) crisis comes when ordinary people stop borrowing to spend and start saving. That deflates everything but it also transfers real assets from the indebted poor to wealthy capitalists, as houses and other forms of property are repossessed often at deflated values.

(and capitalism seems to be the natural social system of humanity).

Is It?

I see communities here ( Ecuador) where  the communities live, and work and share on a co-operative model not on a capitalist model.  The corruption and values of greed have only arrived in the post-columbian time frame... before that society and mutual survival was more important than individual wealth.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 06, 2013, 14:33

(and capitalism seems to be the natural social system of humanity).

Is It?

I see communities here ( Ecuador) where  the communities live, and work and share on a co-operative model not on a capitalist model.  The corruption and values of greed have only arrived in the post-columbian time frame... before that society and mutual survival was more important than individual wealth.

Interesting. Maybe it is only technological societies where capitalism is the default. But co-operative communities still tend to have hierarchies, don't they? If there are sufficient resources to feed, clothe and house everyone then I suppose there is no pressure to accumulate wealth and try to provide for the future.

Quote from: grsphoto on July 06, 2013, 14:46

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 06, 2013, 14:33

(and capitalism seems to be the natural social system of humanity).

Is It?

I see communities here ( Ecuador) where  the communities live, and work and share on a co-operative model not on a capitalist model.  The corruption and values of greed have only arrived in the post-columbian time frame... before that society and mutual survival was more important than individual wealth.

Interesting. Maybe it is only technological societies where capitalism is the default. But co-operative communities still tend to have hierarchies, don't they? If there are sufficient resources to feed, clothe and house everyone then I suppose there is no pressure to accumulate wealth and try to provide for the future.

These villages have trucks, and computers and cell phones ( most are shared).  There are hierarchies, and the other trappings of a society, but money isn't what people strive for, happiness is.

Quote from: Travelling-light on July 06, 2013, 14:32

Quote from: sharpshot on July 05, 2013, 16:54

I caught a bit of this programme and this 3 minute clip is worth watching.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00z0yb2

I couldn't get this to play, but I like this sentence from the front page:

The crisis comes when the workers don�t have enough money to buy what the bosses are trying to sell them.

What puzzles me is why the bosses don't see that, and the inevitable consequences.

But they do see it. That's why the "crisis of capitalism" has been spouted about by Marxists for 160 years of the 200+ since the Industrial Revolution but has never happened. Isn't "Quantitative Easing" about pushing enough money into the system to keep it rotating? You don't have to earn money to spend it, anyway, you can do it all on credit, guaranteed against whatever assets you might have.  Didn't the banks inflate US and UK property prices by lending large mortgages, thereby pushing more credit into the system for existing householders?

The real (but temporary) crisis comes when ordinary people stop borrowing to spend and start saving. That deflates everything but it also transfers real assets from the indebted poor to wealthy capitalists, as houses and other forms of property are repossessed often at deflated values.

Isn't quantitative easing the same as devaluation?  That's why the price of everything has gone up so much in the UK.  I wish the journalists would use the word devaluation instead of quantitative easing.  People know what devaluation means, quantitative easing doesn't have the same connotations.

What I find most annoying is the way politicians from both sides of the political spectrum deregulated the banks and let them lend to people that could never pay the money back.  Then they blame the banks for the financial crisis.  Now they want the banks to lend more again.  That's just going to lead to another financial crisis.

I think the biggest problem is that politicians are only interested in getting reelected.  They promise all sorts of things that they can't stick to.  A few years before an election, they wont tackle any problem that makes them unpopular and unelectable.  They can't do anything to prevent another economic disaster happening because that will take too long and the opposition parties only have to offer people something they know they can't deliver to win the next election.

this thread should be changed to "BaldricksTrousers lesson in capitalism in crisis" - just let him be right.

Quote from: sharpshot on July 06, 2013, 16:02

Quote from: Lizard on July 06, 2013, 15:22

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 06, 2013, 14:27

Quote from: Lizard on July 06, 2013, 13:53

I'm like everyone else - a Green campaigner through and through, as long as being Green doesn't make me poor.

Great, nice to hear it and keep it up

The trouble is that most ideas for tackling the problems seem to involve an erosion of living standards. In the UK, for example, lots of people are outraged that they pay extra for electricity to subsidise wind farms. Eventually, wind power may become cheaper than oil but during the transition people feel that their money is being taken for nothing.

Quote

As a Croatian I have 2 things to say, it was a nice moment when we made u watch Euro on telly and i dont like politics but that Farage  in the Euro parlament is priceless and has my hat down.  Wasnt he at Green party or something before UKIP ?

I never voted in my life , in my country pretty much useless options, but that guy would have my vote any day and the speech he welcomed us entering the union was one of the best I heard.

How is he standing there in UK anyways ? Any chance they ever win ?

I had to laugh when a journaislt said that UKIP is the biggest threat to the mainstream UK parties since the SDP.  The SDP were a joke and never got anywhere.  UKIP is the same.  For some reason Nigel Farage gets a few protest votes but when there's a general election, UKIP will be lucky to get one MP.

Farage has never been in the Green party.  You might be thinking of David Icke?  They both seem to think they're the next messiah

The funniest thing about Farage was when his plane crashed at the last election.  It was caused by a "Vote UKIP" banner that it was displaying.  If that wasn't a sign that he should get out of politics and become a full time comedian, I don't know what is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1y0HEd8b70

No, I haven't mixed Nigel with Icke , I don't follow UK political scene, dont even follow mine,  but I have recently heard few Nigels speeches from EU parliament and whatever he may be I sure like him more than all other puppets there. I dont know from where I got idea he was green before but it didn't come because Icke was, probably I misheard it somewhere.


He said few about my country and all he said is what all others including our domestic politicians never had guts to say. Immediately he was attack by a guy I never even heard of who is representing us there and apparently he is on EU paycheck since he was born

Its easy for him to say whatever he wants because he has absolutely no power.  So he picks some policies that would be very popular but aren't ever going to happen.  I'm sure if by some miracle his party won the next UK election, he would be even worse than the politicians we have now.  UKIP want to give most people a huge tax cut but that's obviously not going to happen under the current economic conditions.  Its an easy way to get the gullible to vote for them.

Well Capitalism is sort of like god.  It is a very broad subject with everyone going to a different church/school.  Here is another video (rather long but econ geeks should love it) with a debate at Columbia between the opposite ends of the economic spectrum - "Austrian" and Modern Monetary Theory (MMT).   Professor Murphy does not really do a very good job on the "Austrian" side - they could have found someone much better - but Warren Mosler for MMT is quite good and clear.

MMT vs. Austrian School Debate

c h e e r s
fred