blue-author

blue-author:

projectivepenteract:

theuppitynegras:

projectivepenteract:

theuppitynegras:

I’m about 90% sure the economy is never gonna “improve” 

this is capitalism in it’s final form

this is it honey 

except, you know, those companies that do a charitable thing for every thing they sell

that’s kinda new and interesting. benevolent capitalism

lmao

Pay attention, class: This is what it looks like when one is unwilling to consider new information.

It’s not new information, though. It’s misinformation.

First, it’s not that new.

Did you know that there was a time in U.S. history—which is by definition recent history—when a corporation was generally intended to have some sort of public interest that they served? I mean, that’s the whole point of allowing corporations to form. Corporations are recognized by the commonwealth or state, and this recognition is not a right but a privilege, in exchange for which the state (representing the people) is allowed to ask, “So what does this do for everyone else?”

The way the economy is now is a direct result of a shift away from this thinking and to one where a corporation is an entity unto itself whose first, last, and only concern is an ever-increasing stream of profits. What you’re calling “benevolent capitalism” isn’t benevolent at all. It’s a pure profit/loss calculation designed to distract from—not even paper over or stick a band-aid on—the problems capitalism creates. And the fact that you’re here championing it as “benevolent capitalism” is a sign of how ell it’s working.

Let’s take Toms, as one example. The shoe that’s a cause. Buy a pair of trendy shoes, and a pair of trendy shoes will be given away to someone somewhere in the world who can’t afford them.

That’s not genuine benevolence. That’s selling you, the consumer, on the idea that you can be benevolent by buying shoes, that the act of purchasing these shoes is an act of charity. The reality is that their model is an inefficient means of addressing the problems on the ground that shoelessness represents, and severely disrupts the local economies of the locations selected for benevolence.

(Imagine what it does to the local shoemakers, for instance.)

The supposed act of charity is just a value add to convince you to spend your money on these shoes instead of some other shoes. It’s no different than putting a prize in a box of cereal.

Heck, you want to see how malevolent this is?

Go ask a multinational corporation that makes shoes or other garments to double the wages of their workers. They’ll tell you they can’t afford it, that it’s not possible, that consumers won’t stand for it, that you’ll drive them out of business and then no one will have wages.

But the fact that a company can give away one item for every item sold shows you what a lie this is. A one-for-one giving model represents double the cost of labor and materials for each unit that is sold for revenue. Doubling wages would only double the labor.

So why are companies willing to give their products away (and throw them away, destroy unused industry with bleach and razors to render them unsalvageable, et cetera) but they’re not willing to pay their workers more?

Because capitalism is the opposite of benevolence.

"Charity" is by definition exemplary, above and beyond, extraordinary, extra. "Charity" is not something that people are entitled to. You give people a shirt or shoes or some food and call it charity, and you’re setting up an expectation that you can and will control the stream of largesse in the future, and anything and everything you give should be considered a boon from on high.

On the other hand, once you start paying your workers a higher wage, you’re creating an expectation. You’re admitting that their labor is more valuable to you than you were previously willing to admit, and it’s hard to walk that back.

Plus, when people have enough money for their basic needs, they’re smarter and stronger and warier and more comfortable with pushing back instead of being steamrolled over. They have time and money to pursue education. They can save money up and maybe move away. They can escape from the system that depends on a steady flow of forced or near-forced labor.

So companies will do charitable “buy one, give one” and marketing “buy one, get one” even though these things by definition double the overhead per unit, but they won’t do anything that makes a lasting difference in the standard of living for the people.

Capitalism has redefined the world so that the baseline of ethics is “How much money can we make?” and every little good deed over and above that is saintly.

But there’s nothing benevolent about throwing a scrap of bread to someone who’s starving in a ditch because you ran them out of their home in the first place.

(sighted in this month’s MSU Alumni Association Magazine)

[Photostory showing a winter scene on the Michigan State Campus] "Baby, It’s Cold Outside" - Frank Loesser’s Academy Award-winning song might have been a fitting tune around campus in January, when a polar vortex swept through and dumped 17 inches of snow while plunging wind chill temperatures to 30 degrees below zero. MSU cancelled classes but the campus still looked beautiful for those who dared to venture outside to admire this chilling beauty.

…so you’re saying a song that is about committing date rape and sexual coercion “might have been a fitting song around campus in January”? Not sure that’s what you and the University should be promoting, MSUAA.

(sighted in this month’s MSU Alumni Association Magazine)

[Photostory showing a winter scene on the Michigan State Campus] "Baby, It’s Cold Outside" - Frank Loesser’s Academy Award-winning song might have been a fitting tune around campus in January, when a polar vortex swept through and dumped 17 inches of snow while plunging wind chill temperatures to 30 degrees below zero. MSU cancelled classes but the campus still looked beautiful for those who dared to venture outside to admire this chilling beauty.

…so you’re saying a song that is about committing date rape and sexual coercion “might have been a fitting song around campus in January”? Not sure that’s what you and the University should be promoting, MSUAA.

cleolinda

dduane:

azurelunatic:

mamasam:

tonyabbot:

scary-monsters-and-davesprite:

lonelyinsomniac:

samsaranmusing:

image

Orbital path of asteroid near miss in 2002. Yah, that’s how close we came to nuclear winter and possible total destruction.

A visitor.

It’s like it’s trying so hard to hit us and it just can’t do it

All I can imagine is every astronomer drinking heavily from 2002-2003 like “There it goes—OH FUCK IT’S COMING BACK”

"Dynamics of a fucking asteroid" indeed

At least it drew us a flower before it left…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J002E3

The Apollo 12 S-IVB unit had an empty weight of about 9,559 kg (20,000 pounds)[3] and is in unstable Earth orbit, which may result in eventual collision with Earth. An object with a mass of 10,000 kg collides with Earth’s atmosphere approximately 10 times a year.

xenix
finalfantasyfootball:

merkkultra:

mapfail:

Czechoslovakia still existing on MSNBC

are you goddamn serious right now

I am so tired

are you goddamn serious right now
To be fair, the map outlines are more or less correct, they just mislabeled Slovakia. Not that this isn’t a big deal in itself, I’m sure the Czechs and Slovaks would be rightfully miffed by this.
The Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic officially came into being on January 1, 1993, though the “separation” phase prior to the “Velvet Divorce” was essentially effective about 5-6 months prior.
That means that people becoming able to drink legally in the US this year NEVER KNEW A CZECHOSLOVAKIA.
That’s how stupid bad this gaffe is.
Then again, I can imagine them working to fit “Czechoslovakia” in there when they could have just put the right name on in the first place. And that’s oddly satisfying.

finalfantasyfootball:

merkkultra:

mapfail:

Czechoslovakia still existing on MSNBC

are you goddamn serious right now


I am so tired

are you goddamn serious right now

To be fair, the map outlines are more or less correct, they just mislabeled Slovakia. Not that this isn’t a big deal in itself, I’m sure the Czechs and Slovaks would be rightfully miffed by this.

The Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic officially came into being on January 1, 1993, though the “separation” phase prior to the “Velvet Divorce” was essentially effective about 5-6 months prior.

That means that people becoming able to drink legally in the US this year NEVER KNEW A CZECHOSLOVAKIA.

That’s how stupid bad this gaffe is.

Then again, I can imagine them working to fit “Czechoslovakia” in there when they could have just put the right name on in the first place. And that’s oddly satisfying.