interesting views and observations. Deep Capitalism.. an interesting debate. Here in Ireland when the property market crashed the government bailed out EVERY bank at a cost of €80 billion.The Republic Of Ireland has only a population of 4.3 million. Ironically the observers and socialist parties were saying that we should let the banks and bond holders fail as this is the way capitalism operates when in fact they were advocating deep capitalism. Irony of ironies!!
It is sad, but the real strength of deep capitalism is that options have been erased. It is like a tumor growing that is killing you slowly, but if you try to remove it, you die quickly. I agree it is intuitive and emotionally appealing to say let these big institutions/businesses fail, but they are not separate from the social fabric they are embedded within. You end up throwing out the baby with the bath water. That was when deep capitalism finally won, and I'm quite sure there is no turning back now, once the entire globe became linked as we are now the ripple effects can be global and catastrophic. That is what the elite have always sought, become so Omni-present and embedded in everything that we can't possibly remove them without absolutely damaging everything we hold dear.
For the record, I consider myself an advocate of responsible, informed capitalism. I admire some aspects of the theory behind communism, but in practice it is impossible. Capitalism can work so I'm not against it at all, but it is off the rails now in my view. I always consider governments as nothing but administration bodies that help implement the goals and rules of the elite. Elite theory has always been very compelling to me. Yes I know it sounds all Marxist, and in many ways it is, but I do still believe that a reasonably controlled, but essentially free market can work. I didn't want to get too political, but I do want to clarify that so I don't get flamed as a crazy communist. Love the theory, but it is just a theory. I like lots of theories, but I don't consider them as being practical or even possible. I think where things go wrong is that people think a free market needs no rules to function. I don't think rules and free markets are at all mutually exclusive.
Anyway, I'm going to bow out of this conversation as it seems really weird to get into this on head-fi. I suspect this isn't the best community for such conversations. This is a headphone thread after all so I'll stop blathering on like a fool.
It is sad, but the real strength of deep capitalism is that options have been erased. It is like a tumor growing that is killing you slowly, but if you try to remove it, you die quickly. I agree it is intuitive and emotionally appealing to say let these big institutions/businesses fail, but they are not separate from the social fabric they are embedded within. You end up throwing out the baby with the bath water. That was when deep capitalism finally won, and I'm quite sure there is no turning back now, once the entire globe became linked as we are now the ripple effects can be global and catastrophic. That is what the elite have always sought, become so Omni-present and embedded in everything that we can't possibly remove them without absolutely damaging everything we hold dear.
For the record, I consider myself an advocate of responsible, informed capitalism. I admire some aspects of the theory behind communism, but in practice it is impossible. Capitalism can work so I'm not against it at all, but it is off the rails now in my view. I always consider governments as nothing but administration bodies that help implement the goals and rules of the elite. Elite theory has always been very compelling to me. Yes I know it sounds all Marxist, and in many ways it is, but I do still believe that a reasonably controlled, but essentially free market can work. I didn't want to get too political, but I do want to clarify that so I don't get flamed as a crazy communist. Love the theory, but it is just a theory. I like lots of theories, but I don't consider them as being practical or even possible. I think where things go wrong is that people think a free market needs no rules to function. I don't think rules and free markets are at all mutually exclusive.
Anyway, I'm going to bow out of this conversation as it seems really weird to get into this on head-fi. I suspect this isn't the best community for such conversations. This is a headphone thread after all so I'll stop blathering on like a fool.
It is sad, but the real strength of deep capitalism is that options have been erased.
I think where things go wrong is that people think a free market needs no rules to function. I don't think rules and free markets are at all mutually exclusive.
Capitalism is about options and choices and freedom. Capitalism didn't erase options. Government and central bank manipulation did. Many banks have failed in history. The world can survive without CitiBank and Goldman Sachs. (and would be better off too.)
Smaller banks didn't take excessive risk like the big banks did, but government manipulation rewarded the big banks and punished the smaller banks. Real capitalism would have set things right, and would have helped prevent it happening again by showing future people they will get punished for excessive risk and greed. The government rewarded excessive risk and greed and now encouraged it to happen again.
The world can survive without General Motors. It might hurt for a while, but then it will get better. The US government broke the law when it brokered the GM bankruptcy. Many people got hurt who shouldn't have gotten hurt (or as hurt), while GM got rewarded. Government manipulation, government breaking the law, turned the whole thing upside down.
Taxpayers also got hurt since the government bought billions of dollars of GM stock as a form of bailout, and then it sold the stock at a big loss, which cost the US taxpayers billions of dollars. The government gave GM billions of dollars of taxpayer money. Billions. Not only that, but by manipulating the market and giving taxpayer money to GM to save it, the government took away one of the most important parts of capitalism: the voice of the buyers. GM was inefficient, made cars people didn't want, and the consumers' voices were silenced on the matter. That's terrible. It is government, not capitalism, that erased options and freedom of choice.
I agree that some people think "free market" means no rules. Free markets can have rules. The problem is when breaking those rules gets rewarded instead of punished.
Redcarmoose lays it out how this relates to headphones. Imagine if Headphone Company A makes mediocre headphones that are overpriced but popular for a while. They dominate the market for a while, until people realize the headphones aren't anything special at their price point. Then, instead of losing market share or even going bankrupt, which would open the door for other, better companies to get more attention and market share, the government gives them billions of dollars of taxpayer money to keep them in business and keep them dominating the market. (With the clause that they make more cars, I mean headphones,
in that country, but instead they disregard that clause and send jobs to other countries anyway.) That's the government manipulating the market and breaking the rules of the free market and eliminating consumer choice.
A similar thing to the US housing bubble is happening to the US education bubble. Government gets involved in the housing market through subsidies and other things, housing prices go up. Government gets involved in education through subsidies and easy credit and other things, tuition costs go up. US education costs have gone way up in recent years, with not much to show for it except inefficiency, corruption, debt, and grade inflation. And "safe spaces." And now college students of adult age are brought to tears and need therapy after seeing a presidential candidate's name written in chalk on campus.
"Capitalism didn't erase options. Government and central bank manipulation did. Many banks have failed in history. The world can survive without CitiBank and Goldman Sachs. (and would be better off too.) Smaller banks didn't take excessive risk like the big banks did, but government manipulation rewarded the big banks and punished the smaller banks. Real capitalism would have set things right, and would have helped prevent it happening again by showing future people they will get punished for excessive risk and greed. The government rewarded excessive risk and greed and now encouraged it to happen again"
Goldman, Deutsche, Citibank et al failing will also wipe out the savings, investments, shares, pensions, superannuation, annuities of millions of ordinary people.
GM going down would have taken out so many rubber parts, steel, precision manufacturing, ancillaries, safety equipment, seating, tyres manufacturers that Ford and everyone else would also be out of business because the suppliers would have gone under. The USA promoted cutthroat capitalism, Americans supported cutthroat capitalism, Laffer Curve Supply Side Economics and ultimately it would have ended in tears because everyone of the 330 million Americans wanted the biggest house, the biggest truck, the biggest boat.
No bank ever came to your house, tied you up and forced you to sign a loan you knew you couldn't afford nor did GM force you into a hatchback when you wanted the biggest and baddest GMC on instalments.
If one bank wouldn't give you the loan, you would go across the road to another one which would approve it in less than 60 minutes and that's capitalism in action.
If one bank wouldn't give you the loan, you would go across the road to another one which would approve it in less than 60 minutes and that's capitalism in action.
Government pushed easy money, easy credit, easy loans. The US government wanted "everyone to own a house." It wasn't that long ago that people needed 20% down to buy a house. Banks wanted 20% down so if the person defaulted they wouldn't get punished too badly. Government removed that punishment.
If the US government hadn't tried to bail out Bear Stearns, the crash may not have been nearly as bad. But the government bailing out Bear Stearns told the rest of the industry that they can just keep doing what they've been doing because they'll get a bailout too.
A lot of large companies didn't get that large without government "help." Even now, after the crash, the US government passed more banks laws supposedly so it wouldn't happen again, but what those laws do is create a business environment so hard for smaller banks to compete in that the government is actually making the big banks even bigger and eliminating their competition for them.
Most of us feel that we earned our stuff and have no sympathy for others who have no ability to spend. In many ways that is what America is about, sacrifice for school and work hard, climb the hill and at some point enjoy the gifts. Still it seems to go against the grain to be grateful for what we have.
One of the most pervasive capitalist myths is that how much you earn is directly linked to how hard you work and how much you contribute to society. For every person who works hard and makes sacrifices to lift themselves out of poverty, another person works just as hard but isn't able to escape that trap. And I'm not at all convinced, for example, that a successful stockbroker necessarily works harder and contributes more to society than a nurse, who saves lives and cares for people when they're at their most vulnerable. The problem with free markets is that they only reward success and punish failure if success and failure are defined in narrowly economic terms. And there are other values besides economic value (like the value of human life, compassion, putting others first, etc.) Free markets don't necessarily reward those kinds of values and contributions.
Anyway, to get back on topic, I get the feeling that a lot of people are chasing headphone perfection, which can never be attained. Different headphones suit different types of music, sound good at different times and work well with different equipment. There are just too many variables involved to even define perfection, let alone find it. For me, enough will be enough when I have a few decent mid-fi cans that work well with the source components that I already own and that I can switch between when I feel like it. I'm not a musician and I don't want to listen to music analytically. I just want to enjoy music as much as I can within my budget, without feeling the need to splash out on more and more equipment with diminishing returns.
Government pushed easy money, easy credit, easy loans. The US government wanted "everyone to own a house." It wasn't that long ago that people needed 20% down to buy a house. Banks wanted 20% down so if the person defaulted they wouldn't get punished too badly. Government removed that punishment.
If the US government hadn't tried to bail out Bear Stearns, the crash may not have been nearly as bad. But the government bailing out Bear Stearns told the rest of the industry that they can just keep doing what they've been doing because they'll get a bailout too.
A lot of large companies didn't get that large without government "help." Even now, after the crash, the US government passed more banks laws supposedly so it wouldn't happen again, but what those laws do is create a business environment so hard for smaller banks to compete in that the government is actually making the big banks even bigger and eliminating their competition for them.
Bear Stearns was already dead as I remember it was trading at $2 per share or about 5% the value two days before it was bought out by a cross collateralised JPM/NYFED.
Paulson had locked in Dimon, Blankfein et al in the Fed and offered them a bailout without the banks actually asking for it. The other option was that if later they failed there would be no bailout if they refused to recapitalise themselves at that point in time during the negotiations with Paulson.
Believe it or not but the banks never wanted a bailout but to provide a semblance of stability, the Government gave them a choice of taking the loan then and there or suffer late if they were to collapse.
One of the most pervasive capitalist myths is that how much you earn is directly linked to how hard you work and how much you contribute to society. For every person who works hard and makes sacrifices to lift themselves out of poverty, another person works just as hard but isn't able to escape that trap. And I'm not at all convinced, for example, that a successful stockbroker necessarily works harder and contributes more to society than a nurse, who saves lives and cares for people when they're at their most vulnerable. The problem with free markets is that they only reward hard work, production and contribution in the economic sphere. And there are other values besides economic value (like the value of human life, compassion, putting others first, etc.) Free markets don't necessarily reward those kinds of values and contributions.
Anyway, to get back on topic, I get the feeling that a lot of people are chasing headphone perfection, which can never be attained. Different headphones suit different types of music, sound good at different times and work well with different equipment. There are just too many variables involved to even define perfection, let alone find it. For me, enough will be enough when I have a few decent mid-fi cans that work well with the source components that I already own and that I can switch between when I feel like it. I'm not a musician and I don't want to listen to music analytically. I just want to enjoy music as much as I can within my budget, without feeling the need to splash out on more and more equipment with diminishing returns.
Capitalism values capital not labour. If your labour produces more and high quality capital/growth, youre worth more although I agree with you that a lot of jobs are undervalued.
The most successful combinations tend to be a mixture of socialism and capitalism.
Pure capitalism is like pure oxygen, a great idea until you actually try it and end up setting yourselves on fire.
On the headphone side, I have simply boycotted anything above $1500, the law of diminishing returns seems to be settling in firmly at that price point as evidenced by the
latest Hifiman, Audeze, Sennheiser etcs offerings. Simply underwhelming for the price.
Can I afford it? Yes.
Will I buy it? No unless its ground breaking or an electrostat which is harder to produce.
Anyway, to get back on topic, I get the feeling that a lot of people are chasing headphone perfection, which can never be attained. Different headphones suit different types of music, sound good at different times and work well with different equipment. There are just too many variables involved to even define perfection, let alone find it.
A big push for my headphone searching has been soundstage differences. To be my main headphone, a big (though not the biggest) soundstage is a requirement. It has to sound good too of course. That eliminates a lot of choices. I read about many headphones that might sound great, but then people say the soundstage is smaller than XYZ headphone, and I already know how that one sounds, so that can be a big strike against buying the other headphone. If that other headphone also costs a lot, that's even less reason to try it.
After figuring out what I wanted in a main headphone, there are only so many choices that exist, at any price.
I do enjoy headphones with smaller soundstages, just not as often, so practicality says enough is enough, especially when the price is high. I like basshead headphones sometimes, but not often enough to put a lot of money into them because I know it would just sit there most of the time.
And usually when I wear closed headphones it's for isolation. So if they don't isolate well, there's less reason to own them.
Although, I posted before about how headphones aren't like a truly consumable item like a bottle of wine that is used once and it's gone, so they have that going for them. It's not like you use headphones once and then they lose all their value.
Probably the biggest rabbit hole to go down is for amplifiers. Relatively little change for often high cost.
There's an aspect of chasing 'something' I think; trying to 'reproduce' the feel and sound of a live gig through speakers, then the same process again through headphones for better or worse. Chasing the same 'presence' or the idea of. It's the idea of a component, somehow-even if only by it's shiny,matte or brushed aluminium aura-affording a prospect to a greater sound
What always struck me at least as a bit odd was the hi-fi mag reviewers who listened to the same type music on the same type gear
They had their illusion and they were sticking with it eg Diana Krall on Naim/Linn but yet also of lifting that equipment choice into something aspirational.
A good counterpoint is a Kevin Shieldsof My Bloody Valentine interview (not that I can hope to find it) where he notes some things sound best due to the bond or suspended disbelief you have when you hear it. Being pre-occupied with how it sounds tightens and limits that prospect.
interesting views and observations. Deep Capitalism.. an interesting debate. Here in Ireland when the property market crashed the government bailed out EVERY bank at a cost of €80 billion.The Republic Of Ireland has only a population of 4.3 million. Ironically the observers and socialist parties were saying that we should let the banks and bond holders fail as this is the way capitalism operates when in fact they were advocating deep capitalism. Irony of ironies!!
Nobody likes him but as far as an exploiter goes he is unequaled. Theres the problem. Americano's need to start asking themselves what in hell is going on when a financial rapist like Trump is gains the support of the poor and "lesser classes" his campaign is snowballing with the support of those with whom he has the least connection. Thats the new capitol.
Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
Hence the support for policies that cut their own feet. They have been fed American Exceptionalism and are just waiting for their ship to come in. The Conservative strongholds, especially in the South are the biggest dependents on Social Security and Healthcare but also elect politicians that are doing their best to finish it.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Smaller banks didn't take excessive risk like the big banks did, but government manipulation rewarded the big banks and punished the smaller banks. Real capitalism would have set things right, and would have helped prevent it happening again by showing future people they will get punished for excessive risk and greed. The government rewarded excessive risk and greed and now encouraged it to happen again"
