Hudson's book is not about neoliberalism. It's about political the use the U.S. has made of the fact that the dollar is effectively the world's reserve currency, and how this translates to a certain financial imperialism on their part. It was written in the 70s so it's far more about international financial institutions - the World Bank and IMF in particular.

Michael Hudson - Super Imperialism: The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance
Gilles Deleuze - The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque

:rofl:

It's not really relevant to the OP, and the question in any case is too broad. If you show your work, I might do the same, but not on this thread.

I agree or disagree with claims, not people. And gosh I love Nietzsche but he can be full of shit like anyone else.

Yes but this is why I don't get my science from Nietzsche.

Yes. This is why anything scientific is falsifiable. If it cannot, in principle, be proven wrong by further observation, that's not science, that's religion. The revisibility of science is a feature, not a bug.

Just like Trump, of course. Biden being no different except he waves little rainbow flags around.

This discussion was merged into What do antinatalists get if other people aren't born at all, ever?

Joe "tens of thousands of kids in cages" Biden.

But he posed with a rainbow flag or some shit so liberals are all too happy to heap excuses on that peice of shit.

Robert Brenner - The Boom and the Bubble: The US in the World Economy
Mckenzie Wark - A Hacker Manifesto
Various things by Leibniz (The Monadology, Discourse on Metaphysics, Principles of Nature and Grace...)

I don't think I've issued a fuck Joe Biden proclamation in a while.

In which case, fuck Joe Biden.

You get options?? I have to type names out whole cloth. I get options in PMs, but not posts on threads like these.

@Ryan O'Connor Test

Did you get that?

because Mitt-Dasein for Heidegger is a true being-with-others that is not simply a Witt-style sharing of language. — Joshs

idk what to tell you other than this is a bad reading of Witt substantiated by nothing. As for idle talk, that's the absolute worst part of Heidi's whole oeuvre, a reflection of his peasant-minded village romanticism.

And the critique of being-with that often gets brandied about - that it doesn't properly establish a relation with the other - is something of a feature, rather than a bug, when translated into Witty's terms. For Witty there are indeed no guarantees about any encounter with the other - or ourselves. Misunderstanding - of ourselves, no less than the other - is rife, and common. 'Authenticity' would be anathema to him. Rightly. Which makes language something of a pharmakon - both a condition of possibility and impossibility of communication and meaning.

@Banno this is basically Wittgenstein:

"Yet one must not fail to notice that we use the term "Dasein-with" to designate that Being for which the Others who are are freed within-the-world. This Dasein-with of the Others is disclosed within-the-world for a Dasein, and so too for those who are Daseins with us, only because Dasein in itself is essentially Being-with. The phenomenological assertion that "Dasein is essentially Being-with" has an existential-ontological meaning. It does not seek to establish ontically that factically I am not present-at-hand alone, and that Others of my kind occur. If this were what is meant by the proposition that Dasein's Being-in-the-world is essentially constituted by Being-with, then Being-with would not be an existential attribute which Dasein, of its own accord, has coming to it from its own kind of Being. It would rather be something which turns up in every case by reason of the occurrence of Others. Being-with is an existential characteristic of Dasein even when factically no Other is present-at hand or perceived. Even Dasein's Being-alone is Being-with in the world. The Other can be missing only in and for a Being-with. Being-alone is a deficient mode of Being-with; its very possibility is the proof of this. On the other hand, factical Being-alone is not obviated by the occurrence of a second example of a human being 'beside' me, or by ten such examples.

Even if these and more are present-at-hand, Dasein can still be alone. So Being-with and the facticity of Being with one another are not based on the occurrence together of several 'subjects'. Yet Being-alone 'among' many does not mean that with regard to their Being they are merely present-at-hand there alongside us. Even in our Being 'among them' they are there with us ; their Dasein-with is encountered in a mode in which they are indifferent and alien. Being missing and 'Being away' are modes of Dasein-with, and are possible only because Dasein as Being-with lets the Dasein of Others be encountered in its world. Being-with is in every case a characteristic of one's own Dasein; Dasein-with characterizes the Dasein of Others to the extent that it is freed by its world for a Being-with. Only so far as one's own Dasein has the essential structure of Being-with, is it Dasein-with as encounterable for Others."

The Philosophical Investigations by any other name. It's even got the bit about engines running in idle and the form-of-life. Practically indistinguishable. I know you are wont to agree.

Ok glad we got things cleared up.

Well I dunno you just spat out an unsubstantiated one liner so I figured I'd be authorized to do the same.

Just so happens that I'm right.

Whereas Wittgenstein begins from intersubjectivity in his grounding of meaning — Joshs

No he doesn't. If anything, Witty's model of language is much closer to Heidi's notion of being-with than anything else in the Heideggarian oeuvre.

This is a 5 month old thread, which was the last time MSC's account was active here too. It's not entirely clear how he directed you here, unless from elsewhere. And if elsewhere, then you can continue whatever conversation you've having there.

Robert Brenner - The Economics of Global Turbulence: The Advanced Capitalist Economies from Long Boom to Long Downturn, 1945–2005

:up:

:heart:

Overpopulation is a not a problem and we can feed the world twice over if we needed to. The problem is awful distribution incentives fostered by - as @Photios pointed out - capitalist structures that would rather institute eugenics programs and control women's bodies than actually restructure our society in a more sustainable way.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/01/family-planning-environment-capitalism/

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12/12/16766872/overpopulation-exaggerated-concern-climate-change-world-population

A mixture of ignorance, opportunism, and no small dose of bigotry that would attribute to 'Eastern' belief any old claptrap. That said people attribute all sorts of shite to Socrates or Plato or Nietzsche or Einstein or MLK too.

As usual, the right are victim role-playing snowflakes who peddle fake news and they should all get fucked. Whole debate is a charade and anyone who takes it seriously is a clown and probably some kind of post-modern neofascist or somesuch.

I wonder whether the kaleidoscope ever features in philosophical studies? — Jacob-B

Bergson famously uses the image of the kaleidoscope in his study of perception in Matter and Memory:

"Here is a system of images which I term my perception of the universe, and which may be entirely altered by a very slight change in a certain privileged image - my body. This image occupies the center; by it all the others are conditioned; at each of its movements everything changes, as though by a turn of a kaleidoscope. Here, on the other hand, are the same images, but referred each one to itself, influencing each other no doubt, but in such a manner that the effect is always in proportion to the cause: this is what I term the universe." (p.25)

"How do we parcel out the continuity of material extensity, given in primary perception, into bodies of which each is supposed to have its substance and individuality? No doubt the aspect of this continuity changes from moment to moment; but why do we not purely and simply realize that the whole has changed, as with the turning of a kaleidoscope? Why, in short, do we seek, in the mobility of the whole, tracks that are supposed to be followed by bodies supposed to be in motion? A moving continuity is given to us, in which everything changes and yet remains." (p.197)

https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/Bergson/Bergson_1911b/Bergson_1911_04.html

Anyone who expected differently has not been paying attention.

Giovanni Arrighi - Adam Smith In Beijing: Lineages of the Twenty-First Century
Nick Srnicek - Platform Capitalism
McKenzie Wark - Capital is Dead. Is This Something Worse?

Yo don't be like that. Savage Garden are the bomb.

How are you finding this and its prequal?

--

Giovanni Arrighi - The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power, and the Origins of our Times

The thing I'm most annoyed about is being called out for the lack of possessive apostrophe. The fuck for whose sake it was deserved better.

Anyway, it's an interesting topic but that thread was not doing it any justice. I don't mind if it stays closed and someone else more well-meaning can re-ignite that topic in a more substantive way. — Uglydelicious

That would be very welcome.

It was a poor quality thread whose single bit of substance was a loaded question asked without substantiation. I gave time enough for some to be forthcoming. I wasn't even the only one to ask. None was proffered. There's nothing else to say. If someone unlocks that thread, it won't be me.

I see your feel and raise you a believe.

I believe the sun should never set upon an argument
I believe we place our happiness in other people's hands
I believe that junk food tastes so good because it's bad for you
I believe your parents did the best job they knew how to do
I believe that beauty magazines promote low self esteem
I believe I'm loved when I'm completely by myself alone
I believe in Karma what you give is what you get returned
I believe you can't appreciate real love until you've been burned
I believe the grass is no more greener on the other side
I believe you don't know what you've got until you say goodbye
I believe you can't control or choose your sexuality
I believe that trust is more important than monogamy
I believe that your most attractive features are your heart and soul
I believe that family is worth more than money or gold
I believe the struggle for financial freedom isn't fair
I believe the only ones who disagree are millionaires
I believe in Karma what you give is what you get returned
I believe you can't appreciate real love until you've been burned
I believe the grass is no more greener on the other side
I believe you don't know what you've got until you say goodbye
I believe forgiveness is the key to your unhappiness
I believe that wedded bliss negates the need to be undressed
I believe that God does not endorse TV evangelists
I believe in love surviving death into eternity
I believe in Karma what you give is what you get returned
I believe you can't appreciate real love until you've been burned
I believe the grass is no more greener on the other side
I believe you don't know what you've got until you say goodbye.

15 hours since my request for stats and none given, despite OP being active elsewhere. Thread locked.

Via Zizek:

"Yes, what the wallstreetbets members are doing is nihilistic, but it is nihilism immanent to the stock exchange itself, a nihilism already at work in Wall Street. To overcome this nihilism, we will have to move out of the game of the stock exchange. The moment of socialism is lurking in the background, waiting to be seized, since the very center of global capitalism is beginning to fall apart.

Will this happen? Almost certainly not, but what should worry us is that this latest crisis is another unexpected threat to the system already under attack from multiple sides (by the pandemic, global warming, social protests…). Moreover, this threat comes from the very heart of the system not from outside. An explosive mixture is in the making, and the longer the explosion is postponed, the more devastating it could be."

https://spectator.us/topic/corruption-for-everybody-slavoj-zizek-wallstreetbets/

That's no problem though. If only one share is issued and it's sold twice in one day, the transaction volume was 200% of the outstanding stock — Benkei

But we're not talking about transaction volume. And I didn't say it was a 'problem' - only that it was this situation that created an opportunity for the attempt at a squeeze that's happening/happened. Take a read:

https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/01/28/yes-a-stock-can-have-short-interest-over-100-heres/

If a company goes bankrupt its stock continues to exist and would still have to be delivered back to the lender. The stock no longer represents an equity ownership after bankruptcy but a subordinated claim. — Benkei

Sure, but again, the point is still that the expected profit banks on the company going out of business.

What do you mean with covering a short position? And what is an overshorted stock? — Benkei

To cover a short simply means to close out your position by buying the stock you initially sold (after borrowing it). It's what all these hedge funds who shorted GME are obligated to do, at some point. As for an overshorted stock - that's just what set off this whole fiasco in the first place. As @fdrake already described, GME had been shorted to the tune of about 120% of its available stock - there was more stock that had to be covered (bought) than actually exists. One of the reasons this happened was because, again, people were hedging on the company to go bust, so that no stock would ever have to be bought back.

Gonna need some stats here or this thread gets closed.