SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
takyon
on Thursday January 03 2019, @04:34AM
from the oppress-the-world,-make-it-a-better-place dept.
from the oppress-the-world,-make-it-a-better-place dept.
Netflix has pulled an episode of Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj from its Saudi Arabian service after a complaint from the Saudi government as the show covers the Saudi Crown Prince's alleged involvement in the brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and the kingdom's war with Yemen. The Saudi Government cited its anti-cyber law in its removal request, specifically Article 6, which appears to have nothing to do with the content of the show other than that the Saudis are embarrassed. Given the Streisand effect, it is likely that more people will now see the show than otherwise would have.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Netflix Pulls Episode of Show After Saudi Arabia Offended
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 40 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 04 2019, @12:33AM (2 children)
You do realize that money works for what it does? And having an objective effect (the alleged modification of behavior) in the entire universe means it is not imaginary? For example, the food I purchased over the past way too many years isn't going to uneat itself just because money is supposedly imaginary.
The key value of money is as a medium of exchange. And that means in particular that the complexity of trade is reduced from NP hard of barter to O(1) of "do I want to pay that much?". There's always been all this babblegook about how money is the root of all evil and similar nonsense. It's just a tool for expediting trade. That's it. Obviously, enough people have to decide to use it as a medium of exchange in order for it to work. That's not imaginary, that's just typical emergent behavior of consensus and cooperation.
Further, when someday the dollar goes kaput, then some new currency will take its place, and then when that kaputs something else will take its place, and so on. There's no need for a currency to last forever or meet some imaginary standard of reality in order to be incredibly useful to us. Money is here to stay because it's too good an idea to die. It should be an object lesson that these cryptocurrencies thrive despite having at best a marginal existence. The niches they support are large enough to spur the creation of a number of useful currencies. If money was really an imaginary construct then whose imagination made these cryptocurrencies when they weren't needed or had value?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday January 04 2019, @03:22AM (1 child)
Depends on your definition of "works" but, yes, money has very real and powerful effects on human behavior. Does it "work" to the benefit of the majority of the human population? I believe an objective analysis would say: no. Does it "work" to the benefit of those presently in power and control? If you ask them, they would most assuredly say: yes.
Again, a matter of perspective. From the perspective of the pinnacles of power, the key value of money is maintaining stability, the status quo. From the bottom looking up: money gets you food, shelter, things you need to survive.
https://nakamotoinstitute.org/shelling-out/ [nakamotoinstitute.org]
Or, from another perspective: capitulation and compliance.
In some forms, for some things, money can be quite useful and even an equitable form of exchange. Many things are too important for money: decisions made surrounding potentially terminal illnesses, procreation, feeding starving children, etc. Things that should be maintained by everyone and provided without charge might include:
breathable air
drinkable water
basic foodstuffs
basic medical care
basic clothing and shelter
If people have those things, desperation (aka induced disregard for the rules of polite society, such as voluntary exchange of money for goods and services) is dramatically reduced. Of course, if all those things are provided for free, there's an even bigger problem of population control than we have in the present scheme.
This song [youtube.com] comes to mind...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 04 2019, @02:08PM
By any reasonable definition of "works".
Does said "objective analysis" actually exist? Or are you handwaving again? I'll note as a counterpoint that billions of people successfully use money every day to fulfill their wants - an objective analysis you seem to ignore completely.
What is the point of your perspective, the so-called "pinnacles of power" perspective? And we see that the "bottom looking up" perspective already demonstrates an objective measure of the success of money - "gets you food, shelter, things you need to survive".
Sounds to me like changing your perspective solves the problems of money!
How much of that list are you willing to sacrifice for your feelgoods? As you noted [soylentnews.org], money is an abstraction. One of the really important things it is an abstraction for, is that list above. When you compromise money and arbitrarily shift resources around, you compromise that list above as well. Let's give an example. What is "basic foodstuffs"? Well, some committee will have to decide. Then some agency will allot the basic foodstuffs. And then the games begin. Broccoli farmers will lobby to get more of their produce into the "basic foodstuffs" list for higher profit. Someone will discover that the basic foodstuffs is better as fertilizer than as food, and scam to get many tons of the free fertilizer. The powers-that-be will pinch the pennies so that they have more of their own swag while the public will vote in people who promise more free and better quality food stuffs (a perfect steak on every table every day!). Various additional agencies will be created to incompetently prevent all these abuses.
Then as the wealth of the country is drained to support this ecosystem of theater, there will be less wealth available for the basic foodstuffs and it'll get inevitably pared back to uselessness. Eventually, decades down the road people will starve to death on basic foodstuffs and we'll be back where we are now, except without the ability to feed ourselves.
OTOH, right now anyone can buy anything off that list with money. It works.
Or one could just realize that there was some role that current forms of money weren't filling and that the new cryptocurrencies were. For example, South American currencies that are subject to high levels of inflation.
I'll note from start to finish, your post indicates that the biggest problem with money is your perception of it. The obvious solution thus is to change your perception.