Denkverbot

night sky wrote:

kic wrote:

night sky wrote:

kic wrote:

night sky wrote:



to razriješi sa njim, ono što ja vidim,istina i bog strana-dvije unazad, ne više, niti svaki raspred od milijun riječi, je da respektira sugovornika, jest psovka jeziva ali se zna i ispričati. ne pokušava od metle napraviti usisavač i sl. fantazije.
a ono dvoje.... kako su se obrušili na mene,bez da sam im riječ uputila, vidim iz fibinih upisa da je to njihova uobičajna zanimacija, laž također....  to nije ljudski, na forumu, ni van njega....za mene je to ponašanje divljaka, loši ljudi. valjda zato jer smatram da nigdje ne možeš raditi baš sve što poželiš, osim ako ne živiš sam, na pustom otoku.

uh, listao sam sad 4 stranice unazad i vidim da te samo aben isao pecnit za Che Gavaru..

u par navrat aje to bilo, ne unazad tjedan.... ljetos i negdj eu proljeće, orkestriran napad :D.... sad mi je smiješno.... ali ostaneš osupnut.... a sad vidim da je to njima uobičajno....čista destrukcija, stvaranje kaosa....
gospođa je čak stavila datum rođenja da joj portumačim, tada sam sumnjala da je lažan, a evo vidim da fakat je, jer po novom je drugi znak :D.... ali dobro, bar je ostala u istom vladarstvu....

imam dojam da je nestala neka tema na tvom podforumu?

eto koliko pratim forum~

.... koliko vidim sve je na broju .........


na žalost.... vrijeme je stisnuto.... ali budem se budems emalo posvetila......

metilda wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

metilda wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

metilda wrote:

nadžak baba uživa u svom nedjelu.

isključujući abena i spearea  vi ste svi duhovno bolesni... zamjenjujete teze, argumentirate ad hominem bez kazne, lažete, izmišljate i izmišljotine pretvarate u istinu... povirila sam načas i vidjela da cijeli dan raspravljate o meni.. vama stvarno treba stručna pomoć        

evo da ti ponovo citiram post da ne padne u zaborav.

90-ih godina 20 st. sve više se počelo govoriti o SQ (duhovnoj inteligenciji) nakon što je neuropsihijatar Michael Persinger proveo istraživanje o postojanju ”božanske točke” u ljudskom mozgu. Neurolog Ramachandran je 1997. godine otkrio da se ”božanska točka” nalazi među živčanim spojevima sljepoočnih režnjeva u mozgu. Pozitivnom emisijskom tomografijom se pokazalo kako svi ovi skupovi živaca zasvijetle čim se ispitanik upusti u raspravu o duhovnim/vjerskim temama. Duhovna bolest i smanjenje SQ-a javlja se zbog nemogućnosti uspostavljanja veze s dubokim središtem u sebi.


https://duhovnost.net/simptomi-duhovnih-bolesti-i-terapija1/

THE VISITOR EXPERIENCE

kic wrote:
frend strojar se zaposlio u Sloveniji, ne znam kako se zove firma, nebitno, kaze naocale naprave za cirka 30kn, a naplate ih ehehe

Gnječ wrote:






How the Brain Creates the Experience of God:
An easy to read explanation of a controversial hypothesis. The God effect.

The word God has two meanings for some, and two connotations for others. In one, God is the savior. He ‘saves’ people. You can pray to ‘him’ and ‘he’ will give you what you want, or perhaps the wisdom do go on with your life if you don’t get it. Or, perhaps, ‘he’ will hear your prayer. The savior offers you the option of not being alone. For some, he’s ‘always present’. For others, he’s there ‘when they need him’.

In the other meaning of the word, God is the creator of the universe.

In Asia and India, and many of the cultures in the rest of the world, the ‘personal savior’ and the creator aren’t the same thing at all.

In the west, the God who made the universe, and the God who saves, are one and the same. It’s quite an awe-inspiring thought. That the creator of the cosmos is personally interested in YOU.

However, when science looks at God, this gets to be a bit of a problem. The personal savior is a matter of personal experience. The creator of the universe isn’t. Although I’ve met people who claimed that they ‘know’ that the universe has a creator, I’ve never met anyone who claimed to have been there when it took place. Science responds to the question ‘where did it all come from’ through its search into the origins of the physical universe. That turned out to be a matter of cosmology, and eventually brought us to the Big Bang Theory.

On the other hand, many people have had experiences of God as the personal savior. Mohammed and Moses both heard his voice, they say. So did Saint Francis. So did Saul on the road to Damascus.

The list of historical accounts is long, but it’s nothing compared to the list of people who have had the experience of God in the course of Near-Death Experiences.

Thousands of people have had the experience of meeting God while they were clinically dead. Not all Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) include meeting God, and not all people who were revived from clinical death had NDEs to tell about.

Nevertheless, now that there is a body of evidence about ‘seeing God’ for science to study, there is a picture emerging about how it happens.

The conclusion that’s taking shape has a lot in common with the traditional Hindu view (shared by many Buddhists) that if one comes face-to-face with God, one is actually being confronted with one’s self.

And the self is now a matter of brain science. It has fallen to the neuroscientists for two reasons. There’s a neurological disorder that sometimes leaves people seeing god, or at least claiming to. And there’s a neurological picture of the self emerging.

Within neuroscience, both the self, and the disorder that seems to make visions of God concern the limbic system, the middle and lower portions of the temporal lobes, parts of the brain that are activated very easily. More easily, in fact, than any other parts of the brain.

There are two pieces of evidence behind this. One is that psychological ‘disorders of the self’ usually involve differences in the limbic system. A schizophrenic hippocampus is different from normal one. A depressed person’s amygdala (there’s two – one on each side) works differently from a normal one.

The other important evidence is a thing called “The Forty Hertz Component.” It’s a component of a typical EEG readout. It appears from the temporal lobes, and its there when a a person is awake, there when the person is in REM sleep, but it’s absent when a person is in dreamless sleep.

We cannot remember dreamless sleep, but we can recall dreams, and what happens in ordinary, waking consciousness. And those are the times when the 40hz is present. A conclusion follows. One that a lot of people don’t like too much. The ‘self’ is what we experience when a specific pattern of brain activity is happening. It might BE that activity, or it might only require it. In either case, “we” aren’t completely made of any sort of spiritual or divine energy. Some of what we are, at least, can be measured, recorded, ‘logged in as data’, and all that.

I’ve seen evidence that ‘we’ can exist outside the body, as well as the brain, during the out-of-body experiences that can happen during near-death experiences, but that’s a rare circumstance. Throughout most of our lives, most of us are living within the framework of our bodies, including our brains.

when ‘we’ exist, we’re always using our brains in specific ways, and one of the few constant ways we do it is by maintaining the ’40hz component
The 40hz activity appears out of the temporal lobes. It’s pathways have come to be understood after studies of people who had trouble in the temporal lobes (epilepsy, head injury, etc.). It involves the surface of the temporal lobes, and two of it’s deeper structures, the amygdala and the hippocampus.

More to the point, it involves these two sets of structures, on two sides of the brain. We have, two selves, or two senses of self. One on the left, and one on the right. They’re not equals, though. The left-sided sense of self is dominant in most people. It’s the one where language happens. It becomes dominant when we learn to speak in childhood. After that, we use language as our main way of relating to others. We maintain an almost constant stream of inner words, inner monolog and thoughts, in words, about almost everything we experience.

One the other side of the brain, following the rule that each thing on one side of the brain does the opposite of what the same thing on the other side of the brain does, we get the conclusion that there is a non-linguistic sense of self on the right side of the brain.

Ordinarily, our two ‘selves’ work in tandem with one another. The one on the left is sort of in charge of things, but constantly gets input from the sense of self on the other side. Both of them are accustomed (or habituated) to this arrangement. But, once in a while, (or for some people, quite often) the two fall out of phase with one another, and the left-sided ‘self’ manifests by itself.

When this happens, we experience our own, right-sided, silent sense of self coming out where the left sided sense of self can and does experience it.

The experience has many forms, possibly a different form for each person who has it. And maybe a slightly different one each time they have it. Dreams do that too. And so does the sensation of having a self. Of being ‘me’.

All together, they’re called ‘visitor experiences’. In it’s most subtle form, it appears as the feeling that one is ‘not alone’ or that they’re ‘being watched’. They might feel a ‘presence’ in the room with them. When they turn to look to see who’s there, they find themselves alone.
In another one of it’s many faces, a person who’s engrossed in a job, like writing or doing art, might find that they no longer feel that ‘they’ are doing it. The words they write; the pencil lines that appear; seem to be coming from somewhere else. The right-sided self has taken over the job, and it’s presence is manifested through it’s behavior. Absorbed, the person working with such a ‘muse’ has no attention left with which to stop and ‘sense a presence’.

The sensed presence is on one end of a spectrum. Actually, it’s two spectrums (spectrii?).

One spectrum is of intensity. The other is of feeling.

Let’s look at intensity first. How ‘powerful’ the experience is. The Sensed Presence is at the lower extreme. It’s easily ‘shaken off’. The experience involves the few brain parts we mentioned before.

However, if there is enough electrical activity in these structures, ( the experience gets more intense), it will ‘spill over’ into other, nearby structures.

And that’s when things get really interesting.

How the experience unfolds from here depends on which brain parts the activity spills into.

If it catches some of the visual areas, the experience can become a vision of an entity of some kind or other.

If it involves the olfactory areas, the person can find that the visitor has a unique smell.

If it involves the parts of the brain that help us perceive our own bodies from within, we might find ourselves having tingly feelings. Or that we are being lifted up, or thrown down.

If it involves the language centers, we might hear a voice, or music, or noise.

If it involves areas that deal in long-term memory, we might find that the experience includes an episodic ‘vision’. Not just a flash of an image, but an inner world where the person interacts with others, feels real emotions, an so on.

That’s all in the spectrum of intensity. The other spectrum is of feeling.

There doesn’t seem to very much in the middle of this one. Just at the extreme ends.

On one extreme, there is the ‘demonic’ or evil visitor, and on the other extreme, there are more angelic visitors. It depends on which emotional center (amygdala), left or right, is more active.

If the negative one (meaning the one that supports fear) is more active, the visitor experience will become a visitation by a demon, Satan, or a terrifying ghost. On the other extreme, it could be an angel, a spirit protector, or even God.

The experience of God seems to be an extreme example of the visitor experience, which can be either good or bad. The chart below shows how positive and negative visitors can be very similar.  They involve the same experiences, but with the opposite emotional ‘tone’.

THE VISITOR EXPERIENCE

It takes extreme circumstances to manifest these experiences, of course, but the experience of God doesn’t have any features that don’t also occur in other brain-derived experiences.

If God is actually a part of our own selves, then prayer might just be a way we talk to ourselves to bring out that silent self. There are types of prayer that traditional spirituality respects most, like those of thanksgiving, prayers for others well-being, and healing, and prayers to be granted spiritual gifts, like healing skills, wisdom, insight and faith. When a person prays in these ways, they divide their attention between positive thoughts, and positive feelings.

Because positive thoughts (involving the right hippocampus), and positive feelings (involving the left amygdala) are on opposite sides of the brain, prayer changes the balance of activity on the two sides. Whenever that’s happening, the chances of the activity on the two sides (for these areas) falling out of phase with each other goes up substantially. Sensed presence experiences become more common until the day arrives when God’s presence is something the person feels at all times.

Their behavior matches the mood of their prayers more and more. Eventually, the day can arrive when the person’s experience of God goes past just feeling his presence, and begins to appear as a guide, even one with a voice, The person can surrender to what they feel is ‘divine will’, and ‘let go of their ego’.

Remember we’re talking about the sense of self here. this process can unfold to the point where ‘they’ are all but gone, and the boundaries between their self, and God’s presence begin to blur. Carry that to it’s extreme, and you might find people saying things like “I and The Father are one”. And we all know where THAT can lead …

In this small neuroscientist’s opinion, there is no God separate from the believer. But there is such a thing as godliness.

And one of the simplest and most widespread ways of achieving it is to believe unreservedly in God, and to make God one’s constant companion.

END.

još štiva ovdje:

https://www.god-helmet.com/wp/god.htm

https://www.god-helmet.com/wp/neurotheology.htm

https://www.god-helmet.com/wp/deathanxiety.htm

https://www.god-helmet.com/wp/shiva/deepfocus_report.htm

http://www.innerworlds.50megs.com/God_Helmet/god_helmet.htm

metilda wrote:
Broj stranica: 670
https://antikvarijat-biblos.hr/postoji-li-bog-proizvod-5006/

Gnječ wrote:eko na abene malo hrone zo te.

jeste se ikad zapitali zašto naočale, okviri za naočale i optička stakla koštaju pun kurac? brutalno skupo. komad žice metala plastike i 4 vide košta brutalne pare...prada, versace, dolce & g, svi modni brendovi pa ray-ban i svi ostali što ih ima na tržištu? skup je materijal? nije. u čemu je kvaka? SVE naočale za sve te brendove proizvodi i diktira cijenu samo jedna kompanija: LUXOTTICA


UZ TO KUPILI SU KONKURENTNE FIRME I ODMAH UGASILI IM TVORNICE TAKO DA SU OSTALI SKORO JEDINI PROIZVOĐAČI NAOČALA NA SVIJETU.

FREE MARKET? ILI MONOPOL? KAPITALIZAM ILI KORPORATIVNI FAŠIZAM?

they're so expensive that even at 50% off discount are still ripping you off.

It's called a monopoly! And when I watched the full report on this Luxotica owner smirks when asked why they are so expensive....translated I do because I can!

I dont care about ANY of the words that are coming out of their mouths.  Those glasses are not worth that much and SHOULDNT cost that much....PERIOD.

Appears to be a violation of our Anti-Trust Laws. They are a "MONOPOLY"!, and can easily destroy "any competitor" or buy "any competitor".

aben wrote:
dakle, ljevičari su toliko oštećeni i jednostavno ne moru podniti tuji uspjeh. oni gljedaju plastiku i čudu se kako to more toliko vriditi, a ne razumu da je cijena samo informacija. luksotika bi vjerojatno propala u dvo miseca kad bi snizila cijenu na malo veću od proizvodne, jer više niko ne bi hoti kupiti njihov proizvod. a unda bi zaposlenici dobili otkaze, zbog čega bi ljevičari marširali na parlament...- ljevičari su glupi, da nisu glupi, ne bi bili ljevičari.

aben wrote:

Gnječ wrote:eko na abene malo hrone zo te.

jeste se ikad zapitali zašto naočale, okviri za naočale i optička stakla koštaju pun kurac? brutalno skupo. komad žice metala plastike i 4 vide košta brutalne pare...prada, versace, dolce & g, svi modni brendovi pa ray-ban i svi ostali što ih ima na tržištu? skup je materijal? nije. u čemu je kvaka? SVE naočale za sve te brendove proizvodi i diktira cijenu samo jedna kompanija: LUXOTTICA


UZ TO KUPILI SU KONKURENTNE FIRME I ODMAH UGASILI IM TVORNICE TAKO DA SU OSTALI SKORO JEDINI PROIZVOĐAČI NAOČALA NA SVIJETU.

FREE MARKET? ILI MONOPOL? KAPITALIZAM ILI KORPORATIVNI FAŠIZAM?

they're so expensive that even at 50% off discount are still ripping you off.

It's called a monopoly! And when I watched the full report on this Luxotica owner smirks when asked why they are so expensive....translated I do because I can!

I dont care about ANY of the words that are coming out of their mouths.  Those glasses are not worth that much and SHOULDNT cost that much....PERIOD.

Appears to be a violation of our Anti-Trust Laws. They are a "MONOPOLY"!, and can easily destroy "any competitor" or buy "any competitor".

duže, fola ti za ovo malo hrone ku si mi brči! ovo je jedna od onih tema na kojoj nikad ne ću dobiti odgovor, osim un tipa jeben ti mater kurbin sine, ali ostaje zadovoljstvo da nis sun moro načeti mu.


un ki se ikada zapito zoč ćoli gustaju ko tablet, vrlo vjerojatno je mlod čovik ki tek otkrivo opće znanje, ili je socijalist. trećeg nemo, uz uvjet da dojde do istog zaključka ko ti:)

postoju dvo rozličita poazišta za odgovor na ov socijalistički nonsens, a svaki od njih je dovoljan da sruši teze iz tvog posta, tj  iz videa.
prvi je brending. zapravo, ne zun kako se to zove, jo bi ga nojradije nazvo ekskluziva. ljudi jednostavno ne želu imati ćoli ki moru imati svi. irelevantno je koliko su potrošili na proizvodnju, osim ako si dioničar firme, unda je od nojveće važnosti.

drugi se odnosi na monopol. drugi proizvođači se žalu da luksotika ne želi u svojn butigami prodovati njihove proizvode. jo njanci ne zun ča bi vode reko, osin- well dah!


dakle, ljevičari su toliko oštećeni i jednostavno ne moru podniti tuji uspjeh. oni gljedaju plastiku i čudu se kako to more toliko vriditi, a ne razumu da je cijena samo informacija. luksotika bi vjerojatno propala u dvo miseca kad bi snizila cijenu na malo veću od proizvodne, jer više niko ne bi hoti kupiti njihov proizvod. a unda bi zaposlenici dobili otkaze, zbog čega bi ljevičari marširali na parlament...- ljevičari su glupi, da nisu glupi, ne bi bili ljevičari.

Speare Shaker wrote:

aben wrote:
dakle, ljevičari su toliko oštećeni i jednostavno ne moru podniti tuji uspjeh. oni gljedaju plastiku i čudu se kako to more toliko vriditi, a ne razumu da je cijena samo informacija. luksotika bi vjerojatno propala u dvo miseca kad bi snizila cijenu na malo veću od proizvodne, jer više niko ne bi hoti kupiti njihov proizvod. a unda bi zaposlenici dobili otkaze, zbog čega bi ljevičari marširali na parlament...- ljevičari su glupi, da nisu glupi, ne bi bili ljevičari.

Kad ne razuminju koncepte kao što je kreativnost i ne razumiju vrijednost intelektualnog napora, čak ni onog koji se lako može tržišno izmjeriti.

Gnječ wrote:

kic wrote:
frend strojar se zaposlio u Sloveniji, ne znam kako se zove firma, nebitno, kaze naocale naprave za cirka 30kn, a naplate ih ehehe

isn't capitalism all about competition, free market and lowering prices? ne. kao što kaže novinarka sve je to optička iluzija.

Like unicorns, the 'free market' doesn't exist

Last week,  I received an email saying we shouldn’t blame capitalism for the climate crisis. “What we have isn’t capitalism, it’s corporatism,” it said. “Under real capitalism, the free market would prevent the destruction of our environment.” This isn’t the first time I’ve heard the argument that our problems would be solved if we just returned to the good competitive capitalism of Adam Smith’s day.

I was going to respond but, by coincidence, this week Kerry-Anne Mendoza published an excellent reply to exactly that argument in her blog. She has kindly given permission to repost it here.  —Ian

THE MYTH OF THE FREE MARKET
YOU’LL FIND A UNICORN BEFORE YOU FIND A FREE MARKET



I wrote an article recently about Capitalism’s Top 1% becoming the new aristocracy, based on the news that social mobility is no greater under capitalism’s meritocracy, than under the medieval oligarchy. Some responded, in line with a wider misconception, that if we only had ‘true’ free market capitalism these injustices would be a thing of the past. Today’s piece is a response to that argument. There never has been, is not and never will be a capitalist free market economy – and here is why.

The myth of the free market

Capitalism is meant to pivot around the free market. The theory goes that if only the market were rid of government meddling (regulation) then true competition would reign, with corporations battling it out to provide their goods and services to rational, all knowing consumers. This, according to supporters, would provide stable and accurate prices and quality for goods and services as competition would aggregate supply, demand and pricing.

Corporations who provided a good or service which was not wanted, was above the market price or below the market quality demanded by the rational consumer in this open, free market would simply fail and those who met demand would win. Therefore the success or failure of a company would be directly proportional to its ability to meet the needs of its consumer.

So, some might argue that recent failures assigned to capitalism – the bankers bailout, the corporatisation of government, the decline in social mobility – are because we do not have REAL capitalism as outlined above. They might argue we are in fact in a post capitalist, state capitalist of fascist state. There are valid arguments in favour of all these possibilities. But whatever state we are in, it is as a direct and inevitable result of capitalism. These outcomes are not aberrations, but natural and logical given the reward mechanisms of the system itself.

It’s the monopoly, stupid…

While arguments in favour of inviting private interests into the public services rests on the idea of competition, corporations themselves are rabidly anti-competition.

If a McDonalds opens opposite a Burger King, Burger King aren’t over the moon that the capitalist theory of competition is being exercised, they’re figuring out how to kill the opposition. The argument goes that the consumer is the ultimate beneficiary of this struggle, as the consumer will be tempted by lower prices and better quality goods to win them over.

These arguments overlook some key issues. They ignore that it makes sense for the corporation to seek out a monopoly – so a free market gained monopoly would have no different traits than a socialised monopoly – except democratic accountability would be removed.

They also fail to consider that the consumer is not solely a consumer, they are also a member of their society so may well be impacted by the competition in more than one way (i.e. they might benefit from a price cut as a consumer, but lose their job as a result of the bigger corporation pushing their employer out of the market).

The facts bear this theory out. With the rise in ‘free market’ policies of the Thatcher and Reagan governments in 1980’s US and UK, perhaps we would see a dramatic rise in competition? Surely this new, free market would end monopolies and usher in a new era of dynamic, consumer responsive businesses vying for attention.

Let us use food as a case study. In 1990, only 10-20 percent of global food retail was delivered by supermarkets. Today, that figure has soared to 50-60 percent. That is, over half of all food sold in the world, is sold through supermarkets.

The UK has lost 90% of its specialists food retailers – that is butchers, bakers and fisheries – since the 1950’s. In Britain today, 97% of food purchased, is bought in supermarkets, with only four corporations making up 76% of those sales. In the US, 72% of food is purchased in supermarkets. As these figures continue an upward trend, we can see that monopolies are being created in food production.

If we take a look and test the theory that the consumer would benefit from this process of corporate battle, proponents of the idea point to the drop in the proportion of household budgets in developed countries spent on food.

During the rise of the supermarket since the 1950s, the percentage of the US household budget spent on food dropped from 32% to 7%. In the UK the proportion spent on food has dropped from 33% to 15%.

But, with supermarkets making record profits, and household food budgets down, who is paying the price for our food?

The answer is the farmer and the environment. In Brazil, more than 75,000 farmers have been delisted by the big supermarkets. Thailand’s top supermarket chain has carved its supplier list from 250 to just ten. The tiny country of Lesotho has actually all but killed off its domestic farming industry with 99% ofits food purchased through supermarkets utilising foreign agri-business.

Seventy years ago, there were nearly seven million American farmers, today there are two million. Between 1987 and 1992 the US lost 32,500 farms a year and now 75% of US produce comes from just 50,000 farming operations.

Family farming and smallholding has been the big victim of the supermarkets. This means farmers in developing countries being exploited, and consumers in developed countries so far removed from their food chain that they could not tell the difference between beef and horse.

The inflation in food prices in recent years has been masked not only by supermarkets pressurising food producers to ever decreasing incomes and unsustainable farming practices, but the makeup of our food is being diluted…in short, the price might stay the same but we are getting less for that price. The still breaking horse meat scandal is just one example of this.

So when it comes to food as an example, the free market has seen a few corporations rise to dominate the market, set their own prices and lead to negative social impacts. While some consumers might see a fall in the price of the food they are buying, they cannot be sure that they are comparing apples with apples and while perhaps benefitting as consumers, they are losing out as producers.

In fact if we zoom out to what is happening in business overall, for the last three years the US has seen a consistent fall in the total number of businesses. In the US, start ups (new businesses) have fallen as a share of businesses in the economy from 12% to just 7% in just the last few years, whilst still on average employing not more than ten people each. These patterns are reflected across developed economies globally.

The market is being constituted by a decreasing number of businesses, fewer new businesses are being launched and the monopolies created that produce negative impacts on communities across the globe.

What keeps the free market free?

What keeps a free market free? As we have seen above, it is not in the interest of the corporation to maintain a free market.

The corporation has no reason to apply any kind of ethics whatsoever. Adidas employs child and sweatshop labour in the Far East because it is cheaper than employing people on a living wage, with decent terms and condition.

So, historically the government, as the purported servant of the people has been the enforcer of rules necessary to restrain the ‘market’ from behaviours which, while logical from point of view of the corporation, lead to undesirable social outcomes.

However, the logic of the corporation is then to seek maximum influence over the regulator. In this case, corporations use their vast wealth to buy influence in houses of parliament or government across the globe.

In the US, by 2011 the largest thirty corporations spent more that year on lobbying government than they spent on taxes. Big oil alone spent over $169m in lobbying the US government in 2009. Between 1998 and 2008 (the year of the bailout) the US Banking Sector spent $3.4bn lobbying for deregulation, reduced capital requirements and avoiding the regulation of derivatives (which caused the financial crisis). When they aren’t lobbying, they are simply gaining positions of power within the government itself to directly redraft legislation to suit them.

In the UK, corporations with outstanding tax issues with the HMRC (the tax collector) are currently in working groups with the HMRC to redraft the very tax rules they are doing their best to avoid. The largest accountancy forms are also using consultancy positions within government as tax policy advisors, to market themselves to tax evading corporations to help break the rules they wrote.

In the US, there appears to be revolving door between Monsanto (controversial purveyor of genetically modified foods) and the Food Regulating Agencies. Islam Siddiqui, vice-president of Monsanto-funded lobby group CropLife is now a negotiator for the US Trade Representative on agriculture.Roger Beachy, a former director of a Monsanto-funded plant science centre has become the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Michael Taylor, former vice president of Monsanto, is now the deputy commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA – the US’s food and drug regulator).

There is a major problem here. The outcomes of the above are that when corporations break the law, they are either not tried or given a fine which comes nowhere near the profits reaped by breaking the law. And worse, corporations are buying the drafting of laws which make their unethical and damaging behaviour legal.

We have seen recently that banks have instituted fraud on a global scale by simply making up the LIBOR rate, the base interest rate, at the cost of savers and pensioners and to the benefit of their traders who specialise in debt, not capital.

In 1950, corporate taxes made up 30% of federal revenues in the US. By 2012, this had fallen to just7%. In the UK, Corporation Tax rates were cut from 52% to 35% over just two years between 1984-6 and has continued to be cut until it stands at just 21% today.

Corporations do not want any rules which stand in the way of making profit. Left unregulated, they would simply operate in ways which maximised their profits regardless of social outcomes. When we introduce a regulator, corporations seek to and succeed in compromising them. The issue is not to blame one or other of the players, but the game of capitalism itself.

Pulling our heads out of the sand

It is time to get real. There are a number of sheer economic realities which also undermine the idea of the so called free market. I would recommend reading Professor Steve Keen’s Debunking Economics to get a better handle on those.

But whether it be sheer mathematical reality, or social reality, the free market myth is nothing but a nonsense. It is a self serving nonsense propagandised by its beneficiaries.

In 2008, the banks did not uphold the principle of free market values and keeping the state out of the market – they begged the state to use tax payer money to cover their debts whilst only they enjoyed the profits. The IMF recently estimated that this bailout has so far cost the taxpayers of the world £7.12 trillion ($11.9trn). That is the equivalent of a £1,779 hand out to every last human being on earth.

The truth is that most of the globe now labours under corporatized states. Every new policy is tested against the reaction to it by ‘the market’, as if it were this free, independent aggregated assessment of the worthiness of state actions. It is not. It is simply big businesses reaction to the action of the state. All the market reaction tells you is whether or not a cabal of corporations think they can make a profit from it.

In conclusion, not only is the market not free, but it never can be. It requires legislation to prevent rational corporate behaviour which would undermine it, and any regulator (state or otherwise) will be corrupted by corporations seeking to influence them.

The sooner we abandon this madness, the sooner we can answer the bigger question: how do we create a means of economic organisation which has the highest chance of meeting our social goals?

Surely, underneath all this GDP growth nonsense is a basic ambition to increase living standards around the world, to raise the levels of health, education, social cohesion and progress (technological, scientific etc) across the globe such that we can all benefit from it whilst not destroying our planet.

We labour away under a system which forces us to abandon ideas and aspirations to deliver these goals for the sake of a limited number of overbearingly powerful people and corporations to increase their profits.

The answer cannot be to unleash these people on the world without even the token regulation they have now, but to fundamentally transform our social, political, economic and environmental organisation.

We must abandon the myth of the free market, just as we gave up on Santa Claus and Unicorns – it is time to put away childish things so we can become grown up caretakers of ourselves, each other and the planet.

https://climateandcapitalism.com/2013/02/28/like-unicorns-the-free-market-is-a-myth/

Speare Shaker wrote:

aben wrote:
dakle, ljevičari su toliko oštećeni i jednostavno ne moru podniti tuji uspjeh. oni gljedaju plastiku i čudu se kako to more toliko vriditi, a ne razumu da je cijena samo informacija. luksotika bi vjerojatno propala u dvo miseca kad bi snizila cijenu na malo veću od proizvodne, jer više niko ne bi hoti kupiti njihov proizvod. a unda bi zaposlenici dobili otkaze, zbog čega bi ljevičari marširali na parlament...- ljevičari su glupi, da nisu glupi, ne bi bili ljevičari.

Kad ne razuminju koncepte kao što je kreativnost i ne razumiju vrijednost intelektualnog napora, čak ni onog koji se lako može tržišno izmjeriti.

Gnječ wrote:

aben wrote:

Gnječ wrote:eko na abene malo hrone zo te.

jeste se ikad zapitali zašto naočale, okviri za naočale i optička stakla koštaju pun kurac? brutalno skupo. komad žice metala plastike i 4 vide košta brutalne pare...prada, versace, dolce & g, svi modni brendovi pa ray-ban i svi ostali što ih ima na tržištu? skup je materijal? nije. u čemu je kvaka? SVE naočale za sve te brendove proizvodi i diktira cijenu samo jedna kompanija: LUXOTTICA


UZ TO KUPILI SU KONKURENTNE FIRME I ODMAH UGASILI IM TVORNICE TAKO DA SU OSTALI SKORO JEDINI PROIZVOĐAČI NAOČALA NA SVIJETU.

FREE MARKET? ILI MONOPOL? KAPITALIZAM ILI KORPORATIVNI FAŠIZAM?

they're so expensive that even at 50% off discount are still ripping you off.

It's called a monopoly! And when I watched the full report on this Luxotica owner smirks when asked why they are so expensive....translated I do because I can!

I dont care about ANY of the words that are coming out of their mouths.  Those glasses are not worth that much and SHOULDNT cost that much....PERIOD.

Appears to be a violation of our Anti-Trust Laws. They are a "MONOPOLY"!, and can easily destroy "any competitor" or buy "any competitor".

duže, fola ti za ovo malo hrone ku si mi brči! ovo je jedna od onih tema na kojoj nikad ne ću dobiti odgovor, osim un tipa jeben ti mater kurbin sine, ali ostaje zadovoljstvo da nis sun moro načeti mu.


un ki se ikada zapito zoč ćoli gustaju ko tablet, vrlo vjerojatno je mlod čovik ki tek otkrivo opće znanje, ili je socijalist. trećeg nemo, uz uvjet da dojde do istog zaključka ko ti:)

postoju dvo rozličita poazišta za odgovor na ov socijalistički nonsens, a svaki od njih je dovoljan da sruši teze iz tvog posta, tj  iz videa.
prvi je brending. zapravo, ne zun kako se to zove, jo bi ga nojradije nazvo ekskluziva. ljudi jednostavno ne želu imati ćoli ki moru imati svi. irelevantno je koliko su potrošili na proizvodnju, osim ako si dioničar firme, unda je od nojveće važnosti.

drugi se odnosi na monopol. drugi proizvođači se žalu da luksotika ne želi u svojn butigami prodovati njihove proizvode. jo njanci ne zun ča bi vode reko, osin- well dah!


dakle, ljevičari su toliko oštećeni i jednostavno ne moru podniti tuji uspjeh. oni gljedaju plastiku i čudu se kako to more toliko vriditi, a ne razumu da je cijena samo informacija. luksotika bi vjerojatno propala u dvo miseca kad bi snizila cijenu na malo veću od proizvodne, jer više niko ne bi hoti kupiti njihov proizvod. a unda bi zaposlenici dobili otkaze, zbog čega bi ljevičari marširali na parlament...- ljevičari su glupi, da nisu glupi, ne bi bili ljevičari.

ali to nije kapitalizam to je monopol.

i daj se potrudi pročitati onaj drugi poduži tekst koji kaže da free market ne postoji.

There never has been, is not and never will be a capitalist free market economy – and here is why.

pa me zanima tvoj odgovor u svezi socjalistov.

Gnječ wrote:

Speare Shaker wrote:

aben wrote:
dakle, ljevičari su toliko oštećeni i jednostavno ne moru podniti tuji uspjeh. oni gljedaju plastiku i čudu se kako to more toliko vriditi, a ne razumu da je cijena samo informacija. luksotika bi vjerojatno propala u dvo miseca kad bi snizila cijenu na malo veću od proizvodne, jer više niko ne bi hoti kupiti njihov proizvod. a unda bi zaposlenici dobili otkaze, zbog čega bi ljevičari marširali na parlament...- ljevičari su glupi, da nisu glupi, ne bi bili ljevičari.

Kad ne razuminju koncepte kao što je kreativnost i ne razumiju vrijednost intelektualnog napora, čak ni onog koji se lako može tržišno izmjeriti.

jebote stvarno ti treba titanski intelektualni napor i kreativnost za napisat cijenu od 600 dolara za dvi žbice žice povezane sa 4 vidice šrafčića i komadić reciklirane plastike.

aben wrote:

Speare Shaker wrote:

aben wrote:
dakle, ljevičari su toliko oštećeni i jednostavno ne moru podniti tuji uspjeh. oni gljedaju plastiku i čudu se kako to more toliko vriditi, a ne razumu da je cijena samo informacija. luksotika bi vjerojatno propala u dvo miseca kad bi snizila cijenu na malo veću od proizvodne, jer više niko ne bi hoti kupiti njihov proizvod. a unda bi zaposlenici dobili otkaze, zbog čega bi ljevičari marširali na parlament...- ljevičari su glupi, da nisu glupi, ne bi bili ljevičari.

Kad ne razuminju koncepte kao što je kreativnost i ne razumiju vrijednost intelektualnog napora, čak ni onog koji se lako može tržišno izmjeriti.

ma u to uopće nis hoti ulaziti:
zamisli samo usluge odvjetnika. kad se to spomene, oni počnu brojati koliko je ot odvjetnik potroši na skule, na usavršavanja i sl, i na tomu temelju visoke odvjetničke naknade, a potpuno zanemaruju vridnost koju klijent dobije, i ku je spreman plotiti, ako ga ota usluga izbavi od pržuna:)

Speare Shaker wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

Speare Shaker wrote:

aben wrote:
dakle, ljevičari su toliko oštećeni i jednostavno ne moru podniti tuji uspjeh. oni gljedaju plastiku i čudu se kako to more toliko vriditi, a ne razumu da je cijena samo informacija. luksotika bi vjerojatno propala u dvo miseca kad bi snizila cijenu na malo veću od proizvodne, jer više niko ne bi hoti kupiti njihov proizvod. a unda bi zaposlenici dobili otkaze, zbog čega bi ljevičari marširali na parlament...- ljevičari su glupi, da nisu glupi, ne bi bili ljevičari.

Kad ne razuminju koncepte kao što je kreativnost i ne razumiju vrijednost intelektualnog napora, čak ni onog koji se lako može tržišno izmjeriti.

jebote stvarno ti treba titanski intelektualni napor i kreativnost za napisat cijenu od 600 dolara za dvi žbice žice povezane sa 4 vidice šrafčića i komadić reciklirane plastike.

Lako napisati cijenu, problem je to nekome prodati i to na način da se kupac ne osjeti namagarčenim, dakle, na sveopće zadovoljstvo.