Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • from a friend’s thread so that I don’t lose it.) [NOTE: I don’t shop at A&F. I d

    http://business.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978689427#.UYv_aC5jhZM.facebook(Reposted from a friend’s thread so that I don’t lose it.)

    [NOTE: I don’t shop at A&F. I don’t like A&F because of the borderline child-porn that they market with. Even if it has been exceptionally successful identity for them to build their brand upon. And even if I think it’s excellent work: they found the intersection of the upper class pre-war, and inter-war aesthetic and contemporary sexuality. It’s just brilliant work. Really. Even if the memetic content was an accident, it’s brilliant. On the other hand, It’s glorified GAP clothing. But then, I wear Ralph Lauren almost exclusively for casual wear and if’s the same message for the older demographic.]

    ———– Original Post —————–

    UM THIS ISN”T RIGHT

    a) There is no shortage of clothing for ‘the poor’. The problem is just the opposite: donated clothing is usually useful only for sale as scrap cloth. And those in need are notoriously more selective about brands than are average consumers. (Seattle shelters have great stories to tell.) Unless it’s almost new and a top brand, it’s not valuable except as scrap.

    b) All brands that sell at high prices protect their brand from dilution. There is nothing special about A&F that isn’t also done by Guccci and Ferrari. Or any other artificial scarcity created entirely by brand reputation and design aesthetic.

    c) A&F creates artificial scarcity and increased quality in order to protect a brand that is in fact ONLY A BRAND – that sells cotton clothing for the Flirting and Mating Demographic that can be washed repeatedly in permanent press cycles – and as such is just an upscale version of The Gap.

    Without this artificial scarcity and brand protection, what is basically just expensive college wear would be rapidly depreciated in the market.

    SO

    1) THERE IS NO SCARCITY OF DONATED CLOTHING and

    2) THERE IS NO REASON FOR A&F TO ALLOW ITS CLOTHING INTO THE DISCOUNT CHANNEL UNLESS IT”S ACTUALLY “USED”. and

    3) ECONOMICS would dicate that by creating artificial scarcity, those used A&F clothes that reach the donated channel will actually be in demand, and earn money for the thrift shops. (Just as certain men’s wool coats still do. I still have the same Brooks Brother’s wool overcoat that I bought at a thrift store in college.)

    4) Economists would also argue (correctly) that such complaints are driven by an unwillingness to purchase these products at the market price. And given that these products obtain their increased value not from practical utility, but from Design, Aesthetic, and SOCIAL STATUS SIGNALS, then there are only two reasons to complain about A&Fs behavior. First, because you falsely understand the economy for discarded clothing, and second because you want to get a status symbol to wear that you don’t pay status symbol prices for. Neither of those are good reasons to advertise about yourself. The first is that you’re ignorant, the second is that you’re just trying to attack a brand in order to threaten them into giving you their brand at a discount.

    There are plenty of evil brands to attack. The US Governemnt, the monopoly education system, our usurious debt-creating university systems, anyone in the finance and mortgage business, any packaged food company, the soft drink industry, the insurance industry, the music and movie industries, donut shops, fast food companies, the scams in the fitness industry, anything to do with dieting, and …. well, you get the idea.

    That a brand tries to create higher profits by relying upon design, quality and artificial scarcity is not a reason to criticize [it. Just the opposite. It’s adding a venue for design to the contemporary mating ecology. ]


    Source date (UTC): 2013-05-10 05:21:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    Americans fear government more than terror


    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-29 02:43:00 UTC

  • TO THE EDITOR OF STRATFOR.) CAUTION I agree with the value of hegemony. And I ag

    http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/anarchy-and-hegemony(LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF STRATFOR.)

    CAUTION

    I agree with the value of hegemony. And I agree that the developed world pays tribute to the USA by purchasing debt for petrodollars, which is then inflated away. And I agree that this is a beneificial system for all, since the USA enforces consumer capitalism worldwide – which while it is an unnatural system in human history, is a beneficial one.

    The following factors trouble me:

    1) the great divergence between the west and asia appears in no small part to be the result of the intellectual class attempting to find a solution to the thirty years war. And china perpetuated stagnation in exchange for stability.

    2) The USA is an international hegemon, and we may argue in favor of the aggregate value of that function. But Washington is arguably also a domestic empire engaged in the cultural occupation and oppression of the middle and south of the country by the coastal immigration centers.

    3) While we tend to think of states as neutral, the fact is that all states have been, and remain, some form of oligarchy supporting internationally dominant industries – in effect, extended corporations/. And wars between the small states of Europe were trivial by comparison to the wars conducted by the states. It is easy to forget, in this time, where states primarily function as insurers of last resort, and liquidity providers, that the purpose of banking and central credit was to finance war. Including Napoleon, The Civil War, the world wars and the cold war.

    As a political economist I have to argue that I am a ‘Stratforian’ in the sense that I understand the primacies of geography and demographics. And I also understand the economic value of hegemony as a reduction against trade friction. I’m just not certain that from those statements we can deduce that hegemony produces greater goods than the balance of power. In fact, I’m pretty sure that economic history suggests otherwise.

    I realize that Stratfor is a voice of reason, making an argument for stability. I realize that the problem of torn states cannot be solved peacefully without our hegemonic influence.

    I question however, that, especially given the fragility of the western civilization due to demographic and economic changes, that this hegemony will produce net ‘goods’. In fact, like Spengler, I’m pretty sure it won’t.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-25 13:28:00 UTC

  • GOOD REASONS WHY HOMESCHOOLING IS AWESOME

    http://childrensmd.org/uncategorized/why-doctors-and-lawyers-homeschool-their-children-18-reasons-why-we-have-joined-americas-fastest-growing-educational-trend/EIGHTEEN GOOD REASONS WHY HOMESCHOOLING IS AWESOME


    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-22 07:18:00 UTC

  • Plato: What Are The Key Takeaways From The Republic?

    Plato, like Confucius (孔夫子), could not solve the problem of politics and resorted to trying to manufacture virtue in a factory, in order to justify totalitarianism. Western Civilization has suffered from him ever since.

    And if it were not for Aristotle correcting him, we might not have been able to recover from it.

    https://www.quora.com/Plato-What-are-the-key-takeaways-from-The-Republic

  • “I propose to define as libertarian any political position that advocates a radi

    “I propose to define as libertarian any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals.” – Roderick Tracy Long


    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-11 21:48:00 UTC

  • “The principle that the end justifies the means, which in individualist ethics i

    “The principle that the end justifies the means, which in individualist ethics is regarded as the denial of all morals, in collectivist ethics becomes necessarily the supreme rule.” – F. A. Hayek

    (Thanks to Monica Fackelmayer)


    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-07 06:09:00 UTC

  • CICERO 55bc?) “The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, p

    CICERO 55bc?)

    “The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed – lest rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”

    Not legit at all:

    The quote actually originated in A Pillar of Iron (1965), Taylor Caldwell’s fictionalized account of the life of the senator, on page 483.

    But I love this nonsense anyway. 🙂


    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-01 14:32:00 UTC

  • FINISHED MY WORK ON RORTY. (eh.) His criticism of the metaphysical project is ac

    FINISHED MY WORK ON RORTY. (eh.)

    His criticism of the metaphysical project is accurate. His definition of truth as ‘whatever we agree upon’ is just a justification for postmodern verbal deception. It’s a justification not a description.

    Waste of time.

    Sigh.

    As for political philosophy, we are back to the philosophy of science, but where instead of testing hypotheses against the regular patterns of the physical universe, we are testing hypotheses against the willingness to enter voluntary exchanges.

    Of course, the universe has a fairly constant periodicity at the newtonian scale of our human actions (albeit at much faster and slower, larger and smaller, that’s something else entirely). But human beings exhibit any number of periodic patterns due to age, generation, state of current knowledge, arrangement of current resources, and arrangement of humans into complex webs of production that we call a division of labor, all of which is signalled by prices made possible by the commensurability of money, subject to flocking and swarming, and external shocks from the physical world.

    Just as we hypothesize that the universe expands and contracts, so does our civilization, as we gain new knowledge of how to more effectively extract calories from the world’s resources, then via fertility, consume the incremental value of that knowledge.

    Meanwhile we school like fish to national opportunities, until they too are exhausted via boom and bust. And within that boom and bust the constant signaling necessary for mating and reproduction take place giving rise to subtle differences in fashion and aesthetics, which are the micro-applications of those advances in our capture of calories from the material world.

    Truth is a description of actions that if repeated, reproduce previous results among categories with a similar periodicity. This is somewhat problematic because first, periodicity becomes extremely complicated outside of the newtonian physical world, or, among humans, outside of the family.

    Second because production cycles and therefore all the categories of measurement, randomly fall apart and then are recreated in response to changing demand on one and and availability of solutions on the other.

    Truth is not what we agree it is. Ambitions may be whatever we agree upon. Even if those ambitions are metaphorically, a-rationally or irrationally stated.

    It may be true that we can chant false things often enough that people will for some time believe them long enough to implement som policy or other. In fact, that is what happens most of the time. That is the purpose of the progressive-postmodern program.

    But truth in the physical world and truth in the world of human action are different in the sense that the actions needed to replicate something in the physical world will remain constant, and actions needed to replicate something in the human world will not remain constant.

    In either case, any true statement is a statement about the set of actions, not about the thing or process itself (which doesn’t exist as a set of conditions except as a collection of statements or symbols or stimuli). Most confusion is caused by this confusion. We can make statements. We can test these statements.These statements under test, will either reproduce prior results (true) or not (false), or be inconclusive (not true, not false, but simply non logical).

    True statements are true by means of analogies constructed of abstract categories we call actions – and they are indeed categories. And these statements are just statements. They are statements that if imitated, produce consistent results each time that they are tested. And without additional information they will not change. But since we are always subject to new information, they are constantly open to possible change, even if that change is largely only an increase in the detail provided by smaller and larger, or faster and slower scales.

    Humans must be able to reduce conceptual analogies to something that can be processed by the brain in two or three seconds. Most of our work is to produce some means by which we create causal categories that can be submitted to our senses in a form that we can associate with other associations in three seconds or less.

    Lots of associative power. Short periodicity for processing that much information.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-03-31 13:20:00 UTC

  • CAN ANYONE EDIT MY LATIN? “Proprietas est scriptura nobilitate, violentia est os

    CAN ANYONE EDIT MY LATIN?

    “Proprietas est scriptura nobilitate, violentia est os atramentum”

    “Property is the scripture of nobility, and violence is its ink”

    It’s not right. “os” isn’t right I don’t think.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-03-31 11:15:00 UTC