Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Robert Roaldi on March 12, 2020, 09:54:48 am
-
Sorry about the click bait subject heading. I came across this recent Freakonomics podcast titled "Does anybody know what socialism is?" (https://freakonomics.com/podcast/socialism/ (https://freakonomics.com/podcast/socialism/)). I thought it was an interesting discussion about all the various things that are lumped together and called "socialism". The comments on these forums have been especially careless in that regard. As stated in the podcast, it's silly to use the same single word to describe what is going on Venezuela with what is going on in Norway. As the much hated Bernie Sanders has stated, funny how people who hate "socialism" are ok with taxpayers bailing out brazenly incompetent bankers or subsidizing major corporations who don't need the help. You have to admit, the guy has a point.
It is not always easy to find long-form intelligent discussion on the interweb and especially in the traditional broadcast media, it's a good thing the podcast form has come along. This one is just under an hour long. [And Alan, relax, it's not about Trump. ;) ]
There was a related discussion in a recent Sam Harris podcast interview with Scott Galloway titled Wealth and Happiness (No. 189 https://samharris.org/podcasts/189-wealth-happiness/ (https://samharris.org/podcasts/189-wealth-happiness/)) The Sam Harris podcast is behind a paywall now but he makes the first hour or so available for free. Galloway is no "socialist" in any sense, and as an ex finance guy and entrepreneur he makes some interesting observations about current tax structure and how we reward work and innovation. He is not complimentary but it is educational to listen to him. The arguments cannot easily be summarized in a cute quip or two, I can't anyway, but that's ok, some topics are complicated and should not be presented in short form. This podcast is also about an hour long.
Since we may all be huddled in our homes for the next little while, just thought I'd provide some food for the brain.
-
There are socialists and there are socialists.
For example, Alexander Dubcek of the Prague spring in 1968 differs from Maduro in Caracas who is again different from Bernie Sanders.
-
Right, Les. But in spite of the differences in the practitioners the practice always turns out to be a catastrophe.
-
Right, Les. But in spite of the differences in the practitioners the practice always turns out to be a catastrophe.
Right, that's indisputable.
-
Right, Les. But in spite of the differences in the practitioners the practice always turns out to be a catastrophe.
As it does, eventually, under all systems. 1987 and 2008 come to mind, never mind the biggie of 1929 which, fortunately, was a wee bit afore my time.
Capitalism at its finest hours - over and over again. The ideal would be if we could discover the mechanism, the magic formula to separate greed from industry (as in attitude).
-
... to separate greed from industry (as in attitude).
Greed is what has been driving the progress of humanity from the dawn of time. Greed is good. The real evil of the world are do-gooders.
-
... it's silly to use the same single word to describe what is going on Venezuela with what is going on in Norway...
It is silly, indeed, because what is going on in Norway is not socialism by any stretch of imagination.
But Crazy Bernie is not advocating for a Norway-style “socialism.” He didn’t go to Norway for his honeymoon, nor lauded Norwegian Boy Scouts, but Sandinistas, Che Guevaras, and Castros of the world. “Bread lines are a good thing”... didn’t see any bread lines in Norway.
-
The policies Bernie is pursuing are standard center-left Western European stuff — or even also center-right on things like healthcare funding. What he would actually be able to get through Congress would be even less of a shift. One of his major weaknesses is the sheer implausibility of putting his proposals into practice, underscored by his poor record of legislative influence as a senator.
By all means let’s look at policy proposals, not single word labels.
-
Greee is what has been driving the progress of humanity from the dawn of time. Greed is good. The real evil of the world are do-gooders.
Greed has been driving the cycle of create and destroy for a long time. That is not always to be equated with progress. Greed has given us the crashes because people couldn't see the inevitable end of their vaulting ambitions and where they would lead, and at what price to so many others not even players, but simply victims of the mess those guys were building up. Or, if they could see where they were going, still played the game hoping to jump off the gravy train just in time to save their butts, real money out of the sytem. In winter '08 my wife was dying and still trying to co-sign documents with me as we were attempting to transfer our bank accounts from one jurisdiction to another just to protect our savings from the shitstorm those bastards had created for us. I will detest those financial crooks and shysters for the rest of my life. And as she died, how many of them saw the inside of a prison - or even of a courtroom?
Progress? Quite frankly, I would prefer the heady days of the 60s to today, where conversation exists mostly of sitting alone in a room or in a crowd, attention focussed on a screen. We talk to everybody and nobody. And that appears to be the condition of the young as of the old. I eat out every day: I see this every day. The simple truth is that change creeps up, usually quite slowly, and takes the generations unawares; they don't often take the time to pause, look back a few years and refocus on what change has meant. Quite the opposite: they have become indoctrinated to the idea that looking backwards is bad, whereas it provides the best measure of progress - or otherwise - that you can have; no wonder it is widely discouraged.
Consider some of the things we enjoyed, and then also consider where they have gone: photography has widely become devoid of any need for talent and replete with technical gadgets to allow the idiot to ape some form of art. That's progress? Democratisation, some call it, except that I think it's not, and if it is, it's a faux rendition of something that was once a human achievement but today an electronic selection by programme. No need for artistic talent whatsoever. So, then, how can anyone claim a credit for such a picture that's basically not of their making? Music? Hear a recorded number and then watch the "artist" do a live gig. What you often get is a fortune in visual pyrotechnics and deafening sound, all, the better to mask what's coming out of the mouth.
You could extend this to many areas of life and arrive at the same dismal conclusion: the height of achievement has been in the clever ways of fooling the punter.
Rob
-
Rob
I was baited by the title, I almost never read "The Coffee Corner" but for the humor part. Life is too short.
But Rob, if you are writing a book, I'm buying one 8)
-
Greed has been driving the cycle of create and destroy for a long time. That is not always to be equated with progress. Greed has given us the crashes because people couldn't see the inevitable end of their vaulting ambitions and where they would lead, and at what price to so many others not even players, but simply victims of the mess those guys were building up. Or, if they could see where they were going, still played the game hoping to jump off the gravy train just in time to save their butts, real money out of the sytem. In winter '08 my wife was dying and still trying to co-sign documents with me as we were attempting to transfer our bank accounts from one jurisdiction to another just to protect our savings from the shitstorm those bastards had created for us. I will detest those financial crooks and shysters for the rest of my life. And as she died, how many of them saw the inside of a prison - or even of a courtroom?
Progress? Quite frankly, I would prefer the heady days of the 60s to today, where conversation exists mostly of sitting alone in a room or in a crowd, attention focussed on a screen. We talk to everybody and nobody. And that appears to be the condition of the young as of the old. I eat out every day: I see this every day. The simple truth is that change creeps up, usually quite slowly, and takes the generations unawares; they don't often take the time to pause, look back a few years and refocus on what change has meant. Quite the opposite: they have become indoctrinated to the idea that looking backwards is bad, whereas it provides the best measure of progress - or otherwise - that you can have; no wonder it is widely discouraged.
Consider some of the things we enjoyed, and then also consider where they have gone: photography has widely become devoid of any need for talent and replete with technical gadgets to allow the idiot to ape some form of art. That's progress? Democratisation, some call it, except that I think it's not, and if it is, it's a faux rendition of something that was once a human achievement but today an electronic selection by programme. No need for artistic talent whatsoever. So, then, how can anyone claim a credit for such a picture that's basically not of their making? Music? Hear a recorded number and then watch the "artist" do a live gig. What you often get is a fortune in visual pyrotechnics and deafening sound, all, the better to mask what's coming out of the mouth.
You could extend this to many areas of life and arrive at the same dismal conclusion: the height of achievement has been in the clever ways of fooling the punter.
Rob
Rob, this is the way of life and progress.
Insofar as photography, sure technology has made it possible for the average person to take a decent photograph without any skill, but this same technology has made it just as (if not more so) possible for the artist to create an exceptional photograph.
You know I don't really worry about balancing an interior shot anymore, which use to be one hell of a technical issue with film. It just does not even cross my mind because I know the technology that I have with me today will allow me to balance an interior regardless of any obstacle. So instead, I put my full thought into how to light the interior in an artistic manner, creating 3-D space in a 2-D representation and giving life to surfaces and textures.
My full thought is on the artistic aspect of lighting. I am not walking around with two different light meters (one for ambient light and another for color), taking all kind of readings and doing the Zone System, and then gelling every light source (even all the ambient ones) to match the same color temp. My God, what a pain in the ass that was. Now I just think about how do I want this space to look, how do I want it to feel.
Sure, the average person may be able to create a balanced photo of the same interior, but they will rely on ambient light only for the image, and more then likely not even time it to the best time of day. (This is what separates the artist from the rest in photography, lighting.) I, on the other hand, can really plan and craft my work to look the exact way I want, artistically, without too many obstacles put before me by the medium.
-
Socialism doesn't work because I define socialism as the thing that countries do that doesn't work, which proves it doesn't work. When you find examples of socialism working, I simply tell you it isn't socialism and we can prove it isn't socialism because socialism doesn't work and I can give you examples of what is real socialism that hasn't worked.
Of course, some might say this is cherry-picking, a straw-man argument, a No True Scotsman argument and definitely a case of circular reasoning, but circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.
BTW, this is my one & only post here because I'm pretty sure that logic and reason will convince no one, not least because they really don't want to be convinced.
-
Neither "logic" nor "reason" will convince those who know anything about history or have their eyes open to current events, Bill. The demonstrations are right there: in history and currently before our very eyes.
-
Sanders want the government to control and own everything. He's hiding his true beliefs. That's more than Democratic Socialism.
-
Greee is what has been driving the progress of humanity from the dawn of time. Greed is good. The real evil of the world are do-gooders.
Problem with greed as a driver is that people don't know when to stop (or can't stop). Most will cut corners and screw others if there is a buck to make.
-
Problem with greed as a driver is that people don't know when to stop (or can't stop). Most will cut corners and screw others if there is a buck to make.
There are laws against fraud. There are no laws against greed. Also, competition limits greed. In fact, competition creates a playing field where the best price becomes available to the buyer as well as encouraging innovation which lowers the price even more.
Look at cameras for example. Nikon, Canon and all the others try to maximize their profit. Is that greed? Of course, they're limited in what they can charge due to competition. No one's going to buy their product if they charge too much. You'll go elsewhere. With government, competition is limited. Products are poorly made. There's no incentive to make better products, innovate, or lower prices. Why bother if the customers can't go elsewheres.
Also, there is legislation that prevent restraint of trade and anti-monopoly laws in effect.
-
Sanders want the government to control and own everything. He's hiding his true beliefs. That's more than Democratic Socialism.
+1000!
-
Problem with greed as a driver is that people don't know when to stop (or can't stop). Most will cut corners and screw others if there is a buck to make.
Absolutely correct; the law of the jungle. But are we not supposed to be a civilized society these days? I guess that with all the guns around, most people - in the States at least - certainly don't think so, which explains a lot about attitudes and expectations regarding behaviour.
But in case anyone thinks this is an attack on America, think again: our own lot is not much different in most ways: the same types of companies pull the same stunts, or as close as legislation allows, and the same rednecks exist except that they mostly don't own trucks, shotguns and automatic weapons. And as far as I can remember, our CB radio was pretty much illegal most of the time. I don't think many Brits chewed tobacco, but many do spit betel juice, so in the end, much the same, I guess.
;-)
-
Problem with greed as a driver is that people don't know when to stop (or can't stop). Most will cut corners and screw others if there is a buck to make.
Some will. Most won't. That's why we have a judicial system and law enforcement.
-
It depends on how the laws are made and who enforces them. For example, keep in mind that apartheid was legal.
With money comes power to influence decisions your way, call it bribery or lobbying, and without money it’s very tough to fight that.
You need a minimum honesty guaranteed and just the bonuses to be there for the grabbing; however capitalism has a long standing history of failures of this level, just as socialism has its own failures.
An example of corporate greed is how DuPont dealt with it’s PFTE production-related contamination of ground water, there is a movie about it: Dark Waters (didn’t see it yet but read the article on which is based). Other example is the auto industry and how many cars were deathboxes until there were regulations about minimum necessary. The competition was not going to make those cars go away, not until many more would have died.
I maybe became less optimistic about humans than you. While I still think that given equal advantages most people will make the right call, if money is involved many less will keep the same choice.
-
It depends on how the laws are made and who enforces them. For example, keep in mind that apartheid was legal.
With money comes power to influence decisions your way, call it bribery or lobbying, and without money it’s very tough to fight that.
You need a minimum honesty guaranteed and just the bonuses to be there for the grabbing; however capitalism has a long standing history of failures of this level, just as socialism has its own failures.
An example of corporate greed is how DuPont dealt with it’s PFTE production-related contamination of ground water, there is a movie about it: Dark Waters (didn’t see it yet but read the article on which is based). Other example is the auto industry and how many cars were deathboxes until there were regulations about minimum necessary. The competition was not going to make those cars go away, not until many more would have died.
I maybe became less optimistic about humans than you. While I still think that given equal advantages most people will make the right call, if money is involved many less will keep the same choice.
Capitalism doesn't create greed. That's in man regardless of the system. China's got a huge problem with kickbacks and other fraud. I'm sure the Soviet Union had similar greedy people. The Castro family wasn't spreading their wealth around nor does North Korea's Kim family. In America there are criminal penalties for illegal business and political activity. Tort law allows lawsuits for civil offenses. You mentioned cars. Auto manufacturers are sued all the time for product deficiencies that kill or injure people. Even German VW executive here in the US went to jail for the diesel fiasco and VW paid billions in penalties. The manufacturer of airbags went bankrupt after penalties due to failure of their products. But 95% of the system of capitalism works efficiently providing more wealth and jobs to more people than other systems. Of course, nothing's perfect. But it's better than everything else.
-
Some will. Most won't. That's why we have a judicial system and law enforcement.
Which, looking at the 2008 meltdown and the reasons for it, not to mention the subsequent inaction and holding to responsibilities, shows that neither your law enforcement nor judicial system has either power or will to do a goddam thing about any of it.
The same professors (if not retired on mulitple healthy pensions by now) are still employed teaching law, business and advising governments; no bankers or speculators are in jail for their schemes of worthless, passing-the-buck goodies and the selling of homes to people clearly lacking the ability to buy. Strikes me that the time-share sellers' mantra is much wider spread than just in holiday resorts.
I twice watched a very interesting video on this subject: Inside Job. It begins in Iceland and investigates the banking collapses there and goes on to take you through the American scene, interviews with professors advising government at the time etc. etc. It should be required viewing for everyone. (And for photographers, the way that Iceland is photographed is simply beautiful.) Especially interesting are the sections where some of those professors are asked questions they do not like. Huffing and spluttering in Academia might have been a good sub-title for the video.
Rob
-
Which, looking at the 2008 meltdown and the reasons for it, not to mention the subsequent inaction and holding to responsibilities, shows that neither your law enforcement nor judicial system has either power or will to do a goddam thing about any of it.
The same professors (if not retired on mulitple healthy pensions by now) are still employed teaching law, business and advising governments; no bankers or speculators are in jail...
Because there was nothing criminal there.
-
I was baited by the title, I almost never read "The Coffee Corner" but for the humor part. Life is too short.
But Rob, if you are writing a book, I'm buying one 8)
You and I would be two or three generation too late: the interesting people with the experiences worth writing a book about were my mother, her mother and grandmother.
That female side of the family, coming from a corner of Italy that was constanly being taken over by different neighbours, led an amazing life of hanging on, making hot meals at home and taking them out to soldiers on the front lines; having money and being broke - life in all its extremes came calling. All I got were snippets, now and then, but as with many warriors, those topics become locked away inside and disappear with the generations. We were not Jewish - akaik - but I am sure that the very same emotions, scars and experiences of up and down and who knows where or when were borne by those of that race who fled the Europe of those times. The attractions of a stable, joined-up Europe are very clear if you take even a brief glance at European history. It may, in the end, well prove a pipe dream, but the attempt is worth it.
But I fear that human nature in the form of the hate-stirring politicians that are always just there on the fringes - but gaining countries by the year - will finish it and reintroduce territorial wars as well as those for the minds of nations. They have just won Britain.
Rob
-
Because there was nothing criminal there.
Really? Try to find the video.
-
Really? Try to find the video.
I know enough about the professional side of the issue not to rely on some frustrated and jaded journalist's opinion. You know, those who can, do, those who can not, bitch and moan about it.
-
I know enough about the professional side of the issue not to rely on some frustrated and jaded journalist's opinion. You know, those who can, do, those who can not, bitch and moan about it.
You may indeed have a good understanding of corporate life and shady financial schemes; that does not mean that you know everything, nor that you have been exposed to everything. Shooting the messenger has often been the cop-out for those not wanting to face truth: witness your current favourite politician and his technique of labelling everything he dislikes as fake news. Why would you assume, if you have not seen this video, that it is simply an act of frustrated journalism? By its very professional and wide-ranging gamut and production, this was anything but a product of failed or jaded journalists.
Maybe the Russians or Chinese made it.
:-)
-
I'm afraid the 2008 real estate bubble was inflated by a Fed that printed too much and Treasury that borrowed too much. It precipitated the crash as everyone tried to get in on the boom. Likewise, the current stock market is a bubble as well. While coronavirus may have been the catalyst for the current drop, there's so many phoney dollars floating around that has nowhere to go but the market pushing prices up beyond sensibility. So at some point, the market bubble is going to shake out, or the dollar will drop due to huge inflation. It's value will drop precipitously making everyone's savings, stocks, pensions, salaries, wealth, Social Security, etc a lot less valuable.
Trump will spend every phoney dollar to restore or at least nurse the economy back to health and the market back to its heights just to get him past the election. Who cares about deficits when you got a virus? But whoever's president during the next four years is going to face a real recession that will cover the whole world. No one will remember test kits as they check their monthly retirement statements and reach for an aspirin to stop their migraine.
-
Rob, this is the way of life and progress.
Insofar as photography, sure technology has made it possible for the average person to take a decent photograph without any skill, but this same technology has made it just as (if not more so) possible for the artist to create an exceptional photograph.
You know I don't really worry about balancing an interior shot anymore, which use to be one hell of a technical issue with film. It just does not even cross my mind because I know the technology that I have with me today will allow me to balance an interior regardless of any obstacle. So instead, I put my full thought into how to light the interior in an artistic manner, creating 3-D space in a 2-D representation and giving life to surfaces and textures.
My full thought is on the artistic aspect of lighting. I am not walking around with two different light meters (one for ambient light and another for color), taking all kind of readings and doing the Zone System, and then gelling every light source (even all the ambient ones) to match the same color temp. My God, what a pain in the ass that was. Now I just think about how do I want this space to look, how do I want it to feel.
Sure, the average person may be able to create a balanced photo of the same interior, but they will rely on ambient light only for the image, and more then likely not even time it to the best time of day. (This is what separates the artist from the rest in photography, lighting.) I, on the other hand, can really plan and craft my work to look the exact way I want, artistically, without too many obstacles put before me by the medium.
Thats an interesting shift towards photography in a thread about socialism:) But I like it. Sorry to take this afield.
I'm seeing this play out in real time in my life right now. As a photogrpaher raised in the film era I had to learn how to do it right the first time, or at least as best as possible. Retouching was a mostly unaffordable luxury untill at least the mid 90's. What you shot was what you got. And if you wer good at figuring out how to shape thsat technology you could do very well for yourself. It was the "special sauce" that made the pro photogapher valuable for even the mundane stuff. For example pre digital I made a lot of money doing work for various companies every month just shooting stuff for the corporate newsletter. All well lit, and composed...high quality imagery. It was commissioned by local ad agencies who produced the newsletters. Then came Desk Top Publishing, Photoshop and digital cameras. The once lucrative work was now the domain of the receptionist, the it guy and some guy in purchasing who just bought his first digital camera. They still "produced" a monthly newsletter but the equality went to crap for a long time.
Today I'm seeing something similar. I work in a pretty small niche. In my genre there were about 8 guys shooting regularly fro the RV companies. We all get quite good, and it was very profitable. There was more work than we could handle...most of us regularly overbooked and shot unit for 2-3 clients a day. We made good money and best of all it wwas (and still is) repeat work. They changed their model lines each year so most everything we shot the previous years was now junk. We shot it all again the next year.
Now the industry is going all in-house for their photography. Young folks getting paid 35K a year are taking over and its just like the example of the newsletter era. The work is getting done but not with any real quality. Don't get me wrong I have nothing against in-house photographers...I started my career in this genre being one. And I remember the backlash of the guys who are now my peers against me. But I see a big difference between now and then.
Todays in house guys don't have the fundimentals we built from years of shooting film and the need to get it right the first time. Today the mostly have all the toys but none of the skills. And based on my personal interaction with many of them they are not really trying to learn. Get some kind of image, try to make it usable in PS and move on. I just dont see the desire to find a better solution or different approach like we often had to do in the "old days". I have one client with an in-house crew that still hires me to shoot the top of their line instead of the in house guys.
But to your other point, the tech has made it possible to do things that were impossible or very difficult in the film world. When you combine that with a refined personal vision shaped from past experience you can still produce images hat have that "special sauce" that can set you apart and make your work stand out.
I'm just not seeing that kind of mind set in most of the incoming class of in house guys. I do see it however in many of those young guys out hustling for gigs in the open market.
So I guess its still a "socialism" verses capitalism kind of thing :)
-
Thats an interesting shift towards photography in a thread about socialism:) But I like it. Sorry to take this afield.
I'm seeing this play out in real time in my life right now. As a photogrpaher raised in the film era I had to learn how to do it right the first time, or at least as best as possible. Retouching was a mostly unaffordable luxury untill at least the mid 90's. What you shot was what you got. And if you wer good at figuring out how to shape thsat technology you could do very well for yourself. It was the "special sauce" that made the pro photogapher valuable for even the mundane stuff. For example pre digital I made a lot of money doing work for various companies every month just shooting stuff for the corporate newsletter. All well lit, and composed...high quality imagery. It was commissioned by local ad agencies who produced the newsletters. Then came Desk Top Publishing, Photoshop and digital cameras. The once lucrative work was now the domain of the receptionist, the it guy and some guy in purchasing who just bought his first digital camera. They still "produced" a monthly newsletter but the equality went to crap for a long time.
Today I'm seeing something similar. I work in a pretty small niche. In my genre there were about 8 guys shooting regularly fro the RV companies. We all get quite good, and it was very profitable. There was more work than we could handle...most of us regularly overbooked and shot unit for 2-3 clients a day. We made good money and best of all it wwas (and still is) repeat work. They changed their model lines each year so most everything we shot the previous years was now junk. We shot it all again the next year.
Now the industry is going all in-house for their photography. Young folks getting paid 35K a year are taking over and its just like the example of the newsletter era. The work is getting done but not with any real quality. Don't get me wrong I have nothing against in-house photographers...I started my career in this genre being one. And I remember the backlash of the guys who are now my peers against me. But I see a big difference between now and then.
Todays in house guys don't have the fundimentals we built from years of shooting film and the need to get it right the first time. Today the mostly have all the toys but none of the skills. And based on my personal interaction with many of them they are not really trying to learn. Get some kind of image, try to make it usable in PS and move on. I just dont see the desire to find a better solution or different approach like we often had to do in the "old days". I have one client with an in-house crew that still hires me to shoot the top of their line instead of the in house guys.
But to your other point, the tech has made it possible to do things that were impossible or very difficult in the film world. When you combine that with a refined personal vision shaped from past experience you can still produce images hat have that "special sauce" that can set you apart and make your work stand out.
I'm just not seeing that kind of mind set in most of the incoming class of in house guys. I do see it however in many of those young guys out hustling for gigs in the open market.
So I guess its still a "socialism" verses capitalism kind of thing :)
I stopped working whilst film was still viable, mainly because regardless of medium, my work was drying up due to societal shifts such as acute feminism wedded to ultra political correctness. At a stroke, lots of us in the pin-up calendar industry, not to mention the models, became redundant. (I used the term pin-up because glamour no longer means glamour, it now means porn.) A result of the invention of digital was the creation of a new race of unreal models: impossibly long legs, boobs that project the same way when in either vertical or horizontal mode, faces devoid of character or skin, it all went silly.
But it certainly wasn't a case of "socialism v. capitalism" at all: it was entirely capitalism: it became cheaper - reads better as cost-effective - for companies to use the wonders of cloning model to background than to create original shoots for the little work left. It nearly always comes down to that unless the guy in charge has a sense of perspective. Most often, where he exists, he will not be an accountant.
-
But it certainly wasn't a case of "socialism v. capitalism" at all: it was entirely capitalism: it became cheaper - reads better as cost-effective - for companies to use the wonders of cloning model to background than to create original shoots for the little work left. It nearly always comes down to that unless the guy in charge has a sense of perspective. Most often, where he exists, he will not be an accountant.
The ps instead of locations happened to me as well. Btw the socialism v capitalism bit was said in jest.