Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
1. Take Humanapes f.e not only do they have a hierarchie within no but also wage war against other clans.
So the animal exemple for a hierarchie without politics is ehhhhhhhhh, doubtable.
I am having a hard time following you due to your bad english so correct me if I am wrong here please.
take primates (humanapes) who have a hierarchy but also wage war against other primates (clans), so the animal example for hierarchy without politics is ehhhh debatable.
If this is what you are saying then your have made a couple of fundamental mistakes, the apes are engaging in territorial behaviour that is instinctual and not political, this is the danger of anthropomorphising these animals.
With some trepidation of jumping in just to address a tangent: primates, especially bonobos, frequently appear as comparanda in anthropological and theoretical sociological work specifically because their social praxis, in which they form inter- and extra-community alliances and factions, negotiate and double cross, and go to war for reasons other than territory and find resolutions to gain, maintain, or undermine power and status, is so similar to humans.
Lots of difficult words here (anthropologist talking?), but if I read it right and confirmed with acquired past understanding: tl;dr: animals, specifically primates and especially bonobo chimpanzees do, in fact, engage in politics. IIRC, there's other animals who do, too, albeit to a probably lesser degree.
I'm an archaeologist rather than an anthropologist, albeit one working on the more heavily-anthropologically-inclined end of things. Yes, your summation is correct - at least insofar as the majority of specialists would agree. Dunno about other species, it's always primates that people use as case studies in the stuff that overlaps with what I do (looking at socialisation, mostly).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/23 17:06:56
1. Take Humanapes f.e not only do they have a hierarchie within no but also wage war against other clans. So the animal exemple for a hierarchie without politics is ehhhhhhhhh, doubtable.
I am having a hard time following you due to your bad english so correct me if I am wrong here please.
take primates (humanapes) who have a hierarchy but also wage war against other primates (clans), so the animal example for hierarchy without politics is ehhhh debatable.
If this is what you are saying then your have made a couple of fundamental mistakes, the apes are engaging in territorial behaviour that is instinctual and not political, this is the danger of anthropomorphising these animals.
With some trepidation of jumping in just to address a tangent: primates, especially bonobos, frequently appear as comparanda in anthropological and theoretical sociological work specifically because their social praxis, in which they form inter- and extra-community alliances and factions, negotiate and double cross, and go to war for reasons other than territory and find resolutions to gain, maintain, or undermine power and status, is so similar to humans.
Lots of difficult words here (anthropologist talking?), but if I read it right and confirmed with acquired past understanding: tl;dr: animals, specifically primates and especially bonobo chimpanzees do, in fact, engage in politics. IIRC, there's other animals who do, too, albeit to a probably lesser degree.
I'm an archaeologist rather than an anthropologist, albeit one working on the more heavily-anthropologically-inclined end of things. Yes, your summation is correct - at least insofar as the majority of specialists would agree. Dunno about other species, it's always primates that people use as case studies in the stuff that overlaps with what I do (looking at socialisation, mostly).
Ahh it's always nice to have someone actually confirming that my (sometimes insane) musings do have a basis and my general knowledge still is usefull.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/23 21:43:32
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
AndrewGPaul wrote: automation isn't helping to improve the productivity of workers, it's being used to replace them because human employees are the biggest cost. Private investors gain the profit from reducing employment costs because they offload the costs of dealing with that (increased public spending on unemployment benefits, law enforcement, healthcare, education etc) onto the general public.
I literally gave you an example of how technology and automation is helping to improve the productivity of the GW workforce, as just one example. Without meaning to be disrespectful, based on your response I'm not sure you understand what productivity means in the context of the economics of labour. You also don't seem to understand how productivity improvements in one industry help the economy as a whole, principally by a) driving down the cost of products and services, freeing more of our money to spend on new and emerging markets (compare the cost of mobile phones now to twenty years ago) and b) increased investor returns generating more capital for investment elsewhere, again often in new and emerging markets.
As to your final point about public spending, where do you think most of the money for that comes from. You say "the general public", which leads me to believe that you're probably not aware of where most of the tax revenue spent by governments comes from.
If you mention second edition 40k I will find you, and I will bore you to tears talking about how "things were better in my day, let me tell ya..." Might even do it if you mention 4th/5th/6th WHFB
bouncingboredom wrote: b) increased investor returns generating more capital for investment elsewhere, again often in new and emerging markets.
While everything else is what it is, one of the problems confronted even by capitalist policy makers and academics is that profits for investors aren’t reinvested in productivity or innovation and instead go to property speculation and passive index funds.
AndrewGPaul wrote: automation isn't helping to improve the productivity of workers, it's being used to replace them because human employees are the biggest cost. Private investors gain the profit from reducing employment costs because they offload the costs of dealing with that (increased public spending on unemployment benefits, law enforcement, healthcare, education etc) onto the general public.
I literally gave you an example of how technology and automation is helping to improve the productivity of the GW workforce, as just one example. Without meaning to be disrespectful, based on your response I'm not sure you understand what productivity means in the context of the economics of labour. You also don't seem to understand how productivity improvements in one industry help the economy as a whole, principally by a) driving down the cost of products and services, freeing more of our money to spend on new and emerging markets (compare the cost of mobile phones now to twenty years ago) and b) increased investor returns generating more capital for investment elsewhere, again often in new and emerging markets.
As to your final point about public spending, where do you think most of the money for that comes from. You say "the general public", which leads me to believe that you're probably not aware of where most of the tax revenue spent by governments comes from.
This would suggest that the majority of UK tax revenue is from taxing the public, not from business taxation:
pelicaniforce wrote:While everything else is what it is, one of the problems confronted even by capitalist policy makers and academics is that profits for investors aren’t reinvested in productivity or innovation and instead go to property speculation and passive index funds.
I often wonder where people imagine the funds for angel investing and venture capital come from? Where do people think mortgages ultimately come from? Who do people think private companies sell their corporate bonds to and where do those people get their money? You can name practically any company you like that is a major player in the world today and if you dig down into its background you'll normally find money that's reinvested income of some form or another, from other businesses and investment vehicles.
AndrewGPaul wrote:This would suggest that the majority of UK tax revenue is from taxing the public, not from business taxation.
The majority of it is. The question is where that money comes from, e.g. what percentage of income tax in the UK do you think is paid by the top 1% of earners? The top 10%? The top 50%? Answers under spoilers below for those that want to play (top 1%, top 10%, top 50%:
Spoiler:
- The top 1% pays more than 25% of all income tax in the UK.
Spoiler:
- The top 10% of earners combined pay around 50% of all income tax in the UK.
Spoiler:
- The top 50% pay between them approx 90% of all income tax in the UK.
If you mention second edition 40k I will find you, and I will bore you to tears talking about how "things were better in my day, let me tell ya..." Might even do it if you mention 4th/5th/6th WHFB
AndrewGPaul wrote:This would suggest that the majority of UK tax revenue is from taxing the public, not from business taxation.
The majority of it is. The question is where that money comes from, e.g. what percentage of income tax in the UK do you think is paid by the top 1% of earners? The top 10%? The top 50%? Answers under spoilers below for those that want to play (top 1%, top 10%, top 50%:
Spoiler:
- The top 1% pays more than 25% of all income tax in the UK.
Spoiler:
- The top 10% of earners combined pay around 50% of all income tax in the UK.
Spoiler:
- The top 50% pay between them approx 90% of all income tax in the UK.
These are proportions in income tax though, right? Total income tax in 2016/7 was 185.6bn. The total raised from flat (or broadly tiered in stamp duty's case) taxes like VAT, fuel duty, stamp duty, tobacco and alcohol duty, council tax were 225.9bn. Can't find an account of how this breaks down across income bands, but they're certainly disproportionately paid by the poor. National Insurance contributions account for another 125.9bn, and they actually decrease once you're a high earner - specifically because you're increased income tax is meant to make up for it, so that somewhat levels the disparity in income tax paid by each earner band, too.
In theory it's a self perpetuating loop. If all jobs are automated then no one earns money and the products being produced cannot be bought correct? Unless we drop a system of tangible money completely and go with something esoteric like lifespan, portions of your soul or something along those lines. The rich have to profit somehow right?
