Question for petermarc: pernod vs spanish

Sepulchritude Forum: The Absinthe Forum Archive Thru March 2002: Archive thru March 2002:Question for petermarc: pernod vs spanish
 SubtopicPosts Updated
Archive through March 18, 2002  25   03/18 11:46am

By Petermarc on Monday, March 25, 2002 - 01:12 am: Edit

sweet home, alabama...

By Tabreaux on Sunday, March 24, 2002 - 10:28 pm: Edit

I don't know about SC, but I had the new Pernod in January, and I was disappointed. I was expecting something a bit less 'synthetic'.

By Angryp on Sunday, March 24, 2002 - 09:59 pm: Edit

Anyone know if SC plans on carrying the Pernod 68?

By Nolan on Sunday, March 24, 2002 - 09:37 pm: Edit

And the difference in Pernod 68[new version]and most Spanish absenta is that Pernod is better.
This is my humble opinon and anyone who disagrees is most welcome to do so.I also personally feel that the new Pernod 68 is superior to La Fee.Someone else may disgree,I do not care.I go by what my taste buds tell me I like.Anyone else can like whatever"they"like.Oh,and Petermarc,I will answer your question to me from another thread.I had the Un Emile absinthe the day before I posted in the Thread Betina started,I had it the same day I posted in that same thread, had it when I posted the second time in that thread and I am having some now,as to the second part of your question,I drank the Emile in my living room just as I do most of the absinthe I drink.Including my vintage Pernod.

By Petermarc on Sunday, March 24, 2002 - 05:26 pm: Edit

>Let's bring this full circle to the beginning of the thread.

actually, that would be the difference between pernod 68° and spanish absinthe...

By Scanion on Sunday, March 24, 2002 - 04:39 pm: Edit

Lordhobgoblin,

Let's bring this full circle to the beginning of the thread. You commented that a service-based system would be better than the current system.

Could you elaborate on that? I am imagining that attempting to remove the profit motive would result in more expensive products.

Do you believe that some products would be better with a service-based system, or do you believe most products would be improved?

By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, March 22, 2002 - 11:58 am: Edit

Scanion,

I don't believe poor=good rich=bad. I believe poor=bad in all circumstances. I don't believe that poverty is necessary. I don't believe that in our world of abundance, poverty is inevitable or justifiable.

As to my point about assembly workers and CEOs. You made the statement that our society justly rewards productivity with higher pay and therefore implying that those who work for lower wages on assembly line are only a tiny fraction as productive as their CEO. I was pointing out that this is not the case and that our society does not reward people according to their productivity. This belief is a fallacy that works in favour of those who hold the reins of power.

Yes your explanation on labour does represent a perception of capitalist business principles. For a system that often spouts so much about the value of individualism it sees it quite natural to reduce the value of a man to a mere commodity to be bought, sold and discarded as needed, the same value that was held by plantation slaveowners (its only regulation that protects us). The needs of the 'business' are the only value cherished and of course this equates to the 'needs' of those who hold most power. The people on the assembly line are no more than arbitrary machines that breathe, cogs in the wheel. Our society rewards people depending on how much power they wield and not on how productive they are.

As to your view on labour not having any value. What exactly would you have without labour? The only value of anything is the time and effort put in by men and women to design, produce, sell it etc. Without labour the item simply would not exist. The item is produced by labour and not by 'market forces'.

Anyway I've had these arguments before on the forum with staunch suporters of the current fashion of right-wing 'free-market' thinking and all that happens is that we go round in circles as we base our understanding of 'value' on very different foundations.

If you are genuinely interested in finding out about Marx's view on labour and capital (and as you've read the Communist Manifesto I presume you are at least moderately interested) then may I suggest the abridged version of Capital (edited by David McLellan ISBN no 0-19-283122-4. It is available in paperback by Oxford University Press for less than $15 and contains most of Volume 1 of Capital as well as key chapters from Volume 3. Volume 1 of Capital is essential reading if you want any understanding of Marx's views on capital and labour. The Communist manifesto is more of an up-beat revolutionary wake-up call (but has next to no economic content) whereas Capital is solely about Marxist economics. It does however make very dry reading and is heavy going but it is the most important piece of Marxist writing and you cannot have any understanding of Marxist economics unless you read it.

Hobgoblin

By Scanion on Thursday, March 21, 2002 - 05:39 pm: Edit

I am not a Marx expert. However I have read some of Marx' writings. I'm basing my statements on Marx' Communist Manifesto.

Note that I said some people think rich=bad, poor=good, not Marx himself.

Your statement that the Ford CEO doesn't make the cars is interesting. It suggests that unless the CEO is doing the actual labor, then his value is questionable. That does sound very Marx. I do not believe the labor has inherent value. It is valuable only if there is demand. Furthermore, if the CEO were working on the assembly line, then he should probably be fired, because that isn't his job. His job is to make sure his direct reports are doing their jobs. Salaries are mostly determined by demand. The supply of quality CEOs is small, and the responsibility is very high. I'm not saying some CEOs don't suck, some are really bad. I'm just explaining the value of CEOs, and why they are paid so much. I feel like I'm explaining basic business principles. Is it not?

What do you mean when you say you don't believe in poverty? Can you elaborate?

By _Blackjack on Thursday, March 21, 2002 - 02:04 pm: Edit


Quote:

Does the assembly worker in a Ford car factory not make any of the cars produced? Does the CEO of Ford produce all the cars himself? Is a poorly paid factory worker or farm-hand not producing the goods sold? Your definition of 'most productive' seems to be blindly synonymous with 'most powerful'.



Um, yeah. I mean, when is the last time you think Bill Gates coded anything, hmm? Our society, in general, does not reward productivity so much as guile.

By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, March 21, 2002 - 01:53 pm: Edit

Scanion,

First off you confuse Marxism with left-wing idealism. Marxism is not idealistic, it is mechanistic. Marx did not think in terms of good and evil, right and wrong. Marxism holds that mankind forges it's own consciousness, that consciousness develops as a result of history, that it is progressively changing. There can be no definitive right or wrong, there is only the development and evolution of human society. You'll find no idealism in the writings of Marx, no crap about "the Evils of Capitalism". You'll find no "rich person = bad, poor person = good" claptrap in Marx's writings. Marxism is a materialistic philosophy where accumulation of wealth is indeed paramount. The difference is that Marx thinks of society as a single unit rather than thinking of single individuals. He thinks of our progressive future in terms of collective accumulation of wealth rather than individual accumulation of wealth. Individuals working together in unison rather than dehumanising each other and viewing each other not as fellow human beings but simply as a means to generate capital for oneself (which is how CEOs view their workforce). Marx's view of Communism liberates the individual and cherishes man's existence as a human individual. Capitalism, rather than valuing individualism, reduces the individual to a unit of production to be bought and sold.

Anyway as for the most productive people in our society, who actually makes the items you buy? Does the assembly worker in a Ford car factory not make any of the cars produced? Does the CEO of Ford produce all the cars himself? Is a poorly paid factory worker or farm-hand not producing the goods sold? Your definition of 'most productive' seems to be blindly synonymous with 'most powerful'.

I am not a believer in "the noble poor" as you put it. I do not believe in any form of poverty. Yes I am an admirer of Marx (this certainly won't surprise anyone who has been on this forum for any length of time). I believe that a lot of his ideas make a great deal of sense. I also believe he happened to get a lot of the details wrong but the overall thrust makes sense. He was afterall,like Hegel, a philosopher and not a scientist (although they both claimed there work to be "scientfic") therefore he was not unusual in this regard.

Perhaps you should take the time to read some Marx. It's not easy to criticise something until you have an understanding of what you're criticising. I'd suggest for starters, Volume 1 of Capital (a bit dry but essential), The Communist Manifesto (much more uplifting and readable), Karl Marx Selected Writings (edited by David McLellan) and perhaps Marx and Engels Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy (by Lewis Feuer). Marx wrote so much stuff that it would take decades of solid reading to get through it but the above books should be a sufficient diet for most mortals.

Hobgoblin

By _Blackjack on Thursday, March 21, 2002 - 09:32 am: Edit


Quote:

Taking from those who are the most productive, and giving to those that are the least productive is wrong. It is the exact opposite of how it should be.



That might be tue f everyone was of equal ability and had equal opportunity, but that just isn't the case. Should children be deprived because they can't fend for themselves? The old? The disabled? Such attitudes might have been NECESSARY when there was not enough to go around, but the were never RIGHT. In an environment where there is more than enough for everyone, it is both humane and in one's own best interest to try to provide for everyone's basic needs, if for no other reason than poverty and privation encourage social unrest.

We TRIED the whole "taking from the least productive and giving to the most productive", back before we developed civilization and government. Hobbes called that life "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short..."

Or, to quote Monty Python:

"He steals from the poor, and gives to the rich...
...Stupid bitch!"

By Scanion on Wednesday, March 20, 2002 - 07:42 pm: Edit

Taking from those who are the most productive, and giving to those that are the least productive is wrong. It is the exact opposite of how it should be.

For some, Marx' communism is seen as a hopeful ideal. But for others, they see it as a punishment for the rich, and a reward for the poor. More simply, some people think: rich = bad, poor = good.

Besides, many people don't work to their ability, and never will. If that is true in the US, it would be even more true in a Marx society. The incentive is to not work.

Why do you even like Marx' Communism? Are you a believer in the noble poor?

By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, March 20, 2002 - 12:11 pm: Edit

Scanion,

Where do you get the idea that I have anything against the US style economy? But is it a free market? Stop dreaming. Sure most Western economists refer to Western markets as free markets, how did Soviet economists refer to it? Can the EU freely export steel into the US? Only if they are prepared to pay up to a 30% import duty. How free a market is that?

As to your comments on "Each according to his abilty..." I am not side-tracking. All I have asked you to do is to justify your statement, which you seem unable to do. Your only attempt at a justification for it is along the lines of an 'all commies are evil bastards' type of argument. Very rational I must say.

Before you start spouting on like this I suggest you actually find out something about what you are attacking. Then you will be able to make a sensible attack based on facts.

Permit me to educate you on a few very basic points concerning the writings of Karl Marx.

1. Karl Marx made the "from each according to his ability..." statement and not Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Castro or any of the other bogey-men you no doubt despise.

3.Marxism is basically a explanation of history (and a prediction for the future) that explains that society passes through various stages of development. In a simplified summary, Tribal Society then Feudalism then Capitalism then Communism and so on.

3. If you had actually read any Marx you would understand that the USSR and China do not fall into Marx's definition of Communism. According to Marx a society can only pass into a Communist stage of development from a Capitalist stage of development. Therefore the USSR and China could not have been and cannot be Communist societies (under Marx's understanding of the term Communism). OK so these societies call themselves Communist and thus we have a different definition of Communism from Marx's definition. Two different definitions, two different societies.

4. Marx did not view Capitalism as 'Evil'. According to Marx, Capitalism is just one step in the progressive development of mankind. According to Marx, Capitalism is therefore necessary for the progressive development of mankind. So how could Marx have viewed Capitalism as 'Evil'?

You attacked one of Marx's well quoted lines. Your attack was therefore against Marx and not against any societies that sprung up after his demise. You should be able to justify your attack but you cannot as you appear to have no knowledge at all about the subject of your attack.

If you want to get involved in a debate with me on the pros and cons of Marxism (there are plenty of both pros and cons) you'd need to get a little bit more educated on the subject.

Hobgoblin

By _Blackjack on Wednesday, March 20, 2002 - 09:25 am: Edit

Or, in the short form, Communism isn't evil, FORCING Communism on people is evil, and isn't really Communism.

By Mr_Rabid on Tuesday, March 19, 2002 - 08:26 pm: Edit

Communism is not evil inherently.

It just requires that everyone involved, in the whole freakin country, really try to make it work. And that isn't what happened in the countries that tried it, because they were unable to impress that ethic on more than a handful of their people, and because the people in charge started out as bastards, hiring other bastards to succeed them.

By Scanion on Tuesday, March 19, 2002 - 07:47 pm: Edit

Lordhobgoblin,

Some might argue that Communist China is a heavily regulated free-market. They would be fucked in the head.

Most economists refer to the US economy as a free market, even though it has regulations.

Your argument appears to be: any regulation isn't really a free market. Presumably, no free market really exists. So if that is true, what do you have against the US-style market? According to you, it is not a free market.

So, please name a country that has a free market economy that you do not like.

Re: My statement is essentially "communism is evil". Again, you appear to be in la-la land. If you disagree with "communism is evil", then fine, make some point why you disagree. Otherwise, you sound like a dope acting like you have no idea what I am talking about.

To summarize: stop side-tracking.

By Mr_Rabid on Tuesday, March 19, 2002 - 03:33 pm: Edit

The free market system depends on people wanting to do a good job.

If the steel company would rather go out of business than produce inferior steel, your bridges don't fall down.

If all they are concerned with is the money... you are fucked. You can regulate them down to the movement of their very atoms, and they will find a way to pervert it and screw the consumer if it means more money.

Plato, was it, said the more laws you need, the more fucked your society is?

Good action must come from within. Regulations should be a guide, not a straitjacket. If they need to be a straitjacket, look to the ethics and the spirit of your people.

That is the Enron collapse traced to the source- that men should be willing to do such things to one another.

By Mr_Rabid on Tuesday, March 19, 2002 - 03:29 pm: Edit

"A good point well made, but why do we assume that we always need to organise society on a very large scale? Could society not exist as smaller community units rather than vast national units?"

No. The smaller your society is, the greater the odds a larger one will gobble you up. Empires rise by eating little countries.

Now- here's one for you. Little societies, I mean really little, are possible so long as they can do two things.

Agree (somehow, and I don't know how at this point) on the distribution of natural resources without resort to conflict.

Maintain (and adhere to) a mutual defense pact with one another, with any one of them in need of aid to be defended by the rest.

By _Blackjack on Tuesday, March 19, 2002 - 12:17 pm: Edit


Quote:

Government regulation. Specifically, because Enron was in the process of switching to a different 401(k) benefits provider, they were *required* by federal law to freeze everyone's accounts for a period of time.



Which wouldn't have been a problem if they hadn't been involved in bizzare, illegal, secret dealings which brought the company down.

My point was that no amount of consumer knowlege can protect the consumers if the corporations are colluding in secret.

By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, March 19, 2002 - 11:42 am: Edit

Scanion,

So where do you draw the line between a free-market and a controlled market?

A free-market is by it's very nature an un-regulated market. Surely a free-market is a market in which the market forces regulate themselves and as the market is controlled by consumers these forces act in the interest of the consumers?

A regulated market is not a free market. This is not just an argument on definitions. Where do you draw the line on regulation of the market? Where you draw the line may be way far too much interference and control for someone else? What about 'Communist' China, do they have a free market? Someone could argue that their degree of regulation is simply regulation to safeguard the population from the harmful effects of an un-regulated market.

Your view on a regulated market (and we do regulate it very heavily indeed) being a free market if you believe the regulations to be justifiable means that whether a market is free or not is all down to the individual's view. Unless you are arguing on the basis that you are 100% right you are simply using the term 'free-market' to represent the type of market that you personally believe is right. Therefore your definition of 'free-market' is ill-considered baloney (no offence intended).

Anyway you still haven't answered my challenge to justify your statement that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." is true Evil. Do you refuse to justify your statement because your comment was ill-considered, knee-jerk, 'reds-under-the-bed', prejudice.

Hobgoblin

By Scanion on Monday, March 18, 2002 - 08:10 pm: Edit

Free market isn't noble, a utopia, or acting in the best interest in people.

Caveat emptor, but as you have pointed out people still get screwed. Some of it is the fault of the consumer, but let's be realistic. If people are getting injured or killed because of a dangerous product, then I expect the government to step in and put a hurt on the producer of the bad product.

If you want to call *any* regulation on free market no longer free market, I feel like that is just an argument on definitions. Is that really what is important?

By Scanion on Monday, March 18, 2002 - 07:58 pm: Edit

Thanks for bringing in the Enron 401(k) issue. The whole reason that Enron employees got screwed on their 401(k) is because... (drum roll)

Government regulation. Specifically, because Enron was in the process of switching to a different 401(k) benefits provider, they were *required* by federal law to freeze everyone's accounts for a period of time.

By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, March 18, 2002 - 01:23 pm: Edit

Rabid

A good point well made, but why do we assume that we always need to organise society on a very large scale? Could society not exist as smaller community units rather than vast national units?

Hobgoblin

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation