☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆

  • 3.27K Posts
Joined 5 years ago
Cake day: January 18th, 2020


  • I have addressed what you said repeatedly in fact, and even gave you concrete examples. The most hilarious part about this is that you make it clear that you’re utterly clueless on a subject you’re attempting to argue confidently about. Here are just a few obvious factors that lead to an emphasis on short-term planning and decision-making.

    The primary objective of corporations is to maximize shareholder value. This translates into a focus on short-term financial gains, such as quarterly earnings, to keep investors happy and maintain or boost stock prices. In fact, executive compensation packages are often tied to short-term financial performance, incentivizing managers to focus on immediate results rather than long-term sustainability.

    The practice of issuing quarterly earnings reports, while providing transparency, can also reinforce the focus on short-term results. Companies go to great lengths to meet or exceed analysts’ expectations, often at the expense of long-term strategic goals. Likewise, investors, especially those with short-term investment horizons, often expect quick returns and may react negatively to any signs of underperformance, putting pressure on companies to deliver immediate results.

    Furthermore, the competition in capitalist markets pushes companies to prioritize short-term strategies to gain a competitive edge, secure market share, or respond to rivals’ actions. The ability to execute short term strategies comes at the expense of long-term planning. What happens five years down the road isn’t going to matter if the company can’t survive the current year.

    Overall, the pressure to demonstrate quarterly profits and compete effectively is a fundamental aspect of capitalist enterprise, that leads to a short-term focus that’s directly at odds with long-term interests of companies or society as a whole. Hence why nobody with a clue on the subject was surprised by the way companies behaved with regards to Russian market.

    Don’t have to take my word for it though. Here’s an article from the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance exploring the tension between short-term pressures and long-term value creation in corporate decision-making. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2019/06/20/the-modern-dilemma-balancing-short-and-long-term-business-pressures/

  • I live under a fully functional social democratic welfare state. But it’s adorable that you think you can assume whatever suits your agenda.

    It’s adorable you think capitalist states are democratic.

    Books have been written about how the earth is actually flat instead of a spherical. That doesn’t mean the content is correct.

    The mechanics here aren’t very difficult to understand. The flat earth analogy is very apt to your denialism of the basic principles of financial capitalism though.

    Truth is, writing headlines about companies that every 5 years put together a solid and safe 20 year plan in accordance to previous estimates and slowly pulling out investments and assets from places where the risk of geopolitical conflict is higher than the norm, just simply doesn’t generate a lot of clicks.

    Truth is that the global capitalist system has crashes roughly once a decade like clockwork. Absolutely hilarious that you think that constitutes a solid and safe plan. 😂

    1. you were the one to bring up soul in reply

    Well reading it I’m not seeing any real studies or math or anything, just back and forth with people saying “Well it looks like we can’t find a soul anywhere, therefore without any real evidence consciousness is just an illusion and we as people don’t really exist, just sort of… believing we do because of brain juices.”

    1. It quotes plenty of studies that have data. This is an aggregate analysis of a lot of prior work. It’s hard for me to take your comment seriously when you ignore this.

    2. What I actually pointed out was that you’ve demonstrated lack of understanding of what science is in your comment. I even explained specifically what the nature of your misunderstanding was.

    I no longer see any reason to respond to this discussion.

    At least you know when to stop digging.

  • The soul is not a hypothesis. The idea has no basis in science. Period.

    “Well we know conciousness isn’t magic, so clearly it doesn’t exist at all in any meaningful way!”

    Again, not what the paper says. I get the impression that you didn’t actually read it, and just keep making straw man arguments here.

    And, how do we know there isn’t a non-physical reality from which this reality is itself an emergent property? That seems more likely than “People don’t REALLY exist”

    Empiricism is the basis for scientific method. Science doesn’t deal with hypothetical that cannot be measured using experimental means. The fact that you posit this suggests you don’t actually understand how scientific process actually works or what science is fundamentally.

  • Science consists of having a theory and testing the theory empirically. This work focuses on the theoretical model, and references numerous studies supporting their position.

    therefore without any real evidence consciousness is just an illusion and we as people don’t really exist, just sort of… believing we do because of brain juices

    That’s not what it says at all. What it’s actually saying is that what we perceive as consciousness is a byproduct of the subconscious and the likely evolutionary value of this construct is to facilitate social transfer of experience. It’s an argument against mind-body dualism which is itself a deeply unscientific concept.

    Furthermore, the whole idea of a soul is laughably unscientific since it posits that there’s this magical entity that’s not an emergent property of the physical reality.