People making ALOT in second life

Indeed, after the internet bubble burst there was several people left in a state of complete bankrupcy. But it was not only the average joe's you name, also quite a big number of middle class and upper-middle class people got in this trouble.

To those who dont know, the famous crash of the 29, the one that almost destroyed america was due to heavy speculation in the stock market. The problem was that a lot of people was making money by just speculating over non-existant goods.

This keep growing until the crash was simply unstopable. I think the best way to see how america may be in the coming years is seeing the beggining of peter jackson's king kong. The way it shows the misery of the 30s is overwhelming.

 

Hawanja, I think you're failing to see how things relate. Yes, corporations doing all the things they do in the real world more directly cause more suffering than what's going here in the game, but the thing is the two are related. Capitalist pigs would not be able to do the harmful and unethical things that they do in the real world if there wasn't a mindset in the general public that allowed them to do these things. The profiteering going on in MMO games is an example of the mindset that allows the bigger things to go unchecked and at the same time it strengthens the mindset. It's perfectly expressed by Mr. Casual: "I don't see how it's unethical if they're willing to pay." This is neo-capitalism par excellence. It doesn't matter what you do as long as you have customers.

This kind of thinking is subtly woven into the fabric of our minds our minds by society. A particular obvious example I heard about recently was a new children's show soming out soon that will feature a character based on Warren Buffet and is aimed at teaching Sesame Street age kids the basic concepts and so-called responsibilities of investment and free market capitalism. Now *THAT* is unethical. Economics and particularly free market capitalism have become--especially in the last 15 years or so--the underlying paradigm of our society to the point where they are on the level of such historical social paradigms as modernism or romanticism. Meaning that capitalism is the very cognitive structure through which people are understanding the world as shown by words and concepts that have become common in recent years and the very fact that someone can say, "I don't see how it's unethical if they're willing to pay," without even thinking about it.

And Shadowlayer, this is why I don't think that laws are the way to go. It's not such a simple thing to change. Laws will not have a positive effect because the problem is not just in actions that are wrong, it's in the very attitude that we're bringing to the world and to our interactions with one another. Like I said before, laws don't make people good, for that you need a lot of work beginning with a proper education.

Saying that I'm a neo-liberal just because I don't think new laws are a good idea is absolutely ridiculous. The neo-liberalism that you're talking about is the same the neo-capitalism I've been talking about, in the States we call it neo-capitalism because term "liberal" has different connotations than it does in Europe or Latin America. I am most definittely not a neo-liberal. You're letting an incredbily superficial similarity in the fact that we are both against legalistic solutions blind you to the otherwise overwhelming differences between what I'm saying and what neo-liberals say. Disagreements don't have to be so diametrical as you seem to think. It's possible for me to agree with the neo-liberals that laws are a misguided form of governance (or that "governance" is mis-guided to begin with) and still disagree with just about *EVERYTHING* else that they believe.


...word is bondage...

 

This is an issue that can only be addressed by anthropology. Capitalism is most prevalant in the US because of the destruction of the "extended family" Most people in the US do not have large families to go to for help, so they must take out loans and on a certain level act "greedy" If people without large social networks don't take out loans and put aside all thier greed they are in for a world of financial trouble (at the subsistance level) I think the real issue is the destruction of the extended family (NOT the nuclear family) becasue people must rely on thier individual income and prehaps the contribution of a "significant other" to survive day to day. Even if people in the US did not consume there would be consequences on the individual level (not just broad nationwide economic issues)

Here are some real life examples of non-consumption consequences:

Immigrants to the US decide to be very frugel with thier money. Thier children also don't consume and are generally hard workers and average students in high school, they get by and get B's in school. However since they and thier parents don't consume goods they forgo a computer and other buisness related technology. How does this person fair in the job market with or without a college degree? Are they trainable on PC software?

The answer is: they do poorly in the job market and they are almost untrainable regardless of whether they have college degree or not. I know because I interview apllicants like this at least once a year. You would be surprised how many hard working educated people hit the "glass ceiling" as call center supervisors or similar due to a lack of buisness software skills and PC skills. (and, NO, trade schools don't beat using the stuff at home day to day in your spare time or having used it since you were a kid)

My point is people have to consume beyond the basics today, because consumer technology now permiates buiness and if your are not familiar with that consumer junk your job options are going suffer in the white collar realm

 

But why would someone who doesn't want to jump into the consumer frenzy and "buy" a five bedroom subdivision house on a 30-year mortgage be looking for a white collar job in the first place?

However, I do agree with what you say about the lack of extended families--or at least a support system of some type--being a big part of why our society is the way it is. That's why communes or at least co-ops are the solutions to these problems people most often use. I live in Mendocino County in Northern California and here what's called economic localization is a big movement and theres co-ops for everything from farm-fresh produce to electricity to yaks. You're absolutely right that we need the support of other humans in order to live a life more free of the capitalist system, but that's not really such a huge obstacle.


...word is bondage...

 

You know SFD, I think you're generalizing a little too much there. People see bad stuff going on in the news and such and have a tendency to extend that image into the rest of society. The truth is there is no gigantic breakdown of the moral order going on in the United States. The country is not overrun with greedy psycopaths backstabbing thier own family members because of the abject poverty imposed on them by thier corporate overlords. We are lead to think that all the children in the country are hooked on drugs, whoring themselves out for crack and ready to flip out and engage in Columbine-style shootings. Or that the inner cities have degenerated into dangerous no-man's lands of gangs and crime. Nothing could be further from the truth. The country is full of decent educated people who are trying to live thier lives to the best of thier ability. It is true that powergrabs by certain elements in our government and thier corporate controllers are a daunting challenge that must be faced, and to see all the bullshit shenanagins that are going on with this current government really is disheartening. But to say that somehow all of the American people have been brainwashed into not being able to tell when something is against thier own interests implies that people are not in control of thier own destiny, which in my opinion is untrue.

It looks like you're well aware of the various social movements that are sprining up accross the nation to counterbalance this swing to the right. What you're saying is a very common trap when it comes to this kind of thinking. Becasue sometimes it does appear that the general public is wholly and fully controlled in every which way when they tolerate scandal after scandal without a burp of active meanigful dissent.

Here's what I mean: You see a video game where people are making money, so based on the model of the world we live in where large corporations are running around with too much power you automatically assume that's wrong. While in reality all that's going on is someone paying real money for property. Does it make so much of a difference that the property is "virtual?" You're right, I don't see how it relates. Becasue on one hand we have gigantic megaconglomerates starting wars to force thier way into forgien markets and strip natural resources for thier own profit (like in say, Iraq) and on the other hand we have somebody paying a large sum of money for a virtual Island so he can make a Virtual resort so people playing a video game can go and spend thier money. People are dying on one hand while destroying everything else, while on the other hand money is being exchanged with free will. That's apples and oranges dude. I don't see Second Life as sympomatic with the evil of capitalism. I see it as the logical outgrowth of capitalism, free and fair capitalism. As soon as they start making it so that nobody else can buy thier own island then it won't be fair anymore. Then I think you'll be right in saying that it's bullshit.

My personal opinon is that we should tapir capitalism with government oversight, and use tax dollars that are going to be collected anyway (no matter who is in office) for the welfare of our citizens (which yes, can include war, when it is justified. But that's another discussion.) That seems to me to be pretty close to what we have. Yeah, we're a capitalistic country with the largest expenditure of our government going to Social Security and Medicare (in peacetime anyway.) We have plenty of laws governing the merger and management of corporations, racketeering, etc.What we're seeing with the ultraconservatives in power is thier attempt to strip away that saftey net, which is bullshit and so far doesn't seem to be happening, for the most part. The Enron scandal, the failure to protect people from hurriance Katrina, the election of 2000 and subsequent war in Iraq, these events are exposing the shortfalls in our system, which is far from perfect. Don't mistake the apparent victory of the evil men in power to think that all of us support them.

 

You cant appeal to people's self control, because people in general dont have any autocontrol, that's why buyin until you're flat broke is such an epidemic today.

See for example what FDR did: he made a lot of laws against speculation, explotation of the workers, he opened public factories that in some cases didnt bring any profits to the table but nobody got fired from those factories, and at the same time they provided cheap products for the people in a time were every other capitalist was selling at outrageous prices.

At the other hand we got neoconservatives with their "freedom" of trade. What's funny is that the reason why capitalism is so appealing is becos everybody thinks they can be the tyccon in the cristal tower, and therefore they keep going even if their lives deteriorate even more.

The point is you cant trust people: they are against sweatshop but theres a sale in the GAP and you see them buyin the place. The say they support gay's rights but then they vote for a guy that would send every gay to a concentration field if he could.

Laws are there to mantain order. People cant even defend themselves, how are they going to defend society?

 

If it makes you feel better to think that the actions and attitudes you take for granted in yourself and the people you know aren't intimately related to all those greedy, death-dealing monsters "somewhere out there" that you don't like, then I'll probably never be able to convince you otherwise.

I can only repeat what I said before, the relation is that your acceptance of the profit motive as a governing rule of human interaction is the enabler that allows greater atrocities to occur when great power operates under the same assumption. It's like some people were saying earlier in this thread: "If I could do it, I would." Your attitudes given your position as a single actor with no direct power are not such a threat to humanity, but in a position of power singularly or in knowing or unknowing cooperation with others, the very same attitudes are responsible for all threats. This is how things relate.

Who do you think these people are that need to be checked? Who are these uber-capitalists that need government oversight? They're just normal people; some of them work for companies, some of them invest in companies, some of them are customers of companies, some of them are politicians making decisions that affect companies. That's it. There's no one else involved in the crimes against humanity that you seem to agree need to be curtailed. No one but the "decent educated people who are trying to live thier lives to the best of thier ability" that you talk about. The crimes come out of them because they give their assent to the laws of capitalism and because taken all together they have great power in the world. So what we need is a change of mindset, so that all these normal people view themselves and each other and their prospects in the world together quite differently. Then and only then will a change come.

But like I said, I don't hink I can really convince you of what I'm saying because that would require a pretty deep change in the substrata of your worldview, which just isn't going to happen in a discussion on an Internet forum. What I would do, though, is encourage you to take direct responsibility for the proper governance and oversight of the forces that you do recognize as harmful in the world. All that stuff in your last paragraph. Make sure that the laws you consider necessary stay in place and are enforced. Keep a close eye on all the players. Don't assume that anyone else is doing it. Be responsible yourself, because you are responsible in any case since you have the ability to respond. If you really do that, I am pretty confident that you will come to understand exactly what I mean and agree with me.


...word is bondage...

 

I totally understand this point, but its hard to explain to lay people. Like I said earlier anthropologist have already studied the Phenomena and the only solution is to maintain large extended family networks. Its more than just help for individuals, it includes prestige and the influence of elders as a BIG deterant to all behaviors like consumption and crime. However the "nuclear family genie" has already been let out of the bottle, so in the end people act on "impulse" rather than "extended family directed behavior" In the US there is absolutley no way to bring back the extended family system. Western democratic government and capitalism are essentially against extended family networks in a "technical" sense. The application of "Freedom" under these terms includes the destruction of extended family networks. Only the super rich have networks that function like traditional family networks. Do you really think they want regular people doing things their way. Inheritance tax is a good example of how western democracy discourages regular people from maintaining strong extended family networks (do you really think Paris Hilton will ever have to worry about inheritance tax, NOPE)

 

Are you kidding me i can only imagine how shitty the gameplay is in those minigames.

 

Look I agree with you in most of your topics, but the problem is that what you are saying is that we need more laws.

In theory there are thousands of ways to solve these problems, but in practice the only one are laws. Why? because as you said it most people would do bad things if they could, but since they cant go shoothing a rifle trought the street they dont do it.

You talk about education, and thats cool too (and necesary) but you cant rely only on that, because one way or another the people involved in that system still have the freedom to do nasty things.

When you learn about law you see there's nothing wrong with it, the problem are otehr issues outside the law. Politics is a big one, since we had laws that would send every memeber of the board of Enron to the joint, but when dubya raised his finger every law had to be modified or dismissed.