[weambulance]

I drink a lot of mead and homebrew hard cider (~10% ABV). Good enough for the vikings and the founding fathers, good enough for me.

My favorite beers are craft beers (Alaskan Oatmeal Stout and Amber) but most craft beer tastes like brewed piss. All the strange flavors and recipes remind me of the weird hipster burgers trendy places make. Stop fucking with perfection guys, just give me a loose ground burger with american cheese and ketchup on a kaiser roll.

I don't see why anyone should care what another person likes to eat or drink. Some guy wants to drink appletinis, fine, whatever. Everyone has different tastes.

As an aside, I have no idea how the thread ended up here.

[Suits]

I've created a new thread for Craft Beer Discussion so that we can keep this one on topic.

Let's get back to picking apart young people who weren't born young enough to purchase a house that was on the precipice of rising 800% in value.

[Fortis]

I'd say one of the saving graces of our generation is the internet. I know it isn't the solution to all the problems we have, but imagine life without RVF and google. I know I'd be way more in debt and would still be pissing around in the States instead of living abroad.

[roberto]

How many here have actually worked in a brewery? After two hours I was ready to pass out. It's one hell of a heady atmosphere, and at the end of the work day the last thing I wanted was a couple of free pints with the boss. I did it anyway and promptly threw up

That said, I get the hipster hate. Brit culture is different- real ales as they are known here are more a working class thing particularly in the North.

Judge a man by the company he keeps and his actions, not the beer he drinks.

For those of you who have an interest in the possible scenarios that may unfold as automation takes over, this thread is a good read. It started off on a similar theme to this one.
thread-27538.html

[doc holliday]

First appetizers, and now craft beer? Its existential debates like this which keep me coming back to this place. As to craft beer, never really tried it since I don't drink beer so much anymore but I can see why dudes would prefer it to pisswater like Bud or Miller Light. Those are truly awful beers. You can enjoy a fine beer without getting too geeky about it which unfortunately a lot of guys do. As far as G Manifesto, who gives a shit about what he has to say. No ones ever met him so for all we know he's some fat bearded dude sitting in someone's basement trolling everyone while he eats microwave pizza pockets and drinks craft beer.

[lemko]

(02-25-2016 10:09 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 07:48 AM)Ice Wrote:  

(02-24-2016 08:59 PM)Phil Jackson Wrote:  

^Bullshit, my fellow Americans just need to cut the shit, increase their capital, stop the violence, and live below their needs. Jobs are being outsourced because people are willing to work for less in other countries. As a country we are being outworked, outhustled, period.With our crappy work ethic and education level as a whole, we are lucky to get what we have compared to a India or China.

Well yeah of course people are willing to work for less in other countries lol - the average wage in Thailand is like 300 USD / month.

Do you want to compete with that?

Of course the cost of living is a lot lower in these countries too.

It's not going to work creating a low-wage sector in the West that tries to compete with 3rd world counties. Or rather, it's not desirable. It will lead to extreme wage / lifestyle disparity - because the profits are increasingly going to the top 10% - that development is already well under way, especially in the US.

Do you want to put all responsibility to not slip into the underclass on the individual? Yeah sure, you can say that it's everyone's own responsibility to make the best out of their life. But there are certain developments that are simply outside of the individual's sphere of influence - namely loss of jobs as a result of outsourcing, automation etc., globalisation and increasing competition with countries where cost of living is extremely low, rising college tuition etc. These things also need to be taken into account.

Companies and governments also have a certain responsibility that their countries don't turn into a nightmarish dystopia where 80% of the population fight for survival.

This pisses me off. You get big hot to trot MBAs saying, "well why not outsource? American workers suck for reason x,y, and z".

Outsourcing to the 3rd world is pathetic. These countries don't have healthcare, paved roads, schools worth attending (unless you go private), OSHA, child labor laws, and other 1st world amenities these C level folks take advantage of.

A C level exec should be forced to live in these 3rd world shit holes to see the consequences of what he's doing by outsourcing and not live in a gated community to avoid it. When you outsource you say, "I don't mind undrinkable water, working electricity, and well 1st world comforts."

Not to mention a flagrant disregard for the environment. I don't think the United States prior to the EPA ever got as polluted as present-day China.

[Blaster]

(03-05-2016 09:04 PM)lemko Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 10:09 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 07:48 AM)Ice Wrote:  

(02-24-2016 08:59 PM)Phil Jackson Wrote:  

^Bullshit, my fellow Americans just need to cut the shit, increase their capital, stop the violence, and live below their needs. Jobs are being outsourced because people are willing to work for less in other countries. As a country we are being outworked, outhustled, period.With our crappy work ethic and education level as a whole, we are lucky to get what we have compared to a India or China.

Well yeah of course people are willing to work for less in other countries lol - the average wage in Thailand is like 300 USD / month.

Do you want to compete with that?

Of course the cost of living is a lot lower in these countries too.

It's not going to work creating a low-wage sector in the West that tries to compete with 3rd world counties. Or rather, it's not desirable. It will lead to extreme wage / lifestyle disparity - because the profits are increasingly going to the top 10% - that development is already well under way, especially in the US.

Do you want to put all responsibility to not slip into the underclass on the individual? Yeah sure, you can say that it's everyone's own responsibility to make the best out of their life. But there are certain developments that are simply outside of the individual's sphere of influence - namely loss of jobs as a result of outsourcing, automation etc., globalisation and increasing competition with countries where cost of living is extremely low, rising college tuition etc. These things also need to be taken into account.

Companies and governments also have a certain responsibility that their countries don't turn into a nightmarish dystopia where 80% of the population fight for survival.

This pisses me off. You get big hot to trot MBAs saying, "well why not outsource? American workers suck for reason x,y, and z".

Outsourcing to the 3rd world is pathetic. These countries don't have healthcare, paved roads, schools worth attending (unless you go private), OSHA, child labor laws, and other 1st world amenities these C level folks take advantage of.

A C level exec should be forced to live in these 3rd world shit holes to see the consequences of what he's doing by outsourcing and not live in a gated community to avoid it. When you outsource you say, "I don't mind undrinkable water, working electricity, and well 1st world comforts."

Not to mention a flagrant disregard for the environment. I don't think the United States prior to the EPA ever got as polluted as present-day China.

The problem is that owners are selling out their workers and their countries to reap the lion's share of the (short-term) benefits of labor competition. They are giving away trade secrets to increase profit margins.

When the jobs go overseas, money from American consumers goes overseas and doesn't come back (with the stockholders taking their cut)

When the jobs go to illegals living locally, those wages (that aren't sent home) stay in the economy but drive demand for goods and services that cater to low-income ethnic consumers; which changes the local culture.

[Captainstabbin]

(02-25-2016 10:09 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

This pisses me off. You get big hot to trot MBAs saying, "well why not outsource? American workers suck for reason x,y, and z".

Outsourcing to the 3rd world is pathetic. These countries don't have healthcare, paved roads, schools worth attending (unless you go private), OSHA, child labor laws, and other 1st world amenities these C level folks take advantage of.

A C level exec should be forced to live in these 3rd world shit holes to see the consequences of what he's doing by outsourcing and not live in a gated community to avoid it. When you outsource you say, "I don't mind undrinkable water, working electricity, and well 1st world comforts."

It's not the business's fault. They're just competing to get their products produced as cheaply as possible.

If the American consumer cared about American jobs, they would buy products produced in America. It's as simple as that.

Of course, that would mean an iPhone would cost $2000. All but a few Apple fanboys would switch to Samsung the next day.

[samsamsam]

Back in the day a man could work for the same company and retire with a pension. But that employer/employee dynamic of the 50s changed. Those that were super ambitious, possibly greedy would apply, found ways to shift more money into their pocket. Shareholders didn't have patience for the long term, the stock market is Vegas.

But if you guys are saying "I wouldn't funnel more money into my pocket legally," well either you are a saint or a liar.

It is like people who want to earn enough to live in NYC or LA. It isn't a fucking right to live there. So you can't afford to live there and because you are stuck with a shitty job, you start protesting for a living wage. Or you can afford to live there but not all the nice toys that our consumption driven society obsessed over. So you start demanding. The businesses try to figure out the lowest amount they can pay to be fully staffed and profitable. It is math.

I hope we don't start ignoring math in this forum. And as I have said before it isn't that I lack compassion for those with debt and not ideal jobs but at some point you gotta start pushing forward. Create something amazing. Or steady and right size your costs. What else can you do?

Part of the movement to ship job overseas was people want cheap shit. They like to buy shit and it is nicer when it is cheaper. Yes, we can debate quality etc. But when cheap shit starts coming in, and domestic companies are losing share or not making profits or losing money. WTF are they supposed to do? Be logical and reasonable.

The companies do what they can get away with by the laws in place. Hopefully, if Trump wins he will change some of the laws (like sheltering money in foreign countries). It is funny because he may change some of the laws that helped make his fortune.

But Rockefellar was a total cock sucker in his youth only when he got old did he start to do good. I guess that is the path, once you learn enough about yourself, you do things that align with your new morals.

[Blaster]

(03-05-2016 11:28 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

Of course, that would mean an iPhone would cost $2000. All but a few Apple fanboys would switch to Samsung the next day.

This is a myth. All production costs do is establish a lower bound for profitability. Actual price is set by the company to maximize profit, usually based on a PED analysis of some sort.

Reports of Apple's profit margins is that they've been from 60% to 40% (they are declining slowly). A 60% profit margin means that less than half the revenue from device sales are going to wage-earners of any sort. That value is all going to the company and its stockholders. (edit: source1, source2)

So if you follow the money, you will see that American consumer money is being split between the stockholders and foreigners.

[Blaster]

Quote:

If the American consumer cared about American jobs, they would buy products produced in America. It's as simple as that.

Many Americans do strictly buy American products. I have family members who are religious about it. But this is a silly naive argument. It is far easier to regulate businesses and trade than it is to try and enforce universal consumer behavior. If you want a smartphone, and none of the smartphones available to buy are made in the US because all of the smartphone manufacturers have agreed to fuck over western workers for higher profits, then the consumer is shit out of luck.

[Blaster]

Quote:

I hope we don't start ignoring math in this forum. And as I have said before it isn't that I lack compassion for those with debt and not ideal jobs but at some point you gotta start pushing forward. Create something amazing. Or steady and right size your costs. What else can you do?

Part of the movement to ship job overseas was people want cheap shit. They like to buy shit and it is nicer when it is cheaper. Yes, we can debate quality etc. But when cheap shit starts coming in, and domestic companies are losing share or not making profits or losing money. WTF are they supposed to do? Be logical and reasonable.

Don't ignore the math but it has to be coupled with an understanding of economics and trade. Although competition does result in cheaper goods, the prime motivation for moving jobs offshore is NOT so that consumers get cheaper goods, it's so that owners can capture a greater share of the value (ie profit).

This is how the stock market can boom while the real wages of Americans remain stagnant.

[262]

(03-06-2016 01:48 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

Don't ignore the math but it has to be coupled with an understanding of economics and trade. Although competition does result in cheaper goods, the prime motivation for moving jobs offshore is NOT so that consumers get cheaper goods, it's so that owners can capture a greater share of the value (ie profit).

This is how the stock market can boom while the real wages of Americans remain stagnant.

Don't ignore the math but it has to be coupled with an understanding of economics and trade. Although competition does result in hotter girls, the prime motivation for importing hot chicks is NOT so that guys get better girls, it's so that players can capture a greater share of the value (ie poosy).

This is how the sexual market can boom while the real dicks of betas remain dry.

[Captainstabbin]

(03-06-2016 01:41 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

Quote:

If the American consumer cared about American jobs, they would buy products produced in America. It's as simple as that.

Many Americans do strictly buy American products. I have family members who are religious about it. But this is a silly naive argument.

I see, on a forum of men, we're going to start with petty insults when we disagree.

[The Beast1]

(03-05-2016 11:28 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 10:09 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

This pisses me off. You get big hot to trot MBAs saying, "well why not outsource? American workers suck for reason x,y, and z".

Outsourcing to the 3rd world is pathetic. These countries don't have healthcare, paved roads, schools worth attending (unless you go private), OSHA, child labor laws, and other 1st world amenities these C level folks take advantage of.

A C level exec should be forced to live in these 3rd world shit holes to see the consequences of what he's doing by outsourcing and not live in a gated community to avoid it. When you outsource you say, "I don't mind undrinkable water, working electricity, and well 1st world comforts."

It's not the business's fault. They're just competing to get their products produced as cheaply as possible.

If the American consumer cared about American jobs, they would buy products produced in America. It's as simple as that.

Of course, that would mean an iPhone would cost $2000. All but a few Apple fanboys would switch to Samsung the next day.

It's a mixture of faults.

It's foolish to think the "market" will decide what is best. The market will do what it is selfishly driven to do and seek the lowest price. That's human nature.

However once upon a time a country was judged by its manufacturing strength. Ivory tower economists have forgotten that when you offshore your domestic industries you also lose a little bit of your sovereignty. Just wait until China wants to start flexing its muscles and we lose our "cheat plastic sh!t" trading partner. Domestic industries will spring up overnight.

You want to bet that those Harrier Air Conditioners getting moved to Mexico are going to be priced lower? Globalization is about lowering your costs so you can capture that wealth and pump it into the stock market. How are Americans without any jobs going to buy all of those gadgets and gizmos?

[nomadbrah]

(03-01-2016 01:10 AM)doc holliday Wrote:  

First appetizers, and now craft beer? Its existential debates like this which keep me coming back to this place. As to craft beer, never really tried it since I don't drink beer so much anymore but I can see why dudes would prefer it to pisswater like Bud or Miller Light. Those are truly awful beers. You can enjoy a fine beer without getting too geeky about it which unfortunately a lot of guys do. As far as G Manifesto, who gives a shit about what he has to say. No ones ever met him so for all we know he's some fat bearded dude sitting in someone's basement trolling everyone while he eats microwave pizza pockets and drinks craft beer.

You can just drink a good European beer. I don't drink much beer anymore (whisky and whine), but in bars and clubs I'll usually have Heineken.
It's like with hipster beards. You shave these guys and 9/10 they look like skinnyphags.

It's a feminization of masculine traits. The beards and retro posturing is form with content, it's vanity not identity. It's peacocking and preening. It's the male equivalent of some gutter mouth slut getting silicone tits and botox lips and thinking that is femininity.

No one will ever convince me that the kind of people who write food/wine/restaurant reviews in newspapers are not pretentious snobs. The kind of people who call Savignon Blanc 'banal' with fish (read this today, don't even know Savignon Blanc. Stuffing your face with exotic food while the world outside your burns down is Caligula reborn. Might as well bring out the vomit buckets again.

Fundamentally it's a pseudo-activity like so many other things. It's understable why we would go in this direction, it is male competetiveness within a feminine society. Cooking, dressing up, that is feminine pursuits. If you could have a wife who always looked good, who always cooked good food, would you really care? If you could have a drink in a smoke filled bar and speak your mind freely would you need to create these female approved craft beer clubs or hipster barber shops?

[Blaster]

(03-06-2016 02:07 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

(03-06-2016 01:41 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

Quote:

If the American consumer cared about American jobs, they would buy products produced in America. It's as simple as that.

Many Americans do strictly buy American products. I have family members who are religious about it. But this is a silly naive argument.

I see, on a forum of men, we're going to start with petty insults when we disagree.

My bad. Apologies.

But I still think that it should not be hard to think through that line of reasoning . Coercive boycotts can be an effective tool but they are very hard to organize and often require a great deal of personal sacrifice that would not be necessary if the Government simply did it's job representing the people.

[samsamsam]

(03-06-2016 01:48 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

the prime motivation for moving jobs offshore is NOT so that consumers get cheaper goods, it's so that owners can capture a greater share of the value (ie profit).

tl;dr Who makes rules that govern business? The politicians? Who elects politicians the people. So why are the people suffering? Because the people fucked up/fell asleep at wheel.

Isn't profit maximizing logical? When offshore competitors come in and sell goods cheaper, and then the US based company sees th opportunity, wouldn't it try to max its profits and go offshore? I am honestly not trying to be a dick. But isn't that why most people go into business? I mean I get some like not having a boss, etc. But don't people try to maximize profits? Isn't that a reasonable assumption? I mean in the case of the asshole with the HIV drug company - I think that is way overboard (yes, I do have a heart). But if people are willing to pay apple the prices it demands, who's fault is that?

Well actually people try to maximize utility. For many, their utility is driven by money, ie. profit.

Blaster, I appreciate your opinions and respect your contributions. In this discussion, I do sense that it is more about being unfair in some morale sense. Companies do what they can get away with. Politicians who have been greased by such businesses get people to vote for them over morale issues like religion and abortion and race. So companies can get away with a lot and the average citizen is lucky if they actually listen to a sound bite. Be very surprised if they read any details of legislation.

In this case, there are many groups of people/entities. Businesses, employees, consumers, government. Every side is trying to wield its power. The issue is the American citizen has FAILED to wield its power. Fucking stupid Republicans vote against their economic interests because they are caught up in the moral stuff. But who gives them free healthcare, etc? My point is the average citizen is an idiot. And they are responsible for the demise they are in.

Had they elected officials who protected them it would be different. But they elected ones that don't.

We cannot talk about a living wage, etc when the average citizen doesn't cherish its rights to participate in the election process.

A bit of a ramble, but I think you get the point.

[samsamsam]

Beast, I don't think the ivory tower guys have forgotten, it is that the companies are seeking their money now. Shareholders want their stocks to rise. No investor goes, but do they manufacture in the US?

The government needs to be on overwatch to make sure that the US industries are capable of sustaining the nation for example in war. It needs to be able to see the future. Businesses don't care they just want profits.

This is where the Democrats want more oversight, but the Republicans fight them on it. I wonder why.

[Blaster]

Quote:

Isn't profit maximizing logical? When offshore competitors come in and sell goods cheaper, and then the US based company sees th opportunity, wouldn't it try to max its profits and go offshore?

[Blaster]

Quote:

Isn't profit maximizing logical? When offshore competitors come in and sell goods cheaper, and then the US based company sees the opportunity, wouldn't it try to max its profits and go offshore?

Yes, profit maximizing is sensible. But equally sensible is a labor force that uses every tool at their disposal to maximize THEIR share of the profits. The question is whose side are you on?

Of course, businesses are supposed to maximize profit. CEOs have a fiduciary responsibility to stockholders who want to see their stock's value increase. But National governments have responsibility to its citizens to protect their wealth and livelihood. This is true both for the workers and the consumers.

There's potential for conflicting interests between the interests of capital and of a national government. Negotiating the balance between protectionism and free trade has to happen continually. The capital will always press for advantage vs workers, who must fight back if they wish to avoid being exploited. Neither side is wrong, but they are just opposed. Failing to sufficiently advance the case of the worker gets you exploitation and slavery. Failing advance the case of the capitalist gets you economic depression and poverty.

[El Chinito loco]

(03-06-2016 02:29 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

You want to bet that those Harrier Air Conditioners getting moved to Mexico are going to be priced lower? Globalization is about lowering your costs so you can capture that wealth and pump it into the stock market. How are Americans without any jobs going to buy all of those gadgets and gizmos?

It's possibly even worse than that these days. Apple sits on cash reserves equal to that of a small nation. These multinationals act sort of like sovereign wealth funds. Actual sovereign wealth funds invest surplus and have direct benefits for the prosperity of a nation..

However in the case of multinationals the money only benefits the corporate entity.

There's nothing wrong with a business acting in its own interests because that's what capitalism is but there's something terribly wrong when corporations are no longer even attached to the country where they are founded and act almost like independent national entities that can move around and engage in wage slavery and violate trade barriers as they wish.

They take their cash and invest it in a diverse portfolio of stuff everywhere but hardly any of it is actually reinvested back into the U.S. in a way that benefits the American people.

A lot of the R&D that corporations directly profit off of through making innovative products is subsidized through the U.S. government and by extension the U.S. taxpayer in various ways.

[samsamsam]

Blaster and El Chinito Loco,

Nothing is wrong with what you have said. I agree corporations shouldn't be able to shield their taxes and hoard their cash offshore. But I am trying to be objective, until the masses get on the same page, nothing will change. Their great hope is Trump or Sanders (no). If Trump fails them well who knows what will happen. But when they go to vote for Trump in Nov, I bet they vote for some senator or representative that will not look out for the voter who voted for him/her/it/cis whatever/attack helicopter.

The wealthy and powerful, regardless of politics, have the same interests of money and power. What does the average citizen have in common? Social media and stupidity. Well that and lots of carbs.

It isn't what I want, I want a fucking unicorn, but what is logical and real based on info.

I mean Blaster, you took it to the point of slavery in your post. What evidence is there of that? People have choice, they just don't want to deal with the pain of their tough choices. Once the pain gets bad enough, people will act. But it may be a while.

It sounds like you want everyone to have something, that is fine but that moves towards more socialism (we already have medicare and social security and welfare). So the people who are falling behind (some not because of effort - but some because they have 6 kids from 6 different fathers) will get some help, yet freeloaders will get even more help. Why don't the struggling create some new idea, start a business. Etc. I am not trying to mock, I am just saying that to make sure some have more, it means the ones who have more will have less. Now granted, a lot of the have mores did some shitty things to get it. I mean they destroyed our economy, etc and I think very few have been prosecuted. And they have the resources to have influence in politics that the average person does not? Is it fair, no? Is it life, yes?

I guess we can discuss this for a while, but the question for everyone is, what are you doing about it other than discussing it here? Campaigning for someone? DOnating money? Out there organizing meetings? I am not being snarky. Unless you are out there fighting the fight, it sort of just putting on a good show. What I am doing? I am working on growing resources for my future family (I know I am a fool).

The average person is incapable of rising above. The ones who think they can lead do it for themselves and not a real cause. The powerful know this, they know nothing will happen for a while. They have escape plans set up where they will relocate if shit goes down.

In the meantime guys, as we often discuss here, get your FU money together and prepare for some chaos.

[Paracelsus]

There's a concept that I like from John T. Reed on this one. Even if he's a libertarian, he holds that there is a "least worst" setting for regulation of markets and behaviour (i.e. laws) which he terms 'Goldilocks regulaion' -- not too little, not too much, but just right. The problem being that finding that balance is as damnably hard as either introducing totalitarian socialism or allowing full libertarianism to reign. But neither extreme setting for regulation can work.

The question then is, where does the correct setting lie in the West in 2016?

Anybody answering that question is going to have a particular preferred setting by dint of their upbringing, education, personality and life experiences. It doesn't make their viewpoint less valid, just different. I deeply distrust labor unions because I worked for a while on the inside of one, but the guy whose union kept him from losing his job would have a very different perspective on it to me.

The only point I wanted to make here was this: whatever setting you choose, you have to bear in mind you cannot fully control the consequences of that regulatory setting. And there will be unintended consequences, because human beings are incentive-driven to a greater or lesser extent without being mathematically so.

For example, preventing corporations from shielding their taxes and hoarding their cash offshore. Noble enough pursuit, sure. The question is how far you can push a corporation before it simply decides not to do business with you at all. Transnational corporations have massive reach across the globe, and ultimately there's nothing to stop that corporation pulling up stakes and relocating elsewhere. You can't force a person to do business in a particular country, and make no mistake, there is competition among governments for more permissive regulatory environments as well.

What is to be done in this situation? There will always be somewhere else on the Earth that will be willing to sell its economic soul for a corporation: places like the Azores basically exist because of that fact. The only solution there is a one-world government, which is everything we argue against in this forum.

Leftie governments often don't understand the meaning of the word "if". "If you earn more than $250,000 per year, we will tax you at a massive rate." "Okay then, I'll earn $249,999. Or less. Or simply take my business elsewhere." People trumpet bitcoin and other non-dollar-denominated means of exchange: you are engaging in precisely the same exercise, so why should a corporation be any less able to do so?

[samsamsam]

Paracelsus are you John T. Reed?