User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 13 of 13

  1. #11
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffywolf View Post
    I think that's a very thought through view on this. But wether or not you want to endorse it will have little influence unless all consumers have the same understanding of the subject as you do. Business will go where money is to be found, so as long as the consumer buys, you will have no influence on the system.

    And educating all these brainwashed consumers is one of the hardest things to do.
    On the other hand supply creates its own demand and repeat business for previously unneeded or undemanded goods and services is probably one of the growth sectors of the economy if not one of the very definitions of growing economies.

  2. #12
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Small can be ugly too. Just not as damaging. A lot of the drug and gang related organized crime is pretty much a small business, and they move goods through using other ostensibly "legitimate" small businesses.

    I don't think there is an easy way to characterize it. The closest I can come is: if the entrepreneurs are actually shifting society's resources from low yield to high yield uses (where yield is related to long term value to society) then I endorse it. If it does not, then I do not.

    On a related note, check out : http://www.thestartupofyou.com/
    Yes, the bolded part is part of what I was trying to say.

    Hmmm, I think I should rephrase that though. "Small is beautiful" is a book that very much run against the current thinking of how corporations should be run. Most, if not, all businesses/corporations consider the thinking as heresy. Most of all, most corporations/businesses main goal is for profit (even if it is short term) and don't always think about the long-term hazards that come with this thinking. If our financial sector was used as an example, a good corporation would think of the hazards repealing an amendment of the Glass-Steagall act will do in the future. However, this was not the case for these financial institutions. Their repeal of it = short term $$$ = "good" = brought our financial meltdown.

    While I haven't finish reading the book yet, many of the things people don't/unconsciously-don't like about Corporations/Big Businesses are pretty much listed in that book.

    It is why I compared In-N-Out to, say, a franchise like Burger King, McDonalds, or even the downfall of Krispy Kreme is a great example of what I am trying to point out.) I mean, Krispy Kreme got so crazy becoming a franchise and opening stores left and right that all of a sudden, they have to close down dozens of their locations in the U.S.

    What is so different between those franchises to In-N-Out is that it is:
    Still family own
    Pays above minimum wage
    Started in California (where every little politician and business seem to like ranting about the tax) and slowly working its way across all states.

    While other franchises has come and go, In-N-Out has, well, been a lot more resilient in their ways than most other companies have. Given the big chance that In-N-Out could easily switch to becoming a corporation and paying their workers minimum wage, they still have not. And THAT, is the entrepreneur spirit that I like most, unlike the Koch Brothers.

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rail Tracer View Post
    Yes, the bolded part is part of what I was trying to say.

    Hmmm, I think I should rephrase that though. "Small is beautiful" is a book that very much run against the current thinking of how corporations should be run. Most, if not, all businesses/corporations consider the thinking as heresy. Most of all, most corporations/businesses main goal is for profit (even if it is short term) and don't always think about the long-term hazards that come with this thinking. If our financial sector was used as an example, a good corporation would think of the hazards repealing an amendment of the Glass-Steagall act will do in the future. However, this was not the case for these financial institutions. Their repeal of it = short term $$$ = "good" = brought our financial meltdown.

    While I haven't finish reading the book yet, many of the things people don't/unconsciously-don't like about Corporations/Big Businesses are pretty much listed in that book.

    It is why I compared In-N-Out to, say, a franchise like Burger King, McDonalds, or even the downfall of Krispy Kreme is a great example of what I am trying to point out.) I mean, Krispy Kreme got so crazy becoming a franchise and opening stores left and right that all of a sudden, they have to close down dozens of their locations in the U.S.

    What is so different between those franchises to In-N-Out is that it is:
    Still family own
    Pays above minimum wage
    Started in California (where every little politician and business seem to like ranting about the tax) and slowly working its way across all states.

    While other franchises has come and go, In-N-Out has, well, been a lot more resilient in their ways than most other companies have. Given the big chance that In-N-Out could easily switch to becoming a corporation and paying their workers minimum wage, they still have not. And THAT, is the entrepreneur spirit that I like most, unlike the Koch Brothers.
    I had started reading it when you suggested it a while back. Unfortunately, my schedule got really busy and I didn't make it too far.

    I thought the gist was, in addition to economies of scale, there are diseconomies of scale, and that it becomes more clear what the issues are when you start taking into account externalities.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

Similar Threads

  1. Which Philosopher Do You Dislike the Most?
    By logan235711 in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: 08-02-2017, 11:14 PM
  2. [MBTItm] With which types do you get along the best?
    By alcea rosea in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 10-07-2008, 11:19 PM
  3. Which Layout Style Do You Use, Comprende?
    By Mempy in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 03-19-2008, 08:55 PM
  4. Which sector do you work in?
    By ygolo in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 09-17-2007, 04:12 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO