User Tag List

First 162425262728 Last

Results 251 to 260 of 303

  1. #251
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C.J.Woolf
    MS-DOS was not the best product available for the job, but Bill Gates' mother was a friend of IBM's CEO.
    And Beta-max was superior to VHS, but being competitive means much more than just putting out a better product. Microsoft delivers "uniformity". When businesses use Microsoft Office, they know that there aren't going to be any formatting issues or compatibility issues because other companies also use MS Office; there is seamless communication by MS Office users the world over.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  2. #252
    Super Ape Luke O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    954
    Posts
    1,742

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Free market capitalism is wildly successful compared to the first 10,000 years of human economic activity. For 700 years, economic growth was directly tied to population growth and it grew at a rate of 0.14%/year, but then we had the industrial revolution and free market capitalism and the economic growth rate was 7 times that in the 19th century. By the 20th century, the economic growth rate doubled. (From Donlan's "A World of Wealth")
    I once went to the heart of the Industrial Revolution (Ironbridge in England), where it all started, and I realised that the start of it wasn't the start of Free Market Capitalism. It's actually been around much longer than we think, but it was much harder to see. The Industrial Revolution just made it easier for people who had money to invest to make more money, since they could automate more of the workforce - but as well as destroying traditional craft jobs, it created new ones. It lead to a massive leap forward in innovation, resulting in things being invented which would enhance our living experiences as well as making more "shit we don't need".

    Capitalist attitudes existing before the Industrial Revolution ranged from the shrewd baker who raised his prices astronomically when the wheat harvest failed, through corrupt merchants creating fake supply and demand issues, cunning hagglers, right to the very top where overseas companies were effectively holding a hegemony over others, or more traditionally managing a kingdom was very much like managing a business, with all the associated espionage, harsh takeover attempts, keeping your lower-down managers in line and capital raising (i.e. tax) with it. But what made Industrial Revolution capitalism different from all this was the attitude of those leading the change, the Quakers. With their egalitarian attitudes (nobody ranked below or above anyone, and even men and women shared the same status), they demonstrated that anyone could make it, you didn't need to be high born or have a title. Ordinary men (and women, there are quite a few instances where women were running companies in those times - take that, anti-feminists who also like capitalism...) were now making a lot of money.

    The point I want to make was that the free market was always there, it was simply lacking the technology to get it started. And following this came a lot of social change, e.g. the sprawling factories led to a massive expansion of child labour - families finding it hard to make ends meet would send their kids to work in the factories, and even down coal mines, to get the fuel to power the factories. Frequently, children would suffer debilitating injuries and illness and death was very common. I'd say this could be one of Free Market Capitalism's lowest ebbs, where the demand to earn money, unregulated and uncontrolled, was sucking the life out of humanity and indeed, humanity's future. Legislation came forward to gradually phase out child labour, with the introduction of compulsory schooling for all - one of the greatest forms of regulating business and business' control of society there was and still is. As for lowest ebbs from that point onward, for example the Great Depression and in more recent times, the Global Credit Crunch, these too were the result of a lack of proper regulation of the market.

    Nevertheless, I would argue that a free market is one of humanity's freedoms, but it is not the only one and is certainly not the most important one. Freedoms do clash with each other also - you simply can't let everyone do whatever they want, it just ends up with one person having everything (including all the freedom) and everyone else with nothing. For a truly free society, everyone's freedoms must be respected.

    Going back to Capitalism, the desire to accumulate wealth to me is an instinctual habit, similar to acquiring food, only the difference is that once you've eaten, you get full and don't want to eat any more - eating is pleasurable but only up to a certain point, then the hormones kick in to say we've eaten enough. We don't have hormones to tell us that we've become too wealthy and need to stop earning money, today's billionaires still want the contents of your pockets in their bank account and will do what they can to get it, perhaps this is the best argument to keep up regulation of capitalism and push to redistribute wealth from the rich to those who need it. Free Market Capitalism is not humanity's saviour, it is humanity's face itself, and humanity's saviour is looking at ourselves and saying "humanity is better than this", doing something about it, and helping civilisation evolve into a better one. We're still focussing too much on the acquisition of monetary wealth, and forging empires on a tiny blue dot in an insignificant area of space and believing that this is the most we can aspire to.

    Anyway, rant over!

  3. #253
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke O
    As for lowest ebbs from that point onward, for example the Great Depression and in more recent times, the Global Credit Crunch, these too were the result of a lack of proper regulation of the market.
    One of the causes of the Great Depression was the passage of the Smoot-Hawley Act, a protectionist piece of legislation that ignited a trade war.

    The 2008 Financial Crises was also created by government interference. Roughly 72% of the bad loans went through government owned or government sponsored entities like Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. There would not have been a housing bubble without government intervention. Today, the government (Democrats) has already forgotten the lessons of 2008 and they are once again urging backs to lower standards and give loans to people who can't pay them back.

    The point about child labor is fair, though I imagine those same kids would've been working on a farm instead of a factory anyway.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  4. #254
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke O View Post
    IFree Market Capitalism is not humanity's saviour, it is humanity's face itself, and humanity's saviour is looking at ourselves and saying "humanity is better than this", doing something about it, and helping civilisation evolve into a better one. We're still focussing too much on the acquisition of monetary wealth, and forging empires on a tiny blue dot in an insignificant area of space and believing that this is the most we can aspire to.
    Now this is what I believe. No ist or ism is truely there yet and arguing that one is superior to the other is like arguing that the flamberge would beat the katana. It's not relevant anymore. We've moved past free market models and socialism and capitalism. Welcome to an age where the best idea is the best idea regardless of who thought of it. I only wish it were more prevalent.

    Unfortunately due to protection and old boy networks we're likely to be a long way off. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas (or thanksgiving if you happen to be from a more challenged background ).
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?
    Likes Luke O, BluRoses liked this post

  5. #255
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Luke, despite me not being his father, seems to have made most of this moot with his wisdom. However, I will indulge one last time in an effort to highlight what is, in my opinion, a closed set of thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Read more carefully. You're attributing thoughts that I never made.
    I'm calling you a lair. It's right there in black and white.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    That's hyperbole. There are about 3 people who are posting in this thread. Mr. Laffer's ideas have been vindicated dozens of times, so it really doesn't matter if socialists disagree with them. They really can't dispute the success.
    Unless you are in fact Mr Laffer, you cannot claim his support. Quoting someone does not mean you get the whole strength of their argument. What you're doing is name dropping and that's just a way around having a discussion. Something you've been grasping at since page 1.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    I've seen Gordon Ramsay's New York City restaurant kitchen on TV. It's immaculate; his staff cleans it everyday. That attention to detail is the result of good management.
    Congrats. I've watched it with a management consultant and deconstructed it at length. The man does not manage, he shouts. He happens to have the right mix to make this work but it's not a model to copy or extol the virtues of. You would be hard pressed to make it work unless you are Gordon Ramsey.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Good managers do this.
    Good manager let staff perform. Understand that and you may get somewhere. Not cajole, not shout, not enforce but let.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    I defined "greatness" in an earlier post. I asked for men who changed the trajectory of humanity for the better. You'll find great men who believe in socialism but you won't find any great men who are produced by socialism. Very simple logic here. One system produces many, many great men; the other produces none. No moving of any goal post; read my earlier posts.
    Then please enlighten me how something they achieved over their lifetimes created them. Perhaps your grasp of temporal physics is greater than mine.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    A competitive company is usually an efficient company, especially if we're talking small businesses. Restaurants fail by the thousands each year and those that do succeed do so because they are efficient.
    Competitive companies make money. More competitive, more money. The efficiency assumption is your own. One does not require the other, it just helps.

    For example there is such a thing as growing too big despite the efficiencies involved in economies of scale. In fact, do your own research.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Microsoft achieved that market share by being the first to put out a consumer friendly OS, Microsoft 95. Linux is not consumer friendly.
    Linux wasn't user friendly. That no longer applies. Plus it's pretty much free. The only thing stopping it is direct x support.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Have you considered that perhaps the high unemployment rates in Spain, Italy, France, and Greece might have something to do with their socialist, economic policies? These nations have unemployment rates twice and three times that of the US.
    And yet they still exist as competitive nations. Must be the overly generous neighbours is why they haven't collapsed and been taken over my some magnate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    A big nanny state government sucks out the capital from the productive sector and you wonder why you have such a hard time finding a job. It's because businesses can't afford to hire or expand or give wage increases when the taxes and regulations are so burdensome. Simple question: if taxes are high, are businesses more likely to hire people or less likely to hire people?
    A cost inefficient government is bad for efficiency. That's your sole point there bud. Hardly a shocker.

    Btw there is no cost to hiring or firing if you do it right. The cost if doing it wrong, regardless of regulation, is approximately 230% of the positions yearly salary. Hence I place far greater importance on good hr. If you want real efficiency and a better approach to how to manage, I humbly suggest you get reading.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    In a thriving economy, that is the case. In North Dakota, the unemployment rate is 3%. They have essentially full employment and the competition for labor is so great that even fast food workers are making $12/hour, well above the minimum wage. In the UK, you don't have a thriving economy because of socialist policies and that is why you had such difficulty finding a job.
    Nope. I had difficulty finding a job because my experience, qualifications and ability don't line up. I'm broad in experience, low on qualifications but have a high track record. Not something easy to place unless I wanted to work in a fast food joint.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Free market capitalism is wildly successful compared to the first 10,000 years of human economic activity. For 700 years, economic growth was directly tied to population growth and it grew at a rate of 0.14%/year, but then we had the industrial revolution and free market capitalism and the economic growth rate was 7 times that in the 19th century. By the 20th century, the economic growth rate doubled. (From Donlan's "A World of Wealth")
    So your argument now becomes that it's slowed down due to regulation and the pesky reds? The market today is not sell wheat for chickens. It's very complicated and only gets more so with each passing year. Anyone who tries to get you in in a quick buck scheme is either conning you or has a great secret. The former is more likely however.

    Perhaps if you could set out what you'd like to see, in specific, I may be able to point out the pitfalls in more detail. Or, if you believe as I do, that Luke nailed it, then maybe we end it here.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  6. #256
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander
    I'm calling you a lair. It's right there in black and white.
    Again, read more carefully. I never said polar bears were superior or the "king". I said each species has its gifts and differences don't make one superior to the other.

    Unless you are in fact Mr Laffer, you cannot claim his support.
    You're making this about me yet again. All I'm doing is presenting a very successful economic theory.

    What you're doing is name dropping and that's just a way around having a discussion.
    The theory stands by itself, but some readers want to know where the ideas came from.

    And yet they still exist as competitive nations. Must be the overly generous neighbours is why they haven't collapsed and been taken over my some magnate.
    If you think a 25% unemployment rate is competitive or acceptable, then there is no need for you to change any of your thinking. I don't think a 25% unemployment rate is acceptable. (I'd like to point that once again, you've avoided answering the question.)

    A cost inefficient government is bad for efficiency. That's your sole point there bud. Hardly a shocker.
    You've got half of the point. Any big government will suck the life out of the economy.

    Nope. I had difficulty finding a job because my experience, qualifications and ability don't line up. I'm broad in experience, low on qualifications but have a high track record.
    And what about the 25% who are unemployed in Greece? Is it possible that the Greek government screwed up somehow and messed up the economy?

    So your argument now becomes that it's slowed down due to regulation and the pesky reds?
    It's not an argument; it's a fact. Regulation and over regulation costs jobs and slows economic growth.

    Regulation costs UK businesses £80bn a year

    "This £80bn is effectively being taken out of the UK economy each year due to regulatory paperwork. When the regulatory burden is so large that it typically occupies one employee in every private enterprise in the UK for nearly half a year, it's obvious we have a problem."
    In the US, the regulatory burden is $1.7 trillion. There are more people employed by the tax industry than the employees of Walmart, IBM, Citigroup, and McDonalds combined.

    Or, if you believe as I do, that Luke nailed it, then maybe we end it here.
    I have no problem with what Luke posted. Unlike you, he's not made any implications that tax policies and regulations don't affect the economy.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  7. #257
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Venezuela reaches the final stage of socialism: no toilet paper

    "In the black market you have to pay 110 bolivares [$0.50] for a roll of toilet paper that usually costs 17 bolivares [$ 0.08] in the supermarket," Camacho told Fusion. "We don't want to participate in the corruption of the black market, and I don't have four hours a day to line up for toilet paper" at a supermarket….
    Why doesn't centralized planning work? Why do socialists inevitably create shortages of some products and overproduction of others? It's because there are tens of millions of products for sale in an economy and a couple hundred or thousand socialists will not have the expertise to know how each of those 10s of millions of products sell. It boils down to experience: the company will always know more about its business than some government bureaucrat.

    Hey Venezuela, you may want to hire some ISTJs to fix the mess you've got down there.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  8. #258
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Again, read more carefully. I never said polar bears were superior or the "king". I said each species has its gifts and differences don't make one superior to the other.
    Dear God man you're either being deliberately obtuse or you really don't get people. You said you don't rate one above the other, I'm saying you DO!

    Casing point, you have no regard for what you call socialism. You cannot take it seriously or find one honest strength. You're obviously disregarding anyone who does as a crackpot. Something I find highly amusing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    You're making this about me yet again. All I'm doing is presenting a very successful economic theory.
    I believe I can prefaced my last post with precisely that. You haven't presented a theory other than go read a book which is something you've not liked when I've suggested similar to you but for some reason everyone else is supposed to see the light and join the new wave.

    Also if it's very successful then you're wanting your time suggesting it's adopted.
    You really should think a little more about where you're going with this. You seem to have taken one poor saps book, interpreted to suit your agenda and then said everyone should join in and hold hands. Sorry, didn't go for any other religion. I'm not buying yours either.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    If you think a 25% unemployment rate is competitive or acceptable, then there is no need for you to change any of your thinking. I don't think a 25% unemployment rate is acceptable. (I'd like to point that once again, you've avoided answering the question.)
    What question?
    Two thing for you to consider.
    1 I am not and nor have I ever been a socialist. I laugh at them as much as I do you. You're both crackpots to my way of thinking because you both believe despite contrary evidence.
    2 how is an unemployment rate competitive? That's statistician rubbish.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    You've got half of the point. Any big government will suck the life out of the economy.
    Now you court religion again. You cannot define "big" in any meaningful way so you describe any government who does anything you consider to be too intrusive into your ideas as "big". It's governmentism. You sir are a governmentist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    And what about the 25% who are unemployed in Greece? Is it possible that the Greek government screwed up somehow and messed up the economy?
    Yet again you seem to think that economies thrive due to businesses but die due to governments. It is entirely possible for the reverse to be true.

    From r example the UK economy could be said to have been screwed by two things. Firstly greedy capitalists selling everything abroad and secondly engineers not moving with the times quick enough.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    It's not an argument; it's a fact. Regulation and over regulation costs jobs and slows economic growth.
    And again you have no proof that the money wouldn't just go on bonuses and dividends. You postulate that it'd result in more jobs. The probable end would be a small percentage would go into jobs and the rest on ego.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    In the US, the regulatory burden is $1.7 trillion. There are more people employed by the tax industry than the employees of Walmart, IBM, Citigroup, and McDonalds combined.
    More people are employed by the military than all of them. Something you have as the result of a large government. I expect that will be the next thing you think should be privatised.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    I have no problem with what Luke posted. Unlike you, he's not made any implications that tax policies and regulations don't affect the economy.
    I'm trying to shine a light into your shed. You've locked yourself away for a few years with some books in a dingy room and emerged like the new messiah. I merely try to challenge enough and show other avenues of thought to encourage you to return to the reading.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  9. #259
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    It's not an argument; it's a fact. Regulation and over regulation costs jobs and slows economic growth.

    Regulation costs UK businesses £80bn a year
    Just going over old material but if you read your linked article...
    Quote Originally Posted by Linked Article
    The research calculated the cost of all the hours dedicated to filling out forms, reading guidance material, seeking consultation and performing other administrative duties associated with regulation. However, this excluded the cost to companies of having to adapt their behaviour to comply with regulation. Mr Templeman said: "This is not a debate about diluting protections, because form-filling doesn't protect anyone. This is about getting a culture change in Whitehall. Officials are incentivised to produce legislation.
    "Unless the next Government changes the way civil servants are evaluated and rewarded, businesses will continue to face an increasing burden of paper work that hinders them from growing and, ultimately, creating jobs."
    There's no accusation there that the regulation costs businesses but the manner in which it is executed causes cost. If you said to me that the UK is overly bureaucratic then I'd be screaming "hell yes" from the get go. Paperwork does not protect anyone. If only everyone in health and safety practised this approach. Mind you there is a general dearth in critical thinking in business.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  10. #260
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander
    You said you don't rate one above the other, I'm saying you DO!
    I don't rate one above the other. The polar bear is a better swimmer but the black bear is a better tree climber. Both excel at certain activities. I don't think one is superior to the other. What is it that you don't understand?

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander
    You seem to have taken one poor saps book, interpreted to suit your agenda and then said everyone should join in and hold hands. Sorry, didn't go for any other religion. I'm not buying yours either.
    I've read three of Laffer's books. I've done no interpretation at all; I've merely presented some very powerful statistics of economic metrics that change when supply side economic policies are implemented. I do think everyone should join in because this is the most successful economic theory that's been presented. It'd be a religion if I had asked you to believe on faith; I haven't. I've given the reader the data and the reader should decide for himself.

    What question?
    The original question I asked was: Why do you think Spain, Italy, France, and Greece have such high unemployment rates? You never answered.

    2 how is an unemployment rate competitive? That's statistician rubbish.
    The unemployment rate tells you the health of the economy. If you have high unemployment, that usually means you are doing something wrong.

    Yet again you seem to think that economies thrive due to businesses but die due to governments. It is entirely possible for the reverse to be true.
    All of the wealth comes from the private sector. All the money that the government spends comes from the private sector. Since capital is created by the private sector, it makes sense to expand the private sector and decrease the size of the unproductive sector. Governments can help the economy by providing security and getting out of the way.

    More people are employed by the military than all of them.
    Defense is a Constitutionally defined role. Providing universal healthcare insurance is not a defined role. Most of what the government does is not mandated by the Constitution.

    There's no accusation there that the regulation costs businesses but the manner in which it is executed causes cost. If you said to me that the UK is overly bureaucratic then I'd be screaming "hell yes" from the get go. Paperwork does not protect anyone.
    Americans spend 7.6 billion hours each year filling out their income tax forms. That's $193 billion spent in compliance with just 1 law.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

Similar Threads

  1. Slavery, child labor, organized religion and a free-market economy
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-22-2013, 11:21 PM
  2. Define capitalism, socialism, free market fundamentalism, communism, etc.
    By ygolo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-14-2012, 06:34 PM
  3. Why your diet may not be working like you want...
    By sdalek in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-03-2007, 08:01 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