I can be compassionate for those in need and still be pissed off about those who believe their mere existance entitles them to my effort and consideration. I support charity and being neigborly and having a society where we do unto others... But people who think it's owed to them... scum of the earth... and being forced at gun point to give charity is no charity at all.
Thanks for the dickens though... If I had to pick a character to model myself after.. it would probably be Scrooge.... PRE ghostly encounter.
"I used the word probably a couple of times, because something like this has never been implemented in human history."
because it's a horrible idea... all humans are NOT created equal and forcing equality on them in this manner could never work. Even if I wanted to be a fighter pilot, I don't have the reflexes for it...
Sure... but I think that's just technicalities... I was basically making the point that forced equality of the masses doesn't work.. and is, in fact, a ridiculous idea..
I have hope that there will be peace in the middle east... But I'm not going to buy real estate until I see some evidence of it.
"Nevermind the fact the economy requires that for every rich person you have many poor people. For every mansion you need people to clean, cook, garden, etc. For every city you need street cleaners, police officers, etc. For every mcdonalds you need a dozen people with mcjobs.
It is cruel to declare that those people have a responsability not to have children."
He was talking about people unable to support their own children... If you're working a mcjob... you have no business having children.. it's not fair to you or the child. Just because you want something (child.. car.. furniture) and have the means (biology, too much credit, rent-a-center) doesn't mean it's a responsible choice... ESPECIALLY when there's a tiny little defenseless human being hanging in the balance.
That's not to say that some exceptional individuals couldn't manage to work a mcjob and support a child I'm sure it happens... But in general I think that it should be a great big giant red flag in your decision making process.
Having a child when it's beyond your means is basically saying... "I want this so society should help me have it". That's BS.. I've worked hard to make the right decisions and forgo short term wants for long term stability.. why should I get stuck with your kids food bill?
I don't think someone working 2 jobs could be considered destitute... And how bad does someone have to screw their life up before you'd be able to blame *them* for it? Working 2 jobs... with a "family"... which they clearly have no time to spend with, as they are working 2 jobs... Sounds like poor planning and bad decision making to me... You can call me callous and ignorant... but I didn't drop out of school... I didn't have children before I could support and care for them... What is more ignorant, expecting people to take care of themselves or expecting others to take care of you? Systemic bad decision making entitles you to nothing.
So the only factor that should go into the decision to have a child should be that one is biologically able to make one? Having a child isn't a luxury it's a massive responsibility that requires money, effort, time, patience and basic common sense. Working minimum wage jobs elliminates or greatly limits your ability to provide most of those things. Intentionally having a child in that situation is irresposible and an injustice to your entire family.
"Do you remember the financial industry before the big round of deregulation? There are a *lot* less players in that game now that the rules for seperation are gone."
I have to admit to not being familiar with that industry... but one example does not a trend make.
"If you think there are *more* major players around these days, you are really sleeping at the wheel my fellow politico."
what is our basis here? the global conglomerate is a creature of the last 40 years... So yes... I think there are more global conglomerates today than ever before in history... to go back to your financial industry example... I don't think those are generally global corporations.... but again.. I have to plead ignorance.
"I'm not saying nothing can ever happen outside of the major arena in a capitalistic society nor that there is never an infusion of new blood. I'm saying the barriers to entry are artificially high when you have to up against someone with huge bankrolls behind them. Microsoft doesn't get as much loving media coverage these days and they are having problems, but they still hold a 90%+ market share that isn't going anywhere anytime soon. You know their story better than I do I'm sure. So exactly how long are deceptive and immoral business practices to be allowed to prosper? It's been ten years. Another ten? Twenty? "Until the market figures it out"? "
10-20 years isn't very long... but I have to say that MS is a MUCH nicer company than it was back in the 90's... and 90% market share is their peek... it's on the slow downhill trend and I personally believe that they'd be lucky to have a 50% share in another 10 years... give or take, depending on the actual market (OS, browser, office). deceptive and immoral practices continue until the public is informed of said practices... I think for MS this has already happened...
"That's a whole lot of innovators, inventors, and startups crushed or assimilated into "the machine" along the way. That is not efficient. Nor is it the best value for the consumer. In fact, it's anti-competitive. And that happens in the lack of proper enforcement and/or regulation. I know, it can happen due to regulation as well, and we agree on that. System's broken, needs to be fixed, yada yada yada."
Dude... it's the definition of competition... You show me what immoral or devious behavior a company can use to eliminate competition and I'll show you how it's the government allowing it to happen via broken systems and incompetence. Buying up a competitor is not immoral or devious.. it's how it works... that value is not lost.. it changes hands... and maybe helps the consumer.. becomes available at a lower cost faster... or announces an area for valuable innovation for the rest of the industry..
You just gloss over the effect regulation has on this shit... but imagine the effect a tax break or a no-compete government contract has on a competitor in the same region/industry.... or how about a court system that values process and technicalities over facts and common sense.... thats far more damaging than aggressive advertising, disinformation campaigns or even price undercutting... The government is the wild card in nearly every business situation...
"I consider my business "successful" on the scale I'm interested in, and I'm from lower middle class background too. Again, I'm not saying it's not possible, though I do believe you are wearing some very rosy glasses if you think it's even close to "the norm". One "big boy" gets me in their sights and decides to make me an offer I can't refuse (either way), and I have *nothing* to fight back with. But I'm small, no threat to anyone, and my market isn't mature and established yet or I wouldn't even be in business in the first place. As the MFGs conglomerate though, my potential avenues decrease.. competition itself decreases."
You're talking about *fighting* an *offer*..... if someone makes you an offer you can't refuse... and you're in business purely because of your ideals... you tell him to pound
Sony sabotaged themselves... pulled an Apple and held back licensing... even a superior technology can be thwarted by poor business choices. It was succesfully leading the market in a number of areas especially the UK... but the licensing of VHS allowed for cheaper and faster production... I don't think betamax was superior to VHS in a way that made it that much more appealing than VHS to the consumer... much like HD-DVD and Blueray... the consumer couldn't care less about that format war because there's no real obvious difference to the lay consumer.
"You can look me in the face in a world were very few companies own all of these 'competitors', and say that with a straight face? Have you not been paying attention?
I forget exactly, what are we down to for major players these days; 15, 30 worldwide?"
lets assume your numbers are correct... That's more "major players" than we've ever had before.. so even at the big league level competition rages on... but now it's on a global scale rather than a regional scale... but even so... "small" businesses like fairchild semi... and LL Bean compete on a global and a regional level.
"You make some good points there and I'm out of time for today, but seriously."
that's a bit of a cop out.. take your time... I'm in no hurry... this conversation is older than you and I put together.
" The conglomeration has occurred. You've fallen for the appearance of diversity here. There are fields not snapped up yet.. I'm in a niche market, for example.. but even in my niche market the companies doing manufacturing are gobbling each other up and being gobbled up by outside companies."
I'll counter that by saying you've fallen for the left wing propaganda.. diversity is greater than ever and on a larger scale than ever. Startup companies pop up and become thought leaders every year.. entire industries are obsolesced and replaced by new and better with new players all the time. Old industries consolidate and stagnate paving the way for new players to out flank and out think these conglomerates.
"And that is a totally, completely, 100% inevitable chain of events in a capitalistic system. You don't get maximum profitability by competing in a market. You get maximum profitability in CONTROLLING a market. You keep talking about ideas not being stoppable and such and I just say wake up. I may know there is an awesome idea for a widget out there, but if I can't go buy it, it doesn't matter. And it is that market control with capital can be used to achieve; determining what is on the market to a very large degree."
The goal of any business is to corner the market and have 100% of the available dollars in that market... while it's possible to achieve it's impossible to maintain... monopolistic behavior breeds opportunity... and the little guy is like whack-a-mole... take him out and another pops up to fill the void. The market, much like nature abhors a vacuum. You see an on going consolidation where I see a vast moving landscape... Microsoft didn't even exist when I was born.. but now it's spawned the richest man in the world... that's pretty damn impressive.. And now that monster of a company is being attacked from every front... they've stagnated... they're behind on deliveries... losing market share to free software... They're not going to go away any time soon... but they're going to change... Your theory would be true if there were no innovation or progress... but there is... and it's impossible for these big guys to stay around forever.. they'll choke on their own bureaucracy.. the landscape will shift under them.. leaving them holding yesterdays bag... some guy figures out cold fusion in his garage and overnight OPEC companies are next to worthless... some R&D firm figures out mass produces quantum computers and everything else on the market is worth less than it's raw materials...
"Your rags to riches stories are a few romantic exceptions.. not the norm."
I think it's more the norm than you might think... I personally know 3 or 4 people who have started from low to middle class beginnings to start successful businesses... And I can think of maybe a dozen big names that we both would recognize as successful self starters... not the least of which is bill gates, steve woz, jobs, george washington carver, perot... Anyone can do it... you don't need money.. the most important thing is the desire... nothing worth doing is easy...
"Hate to burst that extremely well stated and worded bubble, but in one breath you indicate that politicians (or people) are not smart enough to assess the impact of their decisions and think only short term. Then in the same breath, you claim that businessmen think long term and really care about building lasting businesses that succeed long term."
There were several breaths in there... but I take your point, as misconstrued as it is. I never claimed that businessmen think long term or have the information required to understand long term impacts of short term decisions... because that's not the case... but the advantage a businessman has in making a bad decision is that it effects a much smaller group of people than if a politician makes a bad regulation that effects the entire country and spans multiple industries... and is accountable to no one. Businessmen who make bad decisions are accountable to shareholders, business partners, customers and their bank account.
"Only one problem with that. Any given person is only on this planet for a limited period of time. Why would I do all the "right" things to make sure my business lasts the test of time when I can exploit everything I can think of to its maximum potential and retire in style at an earlier age? It would be *irrational* for me to think long term, as long as I can get myself enough profit short term for it not to matter."
You do the right thing because it's in your best interest... even in a humans life span.. screwing people comes back to bite you in the ass... cheating people is and should be illegal and one should suffer the consequences. Even our completely incompetent government was able to bring down Enron... I'm sure those guys thought they were above the law... they learned a lesson and so did the rest of the business world. Cheaters never win. Small consolation to all the people that got screwed out of their life savings.. but in the grand scheme of things thats a nearly unmeasurable percent of the population. The number of people who may have been screwed but now wont be is probably much higher.
"If all these people are so noble and so clear thinking and so intelligent and so long-thinking in their views, why don't we just pay them competitive market wages to run the country directly?"
I never said anything about long-thinking or nobility... quite the opposite.. self interest and self motivation is the key.. backed by some minimal set of basic morals and common human decency..
"Actually I lied. more than one problem. Your refutation assumes that there are wealthy people capable of production and R and D who are noble enough to "blow the whistle" on market forces that have not corrected yet. That's a pretty big assumption. A pretty damn big one."
I didn't claim it was the wealthy people blowing the whistle... a lab worker... a researcher... a patent clerk... anyone in the pipeline who has some degree of respect for humanity. It happened in the Enron scandal... it happened in the tobacco industry... it's probably happened hundreds of times.. we even have a term for it.. "Whistle Blower"... because it happens so often.
"The businessmen need to be held in check by non economic forces. They can do lots of damage in their quest for cash, and believe it or not, they don't know all the impacts of their decisions either. The politicians need to be held in check by immediate accountability for their actions, transparency, a constitution, etc. the multiple branches is a good idea too, but an overhaul of the legislative branch would go a long, long way."
economic forces are plenty to hold them in check... humans don't like to see other humans suffering in general... we don't stand for injustice for very long... employees blow whistles if there is immoral or illegal activity.. consumers vote with dollars when information becomes available, which it inevitable does.
"any system based on trust that people "will do the right thing" is doomed to failure. I know, your happy land of rational power
"A cure for cancer wouldn't be nearly as profitable as an ongoing treatment for cancer you have to take for the rest of your life, for example."
that's a good example.. But all it takes is one person with a conscience and access to blow the whistle on behavior like that. Just because you have a cure for cancer doesn't mean people stop getting cancer... every generation you'll have millions of people to sell the drug to.... not only that... but what makes drug companies so protective and secretive about their work? the flawed patent system... you come up with the miracle cure.. patent it.. then lock it away in a closet for 50 years... not to mention the retarded FDA and all their hoops and regulations which basically force companies into making immoral decisions in the name of profit.
"That's not ok. Patience is not a virtue in the face of such instances. These are people's lives at stake, not just rows of numbers on a balance sheet."
But it IS ok! especially given the alternative of placing artificial restrictions on the market... basically holding things in stasis for the sake of short term perceived "help"... market regulation is like censorship in a network, eventually it's routed around but it takes time and effort. To help a group of people in the short term at the expense of a larger group in the long term doesn't make sense... it just perpetuates the cycle of band-aiding problems while ignoring the cause. Lets take one of my favorite examples... small farm subsidies.. where the government paid farmers to not farm all of their land... the result was that farmers took that money and used it for chemical fertilizers and pesticides to increase the yield of the land they were farming... the run-off from that causes massive algae blooms in lakes and rivers killing off entire ecosystems... effects that we'll be feeling for decades... and all this in the name of "protecting the little guy"... (http://newsroom.wri.org/newsrelease_text.cfm?News ReleaseID=110)
politicians aren't smart enough to assess the impact of these seemly helpful kinds of legislation... and we all suffer for it for years and years...
"If the "wild market" is so great, why don't we take it a step further and just live in the wild? You know why we don't do that? Because wild forces of any kind don't give a shit about people, and we're people, and we have heads we can use to improve upon wild states of being to better our own lives as people."
the market isn't nature! It's a self organizing system made up from well understood principles and intelligent beings. You make it sound like the market is this random force to be feared... when really it's one of the greatest forces for good in the world. My self interest is directly tied to the well-being of those around me.. if i screw my employees and customers... I eventually lose both.. and that's not in my self interest. The biggest problem with government intervention is they're (theoretically) trying to act on the best interests of everyone by gun point... it can't be done... it's impossible to foresee the effect of decisions made on that scale.
let me leave you with a quote from one of the greatest thinkers the world has ever known... Adam Smith:
"The produce of the soil maintains at all times nearly that number of inhabitants which it is capable of maintaining. The rich only select from the heap what is most precious and agreeable. They consume little more than the poor, and in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity, though they mean only their own conveniency, though the sole end which they propose from the labours of all the thousands whom they employ, be the gratification of their own vain and insatiable desires, they divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without kno
Well, you make some assumptions in there that I wouldn't make...
Doesn't matter if your product is better, or theirs, or how well informed the consumer is; you can use your capital as a weapon to stifle competition and retain your market position. That's not "free market" economics; that's economic warfare.
It always matters if the product is better... consumers see something they like and demand it... with dollars.. happens all the time... red bull... ipod... pepsi... american spirit... mclaren... primer.. linux... innovation always wins in the long run.. sometimes they get acquired by the big guys.. sometimes they become the big guy.. sometimes they get a cult following... you use every every advantage you have as a company..
But "the market" doesn't win there; I'm happy, but competition is reduced because I have an easy path out to my life of luxury, and my competitor can keep churning out its high-profit, substandard products without fear of future competition.
that's a short term problem... if there's room for higher quality work... someone will do it.. the free market fills gaps like that which is why you have your own business in the first place.. if you sold, someone else would take your place.. it might take some time.. but it will happen. Just because every town has a walmart doesn't mean there isn't room right next door for a fine furniture store or a clothing boutique.
If you're down a few major players in a region, or a field, then hey; just talk to the other company owners you "compete" with. You don't need the WHOLE market, right? Then all you have to do is say "hey guys, we can cut our own throats all day long with price wars or raising wages to attract better and better employees. Then we'll all be so cash starved someone else could come along and wipe us out or we can go bankrupt. OR, we can all just agree on a few things; we won't pay more than blah, we won't lower our prices against each other, and we'll just split the market amongst ourselves at much higher profitability!".
But that is exactly the opportunity a true entrepreneur is looking for! the big guys resting on their laurels! All you need to do is come up with an idea that differentiates you and you're off to the races! just look at apple in the early 80's versus IBM... it happens all the time... no one says the free market is "easy".. it shouldn't be easy... you have to be unique.. you have to offer new value.. you have to innovate.. the market rewards that.. if you expect to walk into a well established market and do the same old thing... you get what's coming to you.
Money IS power. Very disproportionate power, compared to the power of this "free market" ideal you guys worship.
This is just false... I think your problem is that the free market doesn't have the "immediate" effect that the legal monopoly on violence has when it decrees how shit should go... the free market eliminates "cheaters" and bullies... but sometimes it takes years... but that's ok... it takes time for economic forces to come to bear on a problem. instant gratification is not how the free-market generally works.
None of those tactics would be illegal in a libertarian ideal, because none involve direct violence. But to say that harm is not being done is a gross glossing over of the truth. Exploitation and subjugation is violence just as surely as a smack in the face. And that is why we need regulation.
The world isn't always fair, man... but all regulation does is *simulate* fairness.. when the government props up a failing industry or provides "incentives" to the little guy.. all their doing is slowing innovation and the inevitable march of progress.... railroads, airlines, oil companies, small farmers, auto makers, etc.... all industries that should have died or innovated decades ago.
Just for a baseline... my definition of violence is the exercise of physical force on another, or the legitimate threat thereof.
Money certainly is power... It's just not the greatest/only power as you seem to be implying.
I'm all for shitty employment agreements... if you work for me you work for me on my terms... or I go out of business because no one will agree to work for my shitty terms... and If I am a racist bastard and you're not of my race... tough shit no job for you. The only time there is no competition in a job market is when some government policy directly or indirectly causes that monopoly... Not only that... but the cause of unemployment for people who want to be employed is the minimum wage... everyone is employable at the market rate.
Oh man... "can't" is a strong word... but I guess I can follow what you're saying.. and on the same token say that a truly democratic system has never existed because of the exact same reasons.
As to people having access to that kind of power all the time... I don't think that's a good thing.. some people believe in some pretty lame stuff... and if their power is limited all the better... Groups of people effect change when the group gets big enough... which only happens when the cause gets bad/important enough.. which is really the way it should be as far as I'm concerned.
The major problem with democracy is that not every persons information is as good as every other persons information... Just because someone CAN vote on something doesn't mean they are informed enough to actually make a meaningful choice... and we end up with a government of superficial choices made by an uninformed populace... I for one choose the wealthy benevolent dictator(s) over that any-day.... and volunteer myself for the position.
Now... that's a bit of hyperbole... I respect and value the democratic system... however... it has some serious flaws... and I'm not sure that easing access to the system will improve it... just because something is popular.. doesn't mean it's good... look at welfare... social security.. FCC... EPA... the only thing our government is good at is spending my hard earned dollars on shit I hate... and making all the cool shit illegal...
"legal monopoly"... violence outside of the control of government is illegal in this country...
I'd like to think good ideas, rational discussion, common sense and basic morality are still more influential than money..
as to government being the only possible solution to oppression and the influence of money... I am unaware of a single case where that has been proven to be true after thousands of years of human government. With an institution as big and unwieldy as our government.. full transparency is nearly impossible... the signal to noise ratio would be amazing low... Maybe if the government did 10% of the crap they do today that would be a viable and useful thing... but if you make an outhouse transparent all you see is the poo.
How would we know where free market capitalism leads, given that we've never seen it on this planet?
People in groups get things done all the time.. Look at open source software... the million man march... hell.. the entire civil rights movement.. If any cause has the right people behind it, great things can happen, with or without money. Even people with money can have morals and want to do "the right thing".
Given the "democracy" we have now... frankly, I'd take a little plutocracy up in this bitch...
Money is power... but power was power first... Let's pretend for a minute that the gov didn't care about money... those who make up said gov are still humans... and ultimately guided by their desire to capture and maintain some level of power... hence pandering, lobbying, flip-flopping, double talk, etc... government is the answer to basically nothing.
A legal monopoly on violence is the most power anyone can have... And the fact the the state can be influenced by those with money is a reflection on the deficiencies of the governmental system not on the free market.
How many generations of people are going to be tainted by the REAL Evil Empire.. Disney... Lemmings don't kill themselves unless some sick twisted film maker is driving them off a cliff...
Who cares if someone is making some money off it? If I can help, even in a very small way, solve one of the worst problems man kind has ever faced I'm happy to do it.. I got plenty of spare cycles hanging out here... I dont care if microsoft finds the cure for cancer... someone needs to... I can help? YAY!
I'm sure the feminine hygine marketers would love nothing more than to not waste their money on you... perfect targeted advertising is every sales(and accounting) departments dream.
Slashdot Mirror
I can be compassionate for those in need and still be pissed off about those who believe their mere existance entitles them to my effort and consideration. I support charity and being neigborly and having a society where we do unto others... But people who think it's owed to them... scum of the earth... and being forced at gun point to give charity is no charity at all.
Thanks for the dickens though... If I had to pick a character to model myself after.. it would probably be Scrooge.... PRE ghostly encounter.
"I used the word probably a couple of times, because something like this has never been implemented in human history."
because it's a horrible idea... all humans are NOT created equal and forcing equality on them in this manner could never work. Even if I wanted to be a fighter pilot, I don't have the reflexes for it...
Sure... but I think that's just technicalities... I was basically making the point that forced equality of the masses doesn't work.. and is, in fact, a ridiculous idea..
Being WILLING to work for less to do what you love is completely different than being FORCED or WANTING to be in that situation.
"Perhaps they had hope for the future."
I have hope that there will be peace in the middle east... But I'm not going to buy real estate until I see some evidence of it.
"Nevermind the fact the economy requires that for every rich person you have many poor people. For every mansion you need people to clean, cook, garden, etc. For every city you need street cleaners, police officers, etc. For every mcdonalds you need a dozen people with mcjobs.
It is cruel to declare that those people have a responsability not to have children."
He was talking about people unable to support their own children... If you're working a mcjob... you have no business having children.. it's not fair to you or the child. Just because you want something (child.. car.. furniture) and have the means (biology, too much credit, rent-a-center) doesn't mean it's a responsible choice... ESPECIALLY when there's a tiny little defenseless human being hanging in the balance.
That's not to say that some exceptional individuals couldn't manage to work a mcjob and support a child I'm sure it happens... But in general I think that it should be a great big giant red flag in your decision making process.
Having a child when it's beyond your means is basically saying... "I want this so society should help me have it". That's BS.. I've worked hard to make the right decisions and forgo short term wants for long term stability.. why should I get stuck with your kids food bill?
I don't think someone working 2 jobs could be considered destitute... And how bad does someone have to screw their life up before you'd be able to blame *them* for it? Working 2 jobs... with a "family"... which they clearly have no time to spend with, as they are working 2 jobs... Sounds like poor planning and bad decision making to me... You can call me callous and ignorant... but I didn't drop out of school... I didn't have children before I could support and care for them... What is more ignorant, expecting people to take care of themselves or expecting others to take care of you? Systemic bad decision making entitles you to nothing.
So the only factor that should go into the decision to have a child should be that one is biologically able to make one? Having a child isn't a luxury it's a massive responsibility that requires money, effort, time, patience and basic common sense. Working minimum wage jobs elliminates or greatly limits your ability to provide most of those things. Intentionally having a child in that situation is irresposible and an injustice to your entire family.
Hmmmm.... sounds familiar...
"From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need" -Karl Marx
Now if only some group of people could form a society based on this great thinkers philosophy.. oh wait...
"Do you remember the financial industry before the big round of deregulation? There are a *lot* less players in that game now that the rules for seperation are gone."
I have to admit to not being familiar with that industry... but one example does not a trend make.
"If you think there are *more* major players around these days, you are really sleeping at the wheel my fellow politico."
what is our basis here? the global conglomerate is a creature of the last 40 years... So yes... I think there are more global conglomerates today than ever before in history... to go back to your financial industry example... I don't think those are generally global corporations.... but again.. I have to plead ignorance.
"I'm not saying nothing can ever happen outside of the major arena in a capitalistic society nor that there is never an infusion of new blood. I'm saying the barriers to entry are artificially high when you have to up against someone with huge bankrolls behind them. Microsoft doesn't get as much loving media coverage these days and they are having problems, but they still hold a 90%+ market share that isn't going anywhere anytime soon. You know their story better than I do I'm sure. So exactly how long are deceptive and immoral business practices to be allowed to prosper? It's been ten years. Another ten? Twenty? "Until the market figures it out"? "
10-20 years isn't very long... but I have to say that MS is a MUCH nicer company than it was back in the 90's... and 90% market share is their peek... it's on the slow downhill trend and I personally believe that they'd be lucky to have a 50% share in another 10 years... give or take, depending on the actual market (OS, browser, office). deceptive and immoral practices continue until the public is informed of said practices... I think for MS this has already happened...
"That's a whole lot of innovators, inventors, and startups crushed or assimilated into "the machine" along the way. That is not efficient. Nor is it the best value for the consumer. In fact, it's anti-competitive. And that happens in the lack of proper enforcement and/or regulation. I know, it can happen due to regulation as well, and we agree on that. System's broken, needs to be fixed, yada yada yada."
Dude... it's the definition of competition... You show me what immoral or devious behavior a company can use to eliminate competition and I'll show you how it's the government allowing it to happen via broken systems and incompetence. Buying up a competitor is not immoral or devious.. it's how it works... that value is not lost.. it changes hands... and maybe helps the consumer.. becomes available at a lower cost faster... or announces an area for valuable innovation for the rest of the industry..
You just gloss over the effect regulation has on this shit... but imagine the effect a tax break or a no-compete government contract has on a competitor in the same region/industry.... or how about a court system that values process and technicalities over facts and common sense.... thats far more damaging than aggressive advertising, disinformation campaigns or even price undercutting... The government is the wild card in nearly every business situation...
"I consider my business "successful" on the scale I'm interested in, and I'm from lower middle class background too. Again, I'm not saying it's not possible, though I do believe you are wearing some very rosy glasses if you think it's even close to "the norm". One "big boy" gets me in their sights and decides to make me an offer I can't refuse (either way), and I have *nothing* to fight back with. But I'm small, no threat to anyone, and my market isn't mature and established yet or I wouldn't even be in business in the first place. As the MFGs conglomerate though, my potential avenues decrease.. competition itself decreases."
You're talking about *fighting* an *offer*..... if someone makes you an offer you can't refuse... and you're in business purely because of your ideals... you tell him to pound
Sony sabotaged themselves... pulled an Apple and held back licensing... even a superior technology can be thwarted by poor business choices. It was succesfully leading the market in a number of areas especially the UK... but the licensing of VHS allowed for cheaper and faster production... I don't think betamax was superior to VHS in a way that made it that much more appealing than VHS to the consumer... much like HD-DVD and Blueray... the consumer couldn't care less about that format war because there's no real obvious difference to the lay consumer.
"You can look me in the face in a world were very few companies own all of these 'competitors', and say that with a straight face? Have you not been paying attention?
I forget exactly, what are we down to for major players these days; 15, 30 worldwide?"
lets assume your numbers are correct... That's more "major players" than we've ever had before.. so even at the big league level competition rages on... but now it's on a global scale rather than a regional scale... but even so... "small" businesses like fairchild semi... and LL Bean compete on a global and a regional level.
"You make some good points there and I'm out of time for today, but seriously."
that's a bit of a cop out.. take your time... I'm in no hurry... this conversation is older than you and I put together.
" The conglomeration has occurred. You've fallen for the appearance of diversity here. There are fields not snapped up yet.. I'm in a niche market, for example.. but even in my niche market the companies doing manufacturing are gobbling each other up and being gobbled up by outside companies."
I'll counter that by saying you've fallen for the left wing propaganda.. diversity is greater than ever and on a larger scale than ever. Startup companies pop up and become thought leaders every year.. entire industries are obsolesced and replaced by new and better with new players all the time. Old industries consolidate and stagnate paving the way for new players to out flank and out think these conglomerates.
"And that is a totally, completely, 100% inevitable chain of events in a capitalistic system. You don't get maximum profitability by competing in a market. You get maximum profitability in CONTROLLING a market. You keep talking about ideas not being stoppable and such and I just say wake up. I may know there is an awesome idea for a widget out there, but if I can't go buy it, it doesn't matter. And it is that market control with capital can be used to achieve; determining what is on the market to a very large degree."
The goal of any business is to corner the market and have 100% of the available dollars in that market... while it's possible to achieve it's impossible to maintain... monopolistic behavior breeds opportunity... and the little guy is like whack-a-mole... take him out and another pops up to fill the void. The market, much like nature abhors a vacuum. You see an on going consolidation where I see a vast moving landscape... Microsoft didn't even exist when I was born.. but now it's spawned the richest man in the world... that's pretty damn impressive.. And now that monster of a company is being attacked from every front... they've stagnated... they're behind on deliveries... losing market share to free software... They're not going to go away any time soon... but they're going to change... Your theory would be true if there were no innovation or progress... but there is... and it's impossible for these big guys to stay around forever.. they'll choke on their own bureaucracy.. the landscape will shift under them.. leaving them holding yesterdays bag... some guy figures out cold fusion in his garage and overnight OPEC companies are next to worthless... some R&D firm figures out mass produces quantum computers and everything else on the market is worth less than it's raw materials...
"Your rags to riches stories are a few romantic exceptions.. not the norm."
I think it's more the norm than you might think... I personally know 3 or 4 people who have started from low to middle class beginnings to start successful businesses... And I can think of maybe a dozen big names that we both would recognize as successful self starters... not the least of which is bill gates, steve woz, jobs, george washington carver, perot... Anyone can do it... you don't need money.. the most important thing is the desire... nothing worth doing is easy...
"Hate to burst that extremely well stated and worded bubble, but in one breath you indicate that politicians (or people) are not smart enough to assess the impact of their decisions and think only short term. Then in the same breath, you claim that businessmen think long term and really care about building lasting businesses that succeed long term."
There were several breaths in there... but I take your point, as misconstrued as it is. I never claimed that businessmen think long term or have the information required to understand long term impacts of short term decisions... because that's not the case... but the advantage a businessman has in making a bad decision is that it effects a much smaller group of people than if a politician makes a bad regulation that effects the entire country and spans multiple industries... and is accountable to no one. Businessmen who make bad decisions are accountable to shareholders, business partners, customers and their bank account.
"Only one problem with that. Any given person is only on this planet for a limited period of time. Why would I do all the "right" things to make sure my business lasts the test of time when I can exploit everything I can think of to its maximum potential and retire in style at an earlier age? It would be *irrational* for me to think long term, as long as I can get myself enough profit short term for it not to matter."
You do the right thing because it's in your best interest... even in a humans life span.. screwing people comes back to bite you in the ass... cheating people is and should be illegal and one should suffer the consequences. Even our completely incompetent government was able to bring down Enron... I'm sure those guys thought they were above the law... they learned a lesson and so did the rest of the business world. Cheaters never win. Small consolation to all the people that got screwed out of their life savings.. but in the grand scheme of things thats a nearly unmeasurable percent of the population. The number of people who may have been screwed but now wont be is probably much higher.
"If all these people are so noble and so clear thinking and so intelligent and so long-thinking in their views, why don't we just pay them competitive market wages to run the country directly?"
I never said anything about long-thinking or nobility... quite the opposite.. self interest and self motivation is the key.. backed by some minimal set of basic morals and common human decency..
"Actually I lied. more than one problem. Your refutation assumes that there are wealthy people capable of production and R and D who are noble enough to "blow the whistle" on market forces that have not corrected yet. That's a pretty big assumption. A pretty damn big one."
I didn't claim it was the wealthy people blowing the whistle... a lab worker... a researcher... a patent clerk... anyone in the pipeline who has some degree of respect for humanity. It happened in the Enron scandal... it happened in the tobacco industry... it's probably happened hundreds of times.. we even have a term for it.. "Whistle Blower"... because it happens so often.
"The businessmen need to be held in check by non economic forces. They can do lots of damage in their quest for cash, and believe it or not, they don't know all the impacts of their decisions either.
The politicians need to be held in check by immediate accountability for their actions, transparency, a constitution, etc. the multiple branches is a good idea too, but an overhaul of the legislative branch would go a long, long way."
economic forces are plenty to hold them in check... humans don't like to see other humans suffering in general... we don't stand for injustice for very long... employees blow whistles if there is immoral or illegal activity.. consumers vote with dollars when information becomes available, which it inevitable does.
"any system based on trust that people "will do the right thing" is doomed to failure. I know, your happy land of rational power
"A cure for cancer wouldn't be nearly as profitable as an ongoing treatment for cancer you have to take for the rest of your life, for example."
that's a good example.. But all it takes is one person with a conscience and access to blow the whistle on behavior like that. Just because you have a cure for cancer doesn't mean people stop getting cancer... every generation you'll have millions of people to sell the drug to.... not only that... but what makes drug companies so protective and secretive about their work? the flawed patent system... you come up with the miracle cure.. patent it.. then lock it away in a closet for 50 years... not to mention the retarded FDA and all their hoops and regulations which basically force companies into making immoral decisions in the name of profit.
"That's not ok. Patience is not a virtue in the face of such instances. These are people's lives at stake, not just rows of numbers on a balance sheet."
But it IS ok! especially given the alternative of placing artificial restrictions on the market... basically holding things in stasis for the sake of short term perceived "help"... market regulation is like censorship in a network, eventually it's routed around but it takes time and effort. To help a group of people in the short term at the expense of a larger group in the long term doesn't make sense... it just perpetuates the cycle of band-aiding problems while ignoring the cause. Lets take one of my favorite examples... small farm subsidies.. where the government paid farmers to not farm all of their land... the result was that farmers took that money and used it for chemical fertilizers and pesticides to increase the yield of the land they were farming... the run-off from that causes massive algae blooms in lakes and rivers killing off entire ecosystems... effects that we'll be feeling for decades... and all this in the name of "protecting the little guy"... (http://newsroom.wri.org/newsrelease_text.cfm?News ReleaseID=110)
politicians aren't smart enough to assess the impact of these seemly helpful kinds of legislation... and we all suffer for it for years and years...
"If the "wild market" is so great, why don't we take it a step further and just live in the wild? You know why we don't do that? Because wild forces of any kind don't give a shit about people, and we're people, and we have heads we can use to improve upon wild states of being to better our own lives as people."
the market isn't nature! It's a self organizing system made up from well understood principles and intelligent beings. You make it sound like the market is this random force to be feared... when really it's one of the greatest forces for good in the world. My self interest is directly tied to the well-being of those around me.. if i screw my employees and customers... I eventually lose both.. and that's not in my self interest. The biggest problem with government intervention is they're (theoretically) trying to act on the best interests of everyone by gun point... it can't be done... it's impossible to foresee the effect of decisions made on that scale.
let me leave you with a quote from one of the greatest thinkers the world has ever known... Adam Smith:
"The produce of the soil maintains at all times nearly that number of inhabitants which it is capable of maintaining. The rich only select from the heap what is most precious and agreeable. They consume little more than the poor, and in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity, though they mean only their own conveniency, though the sole end which they propose from the labours of all the thousands whom they employ, be the gratification of their own vain and insatiable desires, they divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without kno
It always matters if the product is better... consumers see something they like and demand it... with dollars.. happens all the time... red bull... ipod... pepsi... american spirit... mclaren... primer.. linux... innovation always wins in the long run.. sometimes they get acquired by the big guys.. sometimes they become the big guy.. sometimes they get a cult following... you use every every advantage you have as a company..
that's a short term problem... if there's room for higher quality work... someone will do it.. the free market fills gaps like that which is why you have your own business in the first place.. if you sold, someone else would take your place.. it might take some time.. but it will happen. Just because every town has a walmart doesn't mean there isn't room right next door for a fine furniture store or a clothing boutique.
But that is exactly the opportunity a true entrepreneur is looking for! the big guys resting on their laurels! All you need to do is come up with an idea that differentiates you and you're off to the races! just look at apple in the early 80's versus IBM... it happens all the time... no one says the free market is "easy".. it shouldn't be easy... you have to be unique.. you have to offer new value.. you have to innovate.. the market rewards that.. if you expect to walk into a well established market and do the same old thing... you get what's coming to you.
This is just false... I think your problem is that the free market doesn't have the "immediate" effect that the legal monopoly on violence has when it decrees how shit should go... the free market eliminates "cheaters" and bullies... but sometimes it takes years... but that's ok... it takes time for economic forces to come to bear on a problem. instant gratification is not how the free-market generally works.
The world isn't always fair, man... but all regulation does is *simulate* fairness.. when the government props up a failing industry or provides "incentives" to the little guy.. all their doing is slowing innovation and the inevitable march of progress.... railroads, airlines, oil companies, small farmers, auto makers, etc.... all industries that should have died or innovated decades ago.
Just for a baseline... my definition of violence is the exercise of physical force on another, or the legitimate threat thereof.
Money certainly is power... It's just not the greatest/only power as you seem to be implying.
I'm all for shitty employment agreements... if you work for me you work for me on my terms... or I go out of business because no one will agree to work for my shitty terms... and If I am a racist bastard and you're not of my race... tough shit no job for you. The only time there is no competition in a job market is when some government policy directly or indirectly causes that monopoly... Not only that... but the cause of unemployment for people who want to be employed is the minimum wage... everyone is employable at the market rate.
Oh man... "can't" is a strong word... but I guess I can follow what you're saying.. and on the same token say that a truly democratic system has never existed because of the exact same reasons.
As to people having access to that kind of power all the time... I don't think that's a good thing.. some people believe in some pretty lame stuff... and if their power is limited all the better... Groups of people effect change when the group gets big enough... which only happens when the cause gets bad/important enough.. which is really the way it should be as far as I'm concerned.
The major problem with democracy is that not every persons information is as good as every other persons information... Just because someone CAN vote on something doesn't mean they are informed enough to actually make a meaningful choice... and we end up with a government of superficial choices made by an uninformed populace... I for one choose the wealthy benevolent dictator(s) over that any-day.... and volunteer myself for the position.
Now... that's a bit of hyperbole... I respect and value the democratic system... however... it has some serious flaws... and I'm not sure that easing access to the system will improve it... just because something is popular.. doesn't mean it's good... look at welfare... social security.. FCC... EPA... the only thing our government is good at is spending my hard earned dollars on shit I hate... and making all the cool shit illegal...
"legal monopoly"... violence outside of the control of government is illegal in this country...
I'd like to think good ideas, rational discussion, common sense and basic morality are still more influential than money..
as to government being the only possible solution to oppression and the influence of money... I am unaware of a single case where that has been proven to be true after thousands of years of human government. With an institution as big and unwieldy as our government.. full transparency is nearly impossible... the signal to noise ratio would be amazing low... Maybe if the government did 10% of the crap they do today that would be a viable and useful thing... but if you make an outhouse transparent all you see is the poo.
How would we know where free market capitalism leads, given that we've never seen it on this planet?
People in groups get things done all the time.. Look at open source software... the million man march... hell.. the entire civil rights movement.. If any cause has the right people behind it, great things can happen, with or without money. Even people with money can have morals and want to do "the right thing".
Given the "democracy" we have now... frankly, I'd take a little plutocracy up in this bitch...
Money is power... but power was power first... Let's pretend for a minute that the gov didn't care about money... those who make up said gov are still humans... and ultimately guided by their desire to capture and maintain some level of power... hence pandering, lobbying, flip-flopping, double talk, etc... government is the answer to basically nothing.
A legal monopoly on violence is the most power anyone can have... And the fact the the state can be influenced by those with money is a reflection on the deficiencies of the governmental system not on the free market.
How many generations of people are going to be tainted by the REAL Evil Empire.. Disney... Lemmings don't kill themselves unless some sick twisted film maker is driving them off a cliff...
http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm
Not to mention running in slow motion was a game feature I never thought they would add...
I guess I can stop submitting the "Not enough bouncing breasts" bug i found...
I especially liked how I was so much more involved in the changing of clothes between levels!
Usually:
1) I finish a level.. .
2) screen goes dark...
3) lara has new clothes...
this version:
1) finish level...
2) DAMN <whistle/>!!!
3) lara has new clothes...
"I hated seeing the hottest woman in hollywood shoot guns and kill things... but this new disney cartoon rocks!" -CmdrTaco
Who cares if someone is making some money off it? If I can help, even in a very small way, solve one of the worst problems man kind has ever faced I'm happy to do it.. I got plenty of spare cycles hanging out here... I dont care if microsoft finds the cure for cancer... someone needs to... I can help? YAY!
I'm sure the feminine hygine marketers would love nothing more than to not waste their money on you... perfect targeted advertising is every sales(and accounting) departments dream.