Politics

[Ray B]

this criticism is how one tells me one has never read any Rand without telling me one has never read any Rand.

So, who's John Galt?

 

[Ray B]

As for "big business" making it mandatory for both parents to be employed, that's a bunch of nonsense. The increase in production and consumer goods (washers, dryers, dish washers, refrigerators, freezers etc_ made available at reasonable (within the means of middle class) released the Homemaker from the several hours per day & week. Rather than playing bridge or golf with other homemakers most chose to get a paycheck to raise the living standard of their family. Then buying on credit caused monthly payments which meant both parents were obligated to get a paycheck.

 

[sgt_zim]

My wife and I bought a house in 1975. Only one income could be used to qualify. A few years after that my next younger brother bought a house and could use both incomes to qualify. In a matter of years after that all residential real estate doubled in price because it could now sell for more. A Duplex used to sell with both units but under the new qualify system each side sold for the same price effectively doubling the price.
And yes, these things led to working mothers.
Yes, big business does know how to wring the income out of the little man and politicians are willing to help.

It isn't that politicians are "willing to help." The whole system is built around patronage, where their "help" is for sale. Nancy Pelosi is perhaps the worst of the lot, but she isn't alone.

All of this crap with renewable energy, for one example, would have died 30 years ago in a free market. It was only political power that made any of it possible. People are always free to come up with whatever idiotic idea strikes them. If the market tells them to go pound sand, and if they're politically connected, and the politicians see a way to feather their own nests, then, and only then, do those "businessmen" start making money.

 

[Sabattiboy]

It isn't that politicians are "willing to help." The whole system is built around patronage, where their "help" is for sale. Nancy Pelosi is perhaps the worst of the lot, but she isn't alone.

All of this crap with renewable energy, for one example, would have died 30 years ago in a free market. It was only political power that made any of it possible. People are always free to come up with whatever idiotic idea strikes them. If the market tells them to go pound sand, and if they're politically connected, and the politicians see a way to feather their own nests, then, and only then, do those "businessmen" start making money.

Y2K and The ozone layer were small fish compared to climate change/global warming etc.

 

[Red Leg]

I know that those who have never been involved with the actual running of a large corporation are eager to blame them for all the nation's economic woes. But that is little more than a display of ignorance with respect to the capitalist business model. That lack of experience or understanding is no doubt why such denouncements against corporations and the capitalist system as a whole are usually shrillest when uttered by the inexperienced and often uneducated AOC's and neo-socialist millennials of our brave new world.

No business has the ability to adjust the dials in the way many suggest. Even the largest corporations have little interest in gross. The model is all about margin. A highly successful defense corporation (the type with which I have the most experience) runs profit margins of around 12%. GM nets 5-8%. A small corporation is striving for 20% and trying to make ends meet at the 10-15% it actually achieves. No one is doubling the price on anything an reaping the rewards of a trapped consumer market. Yes, we fought for every point in margin. And yes, if we did well - say, turning 12 into 13 - we were rewarded by share holder confidence in our stock. But the real advantage was competitive against our peers.

Large corporations do contribute to campaigns - both sides. Mine built the finest military command and control systems in the world (also amazing creations like the Webb Telescope). 90% of our contracts were US government. We owed it to our stock holders (who own a public company), to do everything in our power to insure funding for our contracts.

Did we try to reduce overhead? Of course, just like every family business in the country. My unit closed a major campus in Los Angeles and moved that work to Huntsville, Alabama. There I could hire the same quality software, hardware, and systems engineers for 2/3's the cost of Southern California. We nevertheless moved every single family that was willing to relocate. A software engineer in Alabama at 2/3's the salary of one in California is experiencing 2 to 3X the quality of life of the one who stayed in California. But important to our shareholders was the increased competitiveness of our offerings.

But none of this has squat to do with trying to take advantage of the average guy and his family. It has everything to do with being able to win business in an ever more competitive (internationally as well as domestic) marketplace.

The economic fairyland that was the US in the post World War II world lasted barely two generations - for most - one and a half. It was an anomaly resulting from victory in the greatest war in the planet's history. Things are indeed different now as we look at everything from a 401k rather than a defined retirement to the growing need for skilled (and well paid) technicians rather than history majors.

But it is the idle daydreaming of socialist sophomores to blame the ills and changes in the world on some cabal of greedy capitalist businessmen.

Where there is blame to lay is on the head of the constraints put on the exercise of a free market. For instance I know we built the best C4I systems in the world, and I knew we could compete against anyone on a level playing field. But all that would go for naught if a budget line was struck or reduced. Hence, we contributed

 

[steve white]

As for "big business" making it mandatory for both parents to be employed, that's a bunch of nonsense. The increase in production and consumer goods (washers, dryers, dish washers, refrigerators, freezers etc_ made available at reasonable (within the means of middle class) released the Homemaker from the several hours per day & week. Rather than playing bridge or golf with other homemakers most chose to get a paycheck to raise the living standard of their family. Then buying on credit caused monthly payments which meant both parents were obligated to get a paycheck.

IMHO Government is what makes it necessary for both spouses to work--when the total tax burden, including all the hidden taxes totaled up rivals 50%. That means one spouse is a wage slave to pay taxes! Cut that back and a man can support his family alone. If women voting means approving every bleeding heart cause and entitlement, then they are forcing themselves into employment. Perhaps what we need is a dose of selfishness in that we quit supporting all the welfare moms, etc. and concentrate on raising our own children with our own money. But that is a bit off topic. Government IS the problem and that should be on topic.

 

[Sabattiboy]

My wife and I bought a house in 1975. Only one income could be used to qualify. A few years after that my next younger brother bought a house and could use both incomes to qualify. In a matter of years after that all residential real estate doubled in price because it could now sell for more. A Duplex used to sell with both units but under the new qualify system each side sold for the same price effectively doubling the price.
And yes, these things led to working mothers.
Yes, big business does know how to wring the income out of the little man and politicians are willing to help.

I should add that I do not know who or how the qualifying regulations got changed but they were. If that didn't change the market price of real estate, then it was just circumstantial that it happened in that order.

 

[Sabattiboy]

I know that those who have never been involved with the actual running of a large corporation are eager to blame them for all the nation's economic woes. But that is little more than a display of ignorance with respect to the capitalist business model. That lack of experience or understanding is no doubt why such denouncements against corporations and the capitalist system as a whole are usually shrillest when uttered by the inexperienced and often uneducated AOC's and neo-socialist millennials of our brave new world.

No business has the ability to adjust the dials in the way many suggest. Even the largest corporations have little interest in gross. The model is all about margin. A highly successful defense corporation (the type with which I have the most experience) runs profit margins of around 12%. GM nets 5-8%. A small corporation is striving for 20% and trying to make ends meet at the 10-15% it actually achieves. No one is doubling the price on anything an reaping the rewards of a trapped consumer market. Yes, we fought for every point in margin. And yes, if we did well - say, turning 12 into 13 - we were rewarded by share holder confidence in our stock. But the real advantage was competitive against our peers.

Large corporations do contribute to campaigns - both sides. Mine built the finest military command and control systems in the world (also amazing creations like the Webb Telescope). 90% of our contracts were US government. We owed it to our stock holders (who own a public company), to do everything in our power to insure funding for our contracts.

Did we try to reduce overhead? Of course, just like every family business in the country. My unit closed a major campus in Los Angeles and moved that work to Huntsville, Alabama. There I could hire the same quality software, hardware, and systems engineers for 2/3's the cost of Southern California. We nevertheless moved every single family that was willing to relocate. A software engineer in Alabama at 2/3's the salary of one in California is experiencing 2 to 3X the quality of life of the one who stayed in California. But important to our shareholders was the increased competitiveness of our offerings.

But none of this has squat to do with trying to take advantage of the average guy and his family. It has everything to do with being able to win business in an ever more competitive (internationally as well as domestic) marketplace.

The economic fairyland that was the US in the post World War II world lasted barely two generations - for most - one and a half. It was an anomaly resulting from victory in the greatest war in the planet's history. Things are indeed different now as we look at everything from a 401k rather than a defined retirement to the growing need for skilled (and well paid) technicians rather than history majors.

But it is the idle daydreaming of socialist sophomores to blame the ills and changes in the world on some cabal of greedy capitalist businessmen.

Where there is blame to lay is on the head of the constraints put on the exercise of a free market. For instance I know we built the best C4I systems in the world, and I knew we could compete against anyone on a level playing field. But all that would go for naught if a budget line was struck or reduced. Hence, we contributed

Might I pose the question of where facebook and google fit in this picture?
Both have some egg on their faces from practices that emerged.
Maybe this is a different category.
Just asking.

 

[Ray B]

Not sure about the marketplace impact of social media such as Facebook, My Place or what ever it was called, Instgram, etc- it is my impression that the "Hey look at Me" sites have most effect on adolescent kids that think what someone else posts is actually true. Maybe I'm skeptical but what little I've seen on it (I don't have any of those accounts) is virtually worthless as to a claim on reality. This then results in very little pressure to increase my spending to emulate those others.

 

[WAB]

Might I pose the question of where facebook and google fit in this picture?
Both have some egg on their faces from practices that emerged.
Maybe this is a different category.
Just asking.

Social media is really a different category. In my mind, it has promoted the spread of misinformation and thus the creation of misinformed internet warriors. As an example, look at the rabid increase in the attacks on hunting. Many who are participating genuinely believe that they support a just cause.

I ran one of three divisions of a Fortune 50 company. I can assure you that what Red Leg has stated is 100% correct. As executives, our job was to earn customers business by satisfying their needs more effectively than our competition. To that end, we worked to create products they wanted in as cost effective a manner as possible.

The market sets the price it is willing to pay, not the business, as many imagine. If you set your price above market, the customer simply goes to your competitors. If you set your price below what the market is willing to pay, you have betrayed the trust of your shareholders (the public in the case of publicly traded companies). I have never witnessed the collusion between businesses that many like to imagine (our president in the recent run up of fuel prices for example).

 

[cpr0312]

 

[PARA45]

View attachment 481852

Sad and true.

 

[sgt_zim]

Social media is really a different category. In my mind, it has promoted the spread of misinformation and thus the creation of misinformed internet warriors. As an example, look at the rabid increase in the attacks on hunting. Many who are participating genuinely believe that they support a just cause.

I ran one of three divisions of a Fortune 50 company. I can assure you that what Red Leg has stated is 100% correct. As executives, our job was to earn customers business by satisfying their needs more effectively than our competition. To that end, we worked to create products they wanted in as cost effective a manner as possible.

The market sets the price it is willing to pay, not the business, as many imagine. If you set your price above market, the customer simply goes to your competitors. If you set your price below what the market is willing to pay, you have betrayed the trust of your shareholders (the public in the case of publicly traded companies). I have never witnessed the collusion between businesses that many like to imagine (our president in the recent run up of fuel prices for example).

It boils down to a simple concept, doesn't it?

Every person chases the greatest value for his own dollar. A simple example. I get my hair cut every 2 weeks because it is of value to ME. For some people, walking around with a high-and-tight isn't of any value. That's their business. Literally.

If you set your prices above market, then your potential customers will figure out that your product/service isn't the greatest value for their own dollar, and will look elsewhere for what is (in their own judgment) a better value.

Every human being has his own hierarchy of values, and all understand this intuitively, but either don't understand it applies to others, or that it shouldn't apply in other cases for different kinds of people, or that others have the "wrong" hierarchy of values.

For me, this idea is at the very core of the study of economics. Trying to change someone's (or a nation's) hierarchy of values is the job of a priest or sociologist, not an economist. It's why I despise sociologists like Keynes and Marx, and all of their acolytes.

 

[jpr9954]

 

[Hogpatrol]

My .02 HIstorically, the middle class is an anomaly. It grew out of the ruins of WW2 when the rest of the world's manufacturing and infrastructure was basically in ruins Once the rest of the world rebuilt, it was game over for our manufacturing and some service monopolies. Who would have ever imagined General Motors going bankrupt? It also didn't help when the U.S. stuck with th e imperial measuring system.

 

[VertigoBE]

Ah, "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead", two works that have been very formative for my younger years. A good core set of beliefs can be extracted, but the philosophy, in order to work in real human populations, is incomplete in my opinion. The philosophy needs to be softened a little towards that bottom 10th percentile, IQ of 80 or below, equivalent to about 1 in 20 people. The reason being that those people have very little options remaining to be net-contributors to society, they often have difficulty in making the right financial, family, substance usage choices, and therefore will always need extra help and protection by the rest of the population. (The US military for instance has a treshold of 80 IQ points or so, below which they have determined that someone will not be in a position to be a net contributor to the mission). A philosophy that does not account for (almost) all members of the population, as well as (almost) all kinds of personalities, is doomed not to work. Another reason why communism can never work, neither can hard core libertarianism. Both can work perfectly with certain types of people, but not with an overall population.

I believe that the US value system, where charity is much more engrained into the culture, combined with Rand's philosophy, is why it had that much traction there. In Europe this charity in financial contributions, is much less present. Which is why Rand's philosophy was much less appreciated here and seen as way too harsh.

 

[VertigoBE]

My .02 HIstorically, the middle class is an anomaly. It grew out of the ruins of WW2 when the rest of the world's manufacturing and infrastructure was basically in ruins Once the rest of the world rebuilt, it was game over for our manufacturing and some service monopolies. Who would have ever imagined General Motors going bankrupt? It also didn't help when the U.S. stuck with th e imperial measuring system.

I'm not quite so sure that "the middle class" is an anomaly. During the middle ages, renaissance, etc. through the organisation in guilds, the middle class were the trades people, each of them capable of having their own home, plenty of food, small luxuries, even sometimes own servants. The commerce people from the VOC or before the Hanse cities, all became the middle class of their age, often even quite wealthy. The upper class was then royalty and nobility.

 

[mdwest]

 

[Sabattiboy]

I guess my question pertaining to google and facebook framed from them being publicly traded. They have stockholders to answer to but no competition. A few years back google was found to be modifying search results based on who paid the most advertising fees. facebook has their own system of dealings.

 

[Wheels]