Romney, Capitalism (healthy societies require some suffering)

[RandFan]

Ford was failing in the 1940s precisely because they didn't have a long-term vision.

Ever read The Reckoning?

No. I haven't. I'm willing to grant your premise to advance the discussion. Ford did believe that increasing workers wages would increase his profits and there is evidence that this was true.

 

[RandFan]

None of this refutes my point. You think you can come up with a definition of "well-being" that isn't subjective?

You are missing my point. I don't care. We could as easily say capitalism is BS since nothing it is credited with is anything other than subjective.

BTW: You didn't address my points. I granted you the premise and then made an argument for why these subjective criteria were important and you simply dismissed my premises.

 

[RandFan]

Americans are inherently incapable of equality in education. My best friend in the whole world barely got a high school diploma; he would have been hopelessly lost in college.

(emphasis mine). Assertion and anecdote? Okay, thanks.

ETA: Let's assume that your premise accurately reflects that America is woefully failing to prepare students for college. That we are failing is not evidence that we are incapable of succeeding. You will need some basis to assert that.

 

[RandFan]

I don't personally know of any company (other than maybe banks) that purposely eschew a long-term vision for short-term gain. And it's questionable whether banks suffered long-term from their short-term gains.

As I said, your point may hold some water as far as financial companies are concerned. I don't think it holds for other companies though. And I don't see many financial companies that were harmed in the long-term by their actions.

Except that the unemployment isn't really the result of short-sightedness by the companies that are currently being affected by a lack of demand. It was caused by the short-sightedness of the financial sector, which isn't really suffering from its actions.

-Bri

And I would strongly disagree. So we are left with opinions and assertions on both sides. I was hoping that others could flesh this out better for either side. So far we just have claims. I'll try to improve my game.

 

[RandFan]

None of this refutes my point. You think you can come up with a definition of "well-being" that isn't subjective?

I wanted to make one more philosophical point here. Your appeal is a nihilistic one. And that's fine as nihilism is a coherent philosophy. I just find it *absurd in a politics forum. It reminds me of the solipsist who wants to convince others of solipsism. Once you tear down the very foundations of ideology and socioeconomics then seriously, what's the point?

*I'm not talking about ethical nihilism.

 

[Bri]

And I would strongly disagree. So we are left with opinions and assertions on both sides. I was hoping that others could flesh this out better for either side. So far we just have claims. I'll try to improve my game.

Perhaps you could give an example of a non-financial company you feel has eschewed long-term vision for short-term gain.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

Perhaps you could give an example of a non-financial company you feel has eschewed long-term vision for short-term gain.

That gets very frustrating. Our economy and unemployment rates have been crap for more than a decade. Based on what I've read I believe that is due in large part to the ever widening chasm between rich and poor. I believe also, based on what I understand as a shift in corporate philosophy, more and more a shift toward short term financial goals and this has contributed much to this past decade of pathetic GDP growth and abysmal stock market.

I have no problem whatsoever with you disagreeing with me due to my failure to make my case. I conceded that and offered to improve my position. However, your insistence on this point would seem to suggest that you feel that this argument from ignorance is somehow significant. It's not. If I we're insistent that you were wrong and I was right then I could understand it better.

Look, if you choose to believe that the last 11 years have nothing to do with short sighted views of business then that's fine. I'm here to have a discussion. I'm not here to prove anything. I can respect your opinion But I do resent the badgering especially in light of my concession.

Can we move on?

 

[eeyore1954]

That gets very frustrating. Our economy and unemployment rates have been crap for more than a decade. Based on what I've read I believe that is due in large part to the ever widening chasm between rich and poor. I believe also, based on what I understand as a shift in corporate philosophy, more and more a shift toward short term financial goals and this has contributed much to this past decade of pathetic GDP growth and abysmal stock market.


Look, if you choose to believe that the last 11 years have nothing to do with short sighted views of business then that's fine. I'm here to have a discussion. I'm not here to prove anything. I can respect your opinion But I do resent the badgering especially in light of my concession.

Can we move on?

The unemployment rates have been bad for over a decade? What are you facts for that?

What caused the stock market to plumet in 2001? Was it short term planning by companies?

Based on what I've read I believe that is due in large part to the ever widening chasm between rich and poor.

I am wondering is there any evidence for this or was it just written somewhere?

Is it badgering for someone to ask you for an example of a company that has demonstrated this short sightedness?

 

[RandFan]

The unemployment rates have been bad for over a decade? What are you facts for that?

I'll look. That's my memory, by and large things have sucked. Bush lowered taxes to stimulate the economy, right? Are you saying the economy sucked but unemployent was low.

What caused the stock market to plumet in 2001? Was it short term planning by companies?

I believe it was a very big part, yes.

I am wondering is there any evidence for this or was it just written somewhere?

I conceded that I hadn't made my case. I'm offering an opinion.

Is it badgering for someone to ask you for an example of a company that has demonstrated this short sightedness?

GOD DAMN STRAIGHT IT IS! If one concedes that they don't have the info and the question is asked over and over. Hell yes.

This thread is an attempt to have a discussion, not prove my opinion. If I were arrogaantly demanding that I was right then fine. Here's a hint. I'M NOT.

So, do you have an opinion why the GDP and the stock market have been in the toilet for 10 years? Or are you here to declare I'm not allowed to discuss opinions in a JREF forum?

 

[Bri]

Look, if you choose to believe that the last 11 years have nothing to do with short sighted views of business then that's fine. I'm here to have a discussion. I'm not here to prove anything. I can respect your opinion But I do resent the badgering especially in light of my concession.

I thought we were having a discussion. I didn't ask you to prove anything. I asked for an example so that I could better understand your position.

Can we move on?

Sure, it's your thread.

-Bri

 

[TimCallahan]

This video reminded me of what happened to Filmation, an animation company in Southern California. At different times both my wife an I worked there, along with a lot of other people working in the animation industry. The company was owned by Westinghouse and did reasonably well under a policy of benign neglect. Then Westinghouse took an active interest in Filmation, resulting in layoffs and decreased production. Then there seemed to be a glimmer of hope. There were rumors the French cosmetics company, L'Oreal was going to buy and rejuvenate the company. L'Oreal did indeed buy Filmation, and immediately fired everyone and disbanded the company. What L'Oreal wanted was the film library of He-Man, She-Ra and Fat Albert episodes. The people working at the company were so much excess baggage.

Regardless of whether the video is valid or not, the policies of the Republican Party from Reagan onward have resulted in the steady erosion of the American middle class. Some investment in the country is needed, for example, a program to rebuild the nation's physical infrastructure - but don't look to the Republicans to initiate such a program.

 

[RandFan]

I thought we were having a discussion. I didn't ask you to prove anything. I asked for an example so that I could better understand your position.

Sorry Bri. Fair enough.

Sure, it's your thread.

Thanks but I'm not one to see threads I start as mine. As long as people follow the rules, and you are, then anyone is entitled to contribute how they see fit. I don't even mind OT posts if they are constructive. And to be sure, you were not OT.

I'm having difficulties at the moment and I'm a tad sensitive. I apologize.

 

[RandFan]

This video reminded me of what happened to Filmation, an animation company in Southern California. At different times both my wife an I worked there, along with a lot of other people working in the animation industry. The company was owned by Westinghouse and did reasonably well under a policy of benign neglect. Then Westinghouse took an active interest in Filmation, resulting in layoffs and decreased production. Then there seemed to be a glimmer of hope. There were rumors the French cosmetics company, L'Oreal was going to buy and rejuvenate the company. L'Oreal did indeed buy Filmation, and immediately fired everyone and disbanded the company. What L'Oreal wanted was the film library of He-Man, She-Ra and Fat Albert episodes. The people working at the company were so much excess baggage.

Regardless of whether the video is valid or not, the policies of the Republican Party from Reagan onward have resulted in the steady erosion of the American middle class. Some investment in the country is needed, for example, a program to rebuild the nation's physical infrastructure - but don't look to the Republicans to initiate such a program.

Agreed.

 

[eeyore1954]

Are you saying the economy sucked but unemployent was low.

I am saying that unemployment was not bad.

So, do you have an opinion why the GDP and the stock market have been in the toilet for 10 years? Or are you here to declare I'm not allowed to discuss opinions in a JREF forum?

I don't agree GDP has been in the toilet for the last ten years.


I believe there were 3 major factors that caused the market to behave the way it has in the last 10 years. I don't think they were the only factors.

1) 9/11
2) The housing bubble
3) Another factor is maybe the Stock market was overvalued before it started to swirl in the bowl.
The S and P went from 330 to 1470 from 1990 to 2000. The Nasdaq was probably even more pronounced. Were there financial fundamentals to support this kind of growth?

 

[RandFan]

I don't agree GDP has been in the toilet for the last ten years.

I've debated this to death. Adjusted for inflation it is pathetic. I have all my charts bookmarked on another computer. I will post them/

I believe there were 3 major factors that caused the market to behave the way it has in the last 10 years. I don't think they were the only factors.

1) 9/11
2) The housing bubble
3) Another factor is maybe the Stock market was overvalued before it started to swirl in the bowl.
The S and P went from 330 to 1470 from 1990 to 2000. The Nasdaq was probably even more pronounced. Were there financial fundamentals to support this kind of growth?

I think these are contributing factors. Let's go with your premise to advance the discussion.

Why was the market overvalued? Could it be, in part, a desire to get more out of a system than is possible? Is it possible for corporations to use shady acctg strategies and other methods to prop up the bottom line? If so, are the actions of companies like Enron examples of short term or long term vision?

I'll go get those tables, charts and source data now for the GDP. Give me a few minutes.

 

[RandFan]

I don't agree GDP has been in the toilet for the last ten years.

Source

In a word, pathetic.

 

[Minoosh]

Perhaps you could give an example of a non-financial company you feel has eschewed long-term vision for short-term gain.

IMO the newspaper industry. Profits were routinely at something like 30 percent. The business decision was made to fill holes with wire copy and take advantage of the emotional attachment older readers still had to newspapers. Gradually there was less and less local content. It also became more expensive and cumbersome to print and distribute all that newsprint. Also, reader habits changed. Newspapers failed to develop advertiser-supported online delivery models. They wrung all the profit they could out of the old model without positioning themselves for the future.