Elitist view or rational thing?

[steelish]

It's quite obvious, really. They provide consumers with things that they really want, at prices which most of them can afford, all while providing jobs and benefits to their workers. And to top it off, they have the unmitigated gall to actually make a profit!

How evil can they get?

This made me snicker.

[steelish]

Ford made them cheap, Ford..an individual in charge of a business that he owned in his own right...long before the corperation that his company turned into rose to surpremacy or shed its liability for any wrong doings in the light of the law in conjucntion with all the other big companies over the government.

Ford developed the concept of production lines. The very thing you vilify for "polluting the environment".

[Thorne]

economics is not a precise science ... Even if it is more of a religion...

So let me get this straight. You're saying that economics, like religion, is all smoke and mirrors? Fantasy and fairy tales? Myth and make-believe?

That explains a lot!

[tedteague]

So let me get this straight. You're saying that economics, like religion, is all smoke and mirrors? Fantasy and fairy tales? Myth and make-believe?

That explains a lot!

hmm . . . not trying to be attacking here, but either you completely misunderstood what I said or I didn't say it very well. you missed the forest for trees.
Economics is a science. It is rather unique, however, because you can't have a real control variable. No two countries have identical economies, so what works in one may be disastrous in another. Its not like one can observe two independent timelines, one with a bailout and one without.
It's still using past behavior to attempt to predict future behavior

[Thorne]

hmm . . . not trying to be attacking here, but either you completely misunderstood what I said or I didn't say it very well. you missed the forest for trees.

Wouldn't be the first time I've done that! But you did compare economics to religion, after all. And at least twice you used a religious analogy to illustrate something.

Economics is a science. It is rather unique, however, because you can't have a real control variable. No two countries have identical economies, so what works in one may be disastrous in another. Its not like one can observe two independent timelines, one with a bailout and one without.

I don't know if you can call it a science, then. If you can't have controls, and you can't duplicate experiments, then there's little that is scientific. From where I sit it sounds more like Astrology than Astronomy. You use scientific sounding terms, but in the end it's all guesswork. When you can say, "Given these conditions, you will get this result; changing that condition will change the result in this manner", then you are working scientifically.

It's still using past behavior to attempt to predict future behavior

Lot's of processes do that, including religion. That doesn't make it science.

[tedteague]

well, 1. i dont know how religion tries to predict anything, unless you want to include those guys who calculate when the world will end by dividing the number of vowels by the amount of times the name of the book is mentioned.
To call i astrology is saying theres a room of people who just randomly assign meaning to certain things
Liken it more to physics. We have general ideas where the electron will be at given moment, but we can't know for sure. And we're still trying to figure out quarks.
Psychology has the same difficulty in controlling variables as everyones mind is different. However, there are many things you can still prove as more or less true, like getting shot in one lobe may impair vision or cause a personality change. The same general rules can be applied to economics like price ceilings will lead to shortages. You then use these relationships and trends to determine the effect any action will have on an economy

[DuncanONeil]

So let me get this straight. You're saying that economics, like religion, is all smoke and mirrors? Fantasy and fairy tales? Myth and make-believe?

That explains a lot!

Pretty good!
And it fits right in to the Thorne ethos.

[Thorne]

Pretty good!
And it fits right in to the Thorne ethos.

Hey! Look, everybody! I got my own ETHOS!

WTF is an ethos, anyway?

[TantricSoul]

Ethos:
n.
The disposition, character, or fundamental values peculiar to a specific person, people, culture, or movement.

[denuseri]

Here you go Thorne...everything you ever wanted to know about the word "ethos'. lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethos

<<lives to serve...serves to live...winks.

[tedteague]

*shrugs* thats a tricky word . . . kinda like irony . . .
ill leave it to the english majors ;-)

[Thorne]

I appreciate the help, guys, but I did look it up myself. I was trying to be facetious. Or sarcastic. It's a part of my ethos.

Though I will say I have no idea what my ethos is supposed to be, or how Duncan would know it better than I.

[DuncanONeil]

Hey! Look, everybody! I got my own ETHOS!

WTF is an ethos, anyway?

I'd like to go a little further than Tantric;


e·thos
    Show Spelled[ee-thos, ee-thohs, eth-os, -ohs] Show IPA
–noun
1.Sociology. the fundamental character or spirit of a culture; the underlying sentiment that informs the beliefs, customs, or practices of a group or society; dominant assumptions of a people or period: In the Greek ethos the individual was highly valued.
2.the character or disposition of a community, group, person, etc.
3.the moral element in dramatic literature that determines a character's action rather than his or her thought or emotion.

[DuncanONeil]

I appreciate the help, guys, but I did look it up myself. I was trying to be facetious. Or sarcastic. It's a part of my ethos.

Though I will say I have no idea what my ethos is supposed to be, or how Duncan would know it better than I.

Probably for the same reason that I hold that any individual is their own worst critic. Such evaluations must be left to others, we are all way to close to the subject.

[Thorne]

Probably for the same reason that I hold that any individual is their own worst critic. Such evaluations must be left to others, we are all way to close to the subject.

I suppose I can buy that. So, care to enlighten me about what you consider to be my ethos?

[DuncanONeil]

I suppose I can buy that. So, care to enlighten me about what you consider to be my ethos?

The original statement was predicated on;
" Originally Posted by Thorne
So let me get this straight. You're saying that economics, like religion, is all smoke and mirrors? Fantasy and fairy tales? Myth and make-believe?

That explains a lot!"

Kind of means, to me, that you are like the apocryphal resident of Missouri (or, perish the thought) Doubting Thomas. If it can't be held in your hand or concrete evidence be presented it is just a ruse (tried to find a more appropriate word).
Therefore the above comment is a perfect match for you, and ethos was a good fit in saying so.

[Thorne]

The original statement was predicated on;
" Originally Posted by Thorne
So let me get this straight. You're saying that economics, like religion, is all smoke and mirrors? Fantasy and fairy tales? Myth and make-believe?

That explains a lot!"

Kind of means, to me, that you are like the apocryphal resident of Missouri (or, perish the thought) Doubting Thomas. If it can't be held in your hand or concrete evidence be presented it is just a ruse (tried to find a more appropriate word).
Therefore the above comment is a perfect match for you, and ethos was a good fit in saying so.

I don't know that I would jump to the conclusion that something is a ruse, but I would certainly cast a more critical eye on it. And if someone is going to put forth conclusions, I would expect those conclusions to be based upon reality. If I find hoof prints in the ground I'm probably going to conclude their were horses around. Unless I'm in the Serengeti, in which case zebras will come to mind. But just because I haven't seen a horse or a zebra doesn't mean I can jump to the conclusion that unicorns made the prints!

[denuseri]

lol...Thorne...I think he is saying that your "brutal honesty","critical eye" and overt "show me the money" way of conducting your posts is all part of that ethos we all know and love about you good Sir.

[Thorne]

lol...Thorne...I think he is saying that your "brutal honesty","critical eye" and overt "show me the money" way of conducting your posts is all part of that ethos we all know and love about you good Sir.

Trying to make me blush? Flattery won't do it!

In my own defense, that "brutal honesty" is meant to counterbalance some of the flaming idiocy I see around me in the world. Like people who are willing to assume that the best explanation for anything they don't understand is the supernatural (ghosts, demons, spirits, even gods) or extraterrestrial (flying saucers, alien encounters) or some massive conspiracy. It's my philosophy (or ethos, if you will) to exhaust all of the natural possibilities before even considering the unnatural.

But it's nice to know I'm appreciated.

[tedteague]

This is completely off topic but the camel guy in Duncan's avi just makes me chuckle

[DuncanONeil]

This is completely off topic but the camel guy in Duncan's avi just makes me chuckle

It is not "just" a camel guy. Nor is it really an avatar!