Elitist view or rational thing?

[denuseri]

The also pollute the enviroment, exploit their workers, and trick anyone they can into purchasing their product even if its not really safe or harmful in and of itself in its production or consumption or even useful to consumers in general...all without any apparent concern unless forced to comply by an outside authority.

They basically act like non-repentant social paths in all most every regard.

[Thorne]

The also pollute the enviroment, exploit their workers, and trick anyone they can into purchasing their product even if its not really safe or harmful in and of itself in its production or consumption or even useful to consumers in general...all without any apparent concern unless forced to comply by an outside authority.

They basically act like non-repentant social paths in all most every regard.

Are we talking about corporations, or governments? From your description I can't really tell the difference.

[DuncanONeil]

The also pollute the enviroment,

Then why has the environment been improving over the past few decades?

exploit their workers,

I am afraid I must ask you to define "exploitation". I do not consider a requirement to work in order to receive a paycheck being exploited.

and trick anyone they can into purchasing their product even if its not really(

Please explain how you propose to "trick" me into buying anything. At least more than once!

safe

Who is the responsible person to ensure that a product is used safely? By your statement we can sell no; knives, cars, bicycles, motorcycles, horses, hang gliders, airplanes, pogo sticks, or any of the other myriad things that we can use to hurt ourselves.

or harmful in and of itself in its production or consumption

I suppose that this is meant to refer to cigarettes? What about sterno or matches?

or even useful to consumers in general...

Sorry this is not the least bit objective. Things I might choose not to do without you would have not one single use for.

all without any apparent concern

This is reasonable when you are of the position that the purpose for the existence of a business is the height of evil. But that very thing, the profit motive, is the single most pervasive thing to make a company do what is correct. If one did not there would be no profit.

unless forced to comply by an outside authority.

So you are than of the opinion that the only way to induce anyone to do that which is correct is to force them? I seen to remember hearing that forcing a child to do the correct thing is the absolute wrong thing to do as all it teaches them is "Might Makes Right". If it is wrong in those circumstances it is wrong in all circumstances. Further this requirement for force to ensure the "correct" action leaves all business - and choice - in the hands of Government. For they are the only ones for whom force is an acceptable means of operation.
I believe that is called Communism.

They basically act like non-repentant social paths in all most every regard.

I believe you held that position before the discussion.

[denuseri]

The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same. ~Marie Beyle

Yet in the end..once they are of no other use to the shepherd...are not the sheep then led to slaughter.

To me the corperation is like a faceless shepherd only his sole consern is in how much profit he will make out of us sheep and how fast he can make it.


As for whose opinions matter when it comes to economics (or anything else)...which btw is the topic of the thread as presented by the op:

The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject. ~Marcus Aurelius

[Thorne]

To me the corperation is like a faceless shepherd only his sole consern is in how much profit he will make out of us sheep and how fast he can make it.

So who knows more about the economics of shepherding, the sheep or the shepherd? And who is more guilty, the shepherd who tends his flock, feeds them and protects them? Or the people who buy their wool, and their meat? And if no one is buying the wool or meat, of what use is the shepherd, or the sheep?

As for whose opinions matter when it comes to economics (or anything else)...which btw is the topic of the thread as presented by the op
The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject. ~Marcus Aurelius

Which is a very good reason to trust the economics of the country to those who actually know something of economics, and not to men and women whose only understanding of money is how to raise enough of it to be reelected.

[denuseri]

Or steal enough of it right out from under everyones noses, or in plain sight and get away with it?

[tedteague]

well personally, i find shaws better than hunter-gathering or growing my own wheatfield and praying the harvest is bountiful.
Corporations do not twist the arms of the people who buy its products, and to say they exploit their workers is too general a statement.
Would you rather have no industry, no cars, probably electricity or running water?
Or would you rather have corporations?

[DuncanONeil]

Or steal enough of it right out from under everyones noses, or in plain sight and get away with it?

All crooks eventually get caught.
But you can not have a greedy crook without a greedy victim!

[denuseri]

We had all those wonderful things before corperations came to any kind of surpremacy in the market.

[tedteague]

You're right, we did have cars. except nobody could afford them until Henry Ford made them so cheap most Americans could buy them. You wouldn't have a laptop, no internet, or even power without General Electric. Even if you did have a car that was horribly overpriced because it was made by hand, what would you put in it? No corporations to import gas means no importing gas. And as for pollution, everybody pollutes. It is not just the corporations. The standard of living we enjoy today is the product of corporations. Big ones that make tons of money

[DuncanONeil]

You're right, we did have cars. except nobody could afford them until Henry Ford made them so cheap most Americans could buy them. You wouldn't have a laptop, no internet, or even power without General Electric. Even if you did have a car that was horribly overpriced because it was made by hand, what would you put in it? No corporations to import gas means no importing gas. And as for pollution, everybody pollutes. It is not just the corporations. The standard of living we enjoy today is the product of corporations. Big ones that make tons of money

I just learned that before the advent of cars gasoline was a waste product of the production of kerosine! And that waste was tossed in the river!!

[denuseri]

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.

[DuncanONeil]

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.

Do you really understand the origin of the "corporation?
The origin was a combining of two companies into one entity. Why do you think it is Ford, Lincoln, Mercury?

[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".

[tedteague]

i also dont necessarily think they trick the consumer into anything. corporations exist because we let them. we fund them. we give the revenue

[denuseri]

Actually ...historically speaking the first american corperations were good things but then again they were also temporary things; conglomerations of individual private citizen contributors who came together for the explicite purpose of funding a specific public project such as a park or gas light distribution network or water works or bridge etc in their city or local area and once the specific project was completed they disbanded.

I have no desire to derail the main topic of this thread however. What should have been a single post on my personal yet learned historical based opinions conserning corperate motivations and what their evolution has done to effect economic matters has turned into to large of a sidebar to continue here so I am recomending that we make a new thread for it or take to pm any issues anyone may wish to have with my personal views to my pm box, I will be more than willing to continue such debate in eaither of those venues. I apologize to the other members for presenting this here and actively participating in its continuance.



Now back to the threads actual topic.

Ted I have to ask...what is you personal advice as an economist concerning all the jibber jabber about the economey?

What specifically are we layman to believe or not?

Should the government take a hands off approach or should they regulate things?

What exactly is it about layman opinions that is so wrong you find exception about in all the debate?

What big secret are the learned economists keeping to themselves that isnt being discussed by john q public?

[denuseri]

So is their perhaps a scientific way of associating herd behavior in mass market systems that will give us any real sence of perdictability?

[DuncanONeil]

Dr Bruce Bueno claims to have an algorithm that is capable of prediction with a rate of accuracy of 90% or more.

So is their perhaps a scientific way of associating herd behavior in mass market systems that will give us any real sence of perdictability?

[steelish]

Yeah, I don't understand the "evil" of the corporations either. Does wanting to be profitable equate to "evil"? Isn't that what almost everyone is trying to achieve? Self-sufficiency?

Also - when it comes to economics, I've never understood why some think that spending money is the way to make or save money....it doesn't work for me. I get more in debt when I spend more money. Isn't it the same for governments?

[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]

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.

[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!