Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:10:11 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Author Topic: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?  (Read 3159 times)
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: March 06, 2012, 03:57:50 PM »
« edited: March 06, 2012, 04:00:20 PM by Ben Kenobi »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Considering that many of the big names have passed on - that's really not a surprise.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm lumping the Neo-Keynesians together, just mostly a broad definition.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, that's Friedman et al, I'd consider you closer to Hayek than to Keynes.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: March 06, 2012, 04:07:10 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Considering that many of the big names have passed on - that's really not a surprise.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm lumping the Neo-Keynesians together, just mostly a broad definition.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, that's Friedman et al, I'd consider you closer to Hayek than to Keynes.

Well, I'm not sure I would...anyway, the charge that my point was based on not understanding or disagreeing with some conservative economical idea should maybe be backed up by something more than just throwing around some label? What idea is it specifically that you're thinking of?
Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: March 06, 2012, 04:11:52 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd disagree with you here. A businessman needs to have practical knowledge about the economy in order to be an effective businessman. He should understand supply and demand. If he can accurately gage demand for things then he will make more money, if he can understand what people want and why.

I don't think the argument that 'businessmen know nothing about economics is very valid. Businessmen are much more sensitive to local realities even if they don't see the overall picture.

Did you mean to say macroeconomics?
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: March 06, 2012, 04:18:41 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd disagree with you here. A businessman needs to have practical knowledge about the economy in order to be an effective businessman. He should understand supply and demand. If he can accurately gage demand for things then he will make more money, if he can understand what people want and why.

I don't think the argument that 'businessmen know nothing about economics is very valid. Businessmen are much more sensitive to local realities even if they don't see the overall picture.

Did you mean to say macroeconomics?

A businessman doesn't really need to know supply and demand - that's why market economies work better than planned economies. He only needs to know his cost of production and the going market price, both of which can be easily ascertained and require no skill.

That's all in the model world anyway. In reality, Bill Gates or Steve Jobs did not get rich because they were good with economics but because they were good with technology. And that's how it is with most business people.

Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: March 06, 2012, 04:19:48 PM »
« Edited: March 06, 2012, 04:32:06 PM by Ben Kenobi »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure he does. How else does he ascertain market pricing?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Both of which are dictated by the laws of supply and demand. Going market price isn't going to stay static.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

To make the most money, you want to be as close to the true market price as possible, and that's going to change. If your business is slow to react to these changes, then you are going to be losing money. I used to work for a store - my job was to overhaul their entire inventory system, to give them more centralized control over stock and real time updates.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are plenty of people out there who were as good at techonology as Bill Gates and Jobs. Gates and Jobs were successful because they combined the talent of designing quality computer equipment, and because they had successful marketing and distribution strategies.

They were able to better meet the needs of people and they adjusted their pricing to reflect it. MS and Apple have very different business models, Apple focusses on quality, princing things more highly but simplifying them so that the users do not have as much to learn. Gates did the other way - looking at price first, trying to reduce the costs of his components and becoming the overall market leader through sales volume and mass production.

Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: March 06, 2012, 05:22:40 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure he does. How else does he ascertain market pricing?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Both of which are dictated by the laws of supply and demand. Going market price isn't going to stay static.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

To make the most money, you want to be as close to the true market price as possible, and that's going to change. If your business is slow to react to these changes, then you are going to be losing money. I used to work for a store - my job was to overhaul their entire inventory system, to give them more centralized control over stock and real time updates.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are plenty of people out there who were as good at techonology as Bill Gates and Jobs. Gates and Jobs were successful because they combined the talent of designing quality computer equipment, and because they had successful marketing and distribution strategies.

They were able to better meet the needs of people and they adjusted their pricing to reflect it. MS and Apple have very different business models, Apple focusses on quality, princing things more highly but simplifying them so that the users do not have as much to learn. Gates did the other way - looking at price first, trying to reduce the costs of his components and becoming the overall market leader through sales volume and mass production.



Sure, the market price is driven by supply and demand but you don't have to know the specific curves to figure out the price, which was my point. And though it's not static, it's usually reasonably stable. That again makes the model more nuanced though.

The point is rather that the kind of decisions businesspeople make are very different from most economic decisions taken by politicians.
Logged
Tidewater_Wave
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 519
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: March 06, 2012, 10:37:37 PM »

I'm liking this thead and its discussion about free market and business skill. Above success in importance is a fundamental understanding and appreciation for the free market. Business skill though is a quality trait though as it suggests skill when making deals on the budget and other necesssities needed for the Oval Office. Keep it going!
Logged
WillK
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,276


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: March 06, 2012, 10:59:05 PM »

Our national debt is completely absurd. Running a seemingly perpetual trillion dollar deficit is a sure-fire way to stunt America's progress for generations to come.
...
We need somebody like Romney to axe some of the regulatory books and severely cut costs without dampening growth prospects in the present and future.

I cant tell if you are being sarcastic or serious.  Romney is going to increase the deficit.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: March 07, 2012, 02:01:56 PM »


I am not a supporter of term limits, never said I was. You once again read to much into something and posted a bunch of crap distracting from the core issues of the topic. I never created any line between legislating and governing. I was assessing the desire of conservatives for a Washington outsider. Since you mix your personal view with your analysis all the time, I am not surprised you assume others do so as well.

We can all state positions including those with which we disagree. Someone said that conservatives tend to support term limits -- which seems true. It is easy for people to impute reasons to contemporary conservatives -- for example, that they want participation in the legislative process to not be a career, that continuance in office allows legislators to go out of tough with the "Real World", that the legislative process inherently corrupts elected officials... to which a liberal might retort that the  "Real World" looks very different between a minority-dominated district in Houston and some largely-rural and predominately white district in the Texas Panhandle and that politicians expected  to represent voters in both districts can reasonably be expected to express political reality very differently, that constituent service becomes potentially better the longer that one holds onto a legislative seat, that lobbyists get better knowledge of how to use the political process to effect change than do politicians, that rapid turnover of legislative offices encourages a revolving door between special interests and government in which being an elected official is just another item on a career as a business executive, and that even without term limits voters can oust elected officials who prove incompetent or corrupt. Maybe it is easier to develop into a reliable 'conservative' stooge for Big Business than it is to develop as a liberal because conservative positions more easily come from a simpler explanation of principles and policies because liberalism implies a more complicated understanding of human nature instead of profit-and-loss. Profit-and-loss isn't everything even for conservatives as persons.     
   
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did I have to put it so crudely as "I just don't trust the b@stards"? The Movement Conservatives or our time are no longer the likes of Everett Dirksen who recognized that the common man needed to believe that he was getting something from the overall system. To describe them as mirror-image Marxists -- that is, people who believe in the very things that Marx and all later socialists and liberals consider objectionable. Capitalism and the conservatism that largely defends capitalism both need a human face lest capitalism and conservatism become an endorsement of economic cruelty for the enrichment and pampering of elites as the primary objective of business and government.

Conservatism needs to grow up. Material gain and indulgence aren't everything -- which explains why there aren't as many pimps and pushers as a very sordid view of human nature would suggest.       
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The thread is suppose defend longterm incumbents and insiders. That section initially included Lincoln short government experience as well. I removed it to reduce the length. It wasn't meant to be a hit on Obama, but a defense of "alleged" outsiders.
[/quote][/quote]

Insiders are inevitable in any political order irrespective of its ideology whether those people are born to the position (aristocracy),  own the resources and manage the labor (plutocracy), develop and exploit information that they keep to themselves (bureaucracy), develop power over people through fear of horrific consequences for any misstep (tyranny),  or elected (democracy).   Just think of Soviet reality in practice: the revolutionaries ended up going after each other and becoming either enforcers or victims, and real power gravitated to an unelected Party boss for decisions on who lived and who died and to politically-reliable bureaucrats who could enrich themselves by arranging what a free market would otherwise make easy.

...It is a facile enterprise to look to the "intent of the Founders". Without question they saw relatively few people as appropriate holders of political power: officials chosen by the People in periodic and competitive elections, persons appointed by the elected President and subject to Congressional approval, and persons under the employ, as necessary for the execution of appropriate power  but strictly-limited authority and who could be fired for incompetence or misconduct. Innovations in that norm have inherent dangers. Economic interests never got representation (which would be fascism as a political structure) as such. Although much ambiguity remains on what role government has in the economy (so long as it does not steal assets from owners) and in practice the methods of serving people the Founders were quite clear about things that the government could not do -- like torture, summary executions, suppression of press and speech, ex post facto laws and bills of attainder,  sale of offices, and religious discrimination. They also determined an overall pattern of political structure and practice  modified little since -- notably checks and balances on power within the government .

Elected officials were generally understood to have independence from all but their voters and not to be responsible to some Party Boss or to some "Commission of Public Morals" (contemporary Iran), or lobbyists deputized by corporate interests to supervise them in practice. The latter is in the formative stage in America, and that is the formative stage of a new manner of undemocratic government. It is so novel that it has no obvious name for it; one would have to coin a term for "Government by lobbyists and enforcers of economic interests". Maybe in Wisconsin it is already being called "Walker-ism" and in Florida it is being called "Scott-ism".

We still have the means to vote out incompetent, corrupt, irresponsible, or sold-out politicians when they seek re-election. We the People are the ultimate check and balance against executive despotism and a legislature running amok or selling out. If We the People abandon that  responsibility then we are at the mercy of a government that rules us with impunity.   
Logged
Tidewater_Wave
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 519
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: March 07, 2012, 02:16:49 PM »

I agree with the last part brower said. I'm a fan of term limits but I don't see congress ever voting themselves out of office. Maybe have 2 six-year terms in the Senate and 6 two-year terms in the house and allow them to run again after another 12 years.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.232 seconds with 13 queries.