|
Post by scpg02 on Jun 8, 2010 23:17:35 GMT
We are so fixated on safety that we have created a generation that thinks life should contain no risk and are astounded and angry when they find it isn't true. How sad. Good thing we went to the moon when we did because we sure wouldn't do it now.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 8, 2010 23:55:32 GMT
We are so fixated on safety that we have created a generation that thinks life should contain no risk and are astounded and angry when they find it isn't true. How sad. Good thing we went to the moon when we did because we sure wouldn't do it now. Icon of the 21st Century [glow=red,2,300] THE WRONG STUFF[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jun 9, 2010 2:14:29 GMT
Ain't that the truth?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 9, 2010 8:24:05 GMT
The problem with the argument that we are less prepared to take risk is that people like Alan Greenspan protected the risk takers for many years by cutting interest rates when things went pear-shaped. In some parts of the market risk went away because it was heads you win, tails you get bailed out. In 2004, after a 5 minute discussion with an advisor, I was advised to get a mortgage of 7 times my salary. I told the advisor that the advice was risky. He told me that it was only fair that lower paid Devon residents should be entitled to the right to be able to buy homes (whose cost had recently inflated by 25% or so). I thought that was idiotic. Turned out that 7x salary is peanuts compared with what was going on in the US. The product I was offered was a 3 year fixed rate - eternity compared with some of the periods offered in the US. At this time Alan Greenspan said: In this speech he was advocating more variable rate mortgages because fixed rate loans had turned out to be more expensive. The reason that they'd turned out to be more expensive though was because rates had dropped from 6.5% to about 1% in the previous 5 years: Given that the rate cuts were due to some big shocks in the system (notably 9/11), the qualifier in this statement is not sufficient to justify the argument being made. www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/20040223/This was of course all at the same time that regulation of the housing loan market was being shredded. There is a difference between small scale calculated risks and large scale stupid risks.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 9, 2010 14:39:44 GMT
The problem with the argument that we are less prepared to take risk is that people like Alan Greenspan protected the risk takers for many years by cutting interest rates when things went pear-shaped. In some parts of the market risk went away because it was heads you win, tails you get bailed out. I think you missed the point! We weren't talking about vicarious risk. Financial risk is vicarious risk in that there is nothing directly harmful to your person in picking the wrong stock. People are so insulated from the real world that now all risk is financial in nature and real risk is unacceptable. Thats negative feedback to success. As such, I believe, stupid fears arise over issues a hundred years off, as if anybody eligible to vote will be alive in a hundred years. You just don't get it at all! Lets look a vicarious risk though since you are bring it up as there is a commonality there. For you its all about blaming Alan Greenspan. Its always somebody else's fault! Alan Greenspan is no more of a God than you or I, its just the people that elevate him there then blame him when things go wrong. Its all about being a natural follower, a person incapable of leading, always following, shuns risk, blames anything going wrong on somebody else (like Alan Greenspan) though they may have partaken in his advice willingly or if they didn't they probably blame him for the general economy anyway and whatever financial mess they are in. America is traditionally a nation of leaders. Pioneers willing to take risk, immigrants willing to take risks, and people not fearful of failing or even dying because of their faith. Thats the RIGHT STUFF! The stuff that builds nations and is responsible for the world we are living in that gives us so much that we can forget where it came from. Entrepreneurs understand what risk is. They put everything on the line. Alan Greenspan was making a speech in favor of taking risks. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. If you fall on your face pick yourself up and try again. Fact is most people are far better off today than when Alan Greenspan took continuous office under Ronald Reagan. The folks that said gee I will take the investment advisors advice to invest are in one of two conditions today. . . .their net worth has grown perhaps enormously; or they are just as poor as the folks that chose not to take any risk/investment. I think a careful analysis will show you the former group is at least 3 to 4 times the size of the latter group. But for the glass is only 3/4's full crowd, nah they will focus on the 8% employment rate and the 10% foreclosure rate and complain that 30% of investors have failed to significantly grow their nestegg. That is what investment is all about! Its the RIGHT STUFF! And SH1T HAPPENS! In the end the pioneers and the people willing to take risks come out on top. What applies to vicarious risks also applies to real risks. The only difference in real risk is the people that lay down their lives can't pick themselves back up; instead they pickup everybody else up and give the rest of us a chance to succeed. It is in fact an even nobler calling than vicarious risk it truly is the RIGHT STUFF because it elevates all of us.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 9, 2010 16:25:28 GMT
Icefisher
Maybe we both missed the point then because you brought up Alan Greenspan and financial risk.
There is a relation though in that the rich and powerful are able to take risks that others cannot take because either they are less affected by the downside, or their rich and powerful friends step in to bail them out. So since Reagan, the top 20% have been taking a steadily larger percentage of the pie in the US.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 9, 2010 16:59:00 GMT
Icefisher Maybe we both missed the point then because you brought up Alan Greenspan and financial risk. There is a relation though in that the rich and powerful are able to take risks that others cannot take because either they are less affected by the downside, or their rich and powerful friends step in to bail them out. So since Reagan, the top 20% have been taking a steadily larger percentage of the pie in the US. Ah yes, the measure of economic success of every socialist is not the creation of wealth which benefits all who work hard, but how much wealth from producers can be confiscated (stolen) and redistributed to non-producers who think their neighbors own them something. Now we have a socialist in office trying his best to emulate the failed European socialist system and doing a damn good job at it. Tell me steve, how does confiscating wealth from my "rich" employer benefit my family?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 9, 2010 19:20:57 GMT
Icefisher Maybe we both missed the point then because you brought up Alan Greenspan and financial risk. There is a relation though in that the rich and powerful are able to take risks that others cannot take because either they are less affected by the downside, or their rich and powerful friends step in to bail them out. So since Reagan, the top 20% have been taking a steadily larger percentage of the pie in the US. I would say the first misconception you have is that there is a pie of static size. And the second misconception is that risk should be avoided for personal safety reasons. My view is that such attitudes is what is poisoning western society and is the essential basis of the WRONG STUFF
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jun 9, 2010 22:23:03 GMT
Icefisher Maybe we both missed the point then because you brought up Alan Greenspan and financial risk. There is a relation though in that the rich and powerful are able to take risks that others cannot take because either they are less affected by the downside, or their rich and powerful friends step in to bail them out. So since Reagan, the top 20% have been taking a steadily larger percentage of the pie in the US. I would say the first misconception you have is that there is a pie of static size. And the second misconception is that risk should be avoided for personal safety reasons. My view is that such attitudes is what is poisoning western society and is the essential basis of the WRONG STUFFAnd I would agree.
|
|
|
Post by nemesis on Jun 9, 2010 23:51:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 10, 2010 8:35:34 GMT
Icefisher Maybe we both missed the point then because you brought up Alan Greenspan and financial risk. There is a relation though in that the rich and powerful are able to take risks that others cannot take because either they are less affected by the downside, or their rich and powerful friends step in to bail them out. So since Reagan, the top 20% have been taking a steadily larger percentage of the pie in the US. Ah yes, the measure of economic success of every socialist is not the creation of wealth which benefits all who work hard, but how much wealth from producers can be confiscated (stolen) and redistributed to non-producers who think their neighbors own them something. Now we have a socialist in office trying his best to emulate the failed European socialist system and doing a damn good job at it. Tell me steve, how does confiscating wealth from my "rich" employer benefit my family? Magellan, as well as completely mistating anything I have said, you are one of the suckers who believes that as long as one works hard and successfully, one will earn ones rewards. You are completely delusional. I know lots of people who do 10 hour days working for successful companies, contributing to the increase in productivity, yet who have seen their pay and benefits reduce year on year while the company profits go up. And here I am talking about the producers, the builders, the makers of things the movers of things. Economic success should be measured by improvements and innovations in running of businesses, not just in squeezing the employees. Because ultimately it is a zero sum game.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 10, 2010 8:46:23 GMT
Icefisher,
I don't have that misconception. But why should all the benefits of the growing pile go to the few who are in the position to skim off the top, when it is patently clear that no matter how incompetent they are, they will still be able to grow their share of the pile?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 10, 2010 13:59:23 GMT
Icefisher, I don't have that misconception. But why should all the benefits of the growing pile go to the few who are in the position to skim off the top, when it is patently clear that no matter how incompetent they are, they will still be able to grow their share of the pile? The pie is made by you Steve it isn't made for you. You simply choose to focus in on some of the injustices of the world and use those injustices as an excuse for failure. You rail about injustice working for the big corporation when all history tells you employees are treated unjustly, like you were just a number by a big corporation. Then you look for the government to fix it for you. So you make government bigger and bigger without realizing the biggest corporation in the world is the government. 234 years ago some small businessmen got together in Philadelphia and said ROT to that! And they signed their true names to a document that represented a huge risk to their necks, essentially declaring their independence from the biggest most powerful most evil corporation on the face of the earth who summarily hung people that signed such documents. What emerged out of that was the unleashing of small business a freedom never before seen in the world (it indeed took time to free all but it was a seed that grew and grew). Now it is true that some small businesses can grow up and be big evil impersonal corporations and many small businesses don't treat their employees well but the answer is to have enough choices you can walk from that situation and start your own thing or find a better employer to work for, one who provides you an opportunity to grow. More risk! But necessary risk if you value freedom and opportunity. Obviously there is a friction there because small business employers that provide opportunities for employees to grow fully tend to grow their own competition; but I see this done everyday where the competition is actually welcomed and fostered and all you need is a strong will and a willingness to work hard to succeed and the people you work for will someday be your partner, or your investor, or your lender. There are no perfect answers. There is no sure path without risk. Each person chooses his own path and not all succeed. But the ones that do are the ones that can pick themselves up and try and try again. In a world of nothing but big corporations that would just dry up and disappear. . . .and the world will indeed become a bleak place once again. You Brits elevate that idea with your inheritable titles and peerages, stuff that a lot of rich Americans pine for themselves to put a permanent stamp on their success. But such friily stuff is looked at like favoritism in this nation. There is enough of that already without actually having a ceremony to bestow if officially. Americans understand where all that ceremony leads and wants no part of it. Today we have a resurgence of that sort of thinking in the creation of Blue Ribbon panels and such where the complications of actually dealing with the public is circumvented by a government set on restricting our freedoms. A major vote will be held on that in Congress as to whether we will have a representative government accountable to the people or our freedoms are thrown under the bus by words in a document that is in effect the equivalent of a Soviet Five Year (or longer) Plan. The primary regulatory role of the government is to preserve opportunity for everybody, ensure each child has an opportunity for an education and through regulating unfair monopolistic business practices to provide a fair path to success and allow the cream to rise to the top. Wealth redistribution helps nobody. I believe in an income tax and have toyed in my mind with a wealth tax (to make the inefficient asset hoarder pay a fair share of the price for governmental protection of their property as well). But I don't want to take the pie these inefficient people have baked for themselves (or if they are truly incompetent probably by their parents) from them. It is just that they should pay their own way and so the protections they receive isn't paid out of somebody else's success. This is not to redistribute wealth but to fund the necessary jobs of the government in relationship to the benefits received. There is no redistribution of wealth anyway and there never will be. There will only ever be excessive taxation, growth of the largest corporation via money suctioned out of the economy, corruption, and token handouts. The world does not owe us a living. We have to go earn it and everybody who choses that path that finds success grows a piece of the pie. Its his piece and nobody else's.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 10, 2010 15:10:48 GMT
Icefisher,
You keep missing, or ignoring, the bit about the fact that the most powerful and richest (almost) cannot fail because they have rigged the game.
I haven't suggested anywhere that wealth be distributed purely for reasons of "equality". I've simply stated that, in my view, it is unhealthy when big corporations can succeed simply by cutting their costs more than equally successful and probably more innovative small corporations.
Take Tesco (UK's Walmart, I guess). My home town is 10 miles from the nearest Tesco. On Tuesdays and Thursdays a vibrant market is set up in my home town bringing in all the local entrepreneurs and small business people trying to make their way, and drawing in customers for all the other local shops. So the might of Tesco puts on a free bus service from my home town to their store on Tuesdays and Thursdays in order to steal the customers of the town.
In Tesco towns, the skill levels of the work forces drop and the vibrancy of the economy drops.
If a town democratically decides that it does not want Tesco, Tesco will use its might to take the town to every court in the land till the town's money runs out.
Tesco is not evil. But it benefits a lot not from what it can do to be a creative successful company, but also from what it can do to use its might to destroy the competition.
In case you haven't noticed, how ever small the government gets, it will still be big enough to protect the interests of big businesses (planning law, IPR, crippling cost of litigation etc. etc.)
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 10, 2010 17:48:39 GMT
Icefisher, You keep missing, or ignoring, the bit about the fact that the most powerful and richest (almost) cannot fail because they have rigged the game. I haven't suggested anywhere that wealth be distributed purely for reasons of "equality". I've simply stated that, in my view, it is unhealthy when big corporations can succeed simply by cutting their costs more than equally successful and probably more innovative small corporations. Take Tesco (UK's Walmart, I guess). My home town is 10 miles from the nearest Tesco. On Tuesdays and Thursdays a vibrant market is set up in my home town bringing in all the local entrepreneurs and small business people trying to make their way, and drawing in customers for all the other local shops. So the might of Tesco puts on a free bus service from my home town to their store on Tuesdays and Thursdays in order to steal the customers of the town. In Tesco towns, the skill levels of the work forces drop and the vibrancy of the economy drops. If a town democratically decides that it does not want Tesco, Tesco will use its might to take the town to every court in the land till the town's money runs out. Tesco is not evil. But it benefits a lot not from what it can do to be a creative successful company, but also from what it can do to use its might to destroy the competition. In case you haven't noticed, how ever small the government gets, it will still be big enough to protect the interests of big businesses (planning law, IPR, crippling cost of litigation etc. etc.) I never suggested there are zero problems of this nature nor suggested the natural conflict with government can competely disappear or that the world will ever be a perfect place. Here you are posing a problem and not a solution. Or perhaps your solution is to replace big bad monster TESCO with a more encompassing idealist monster, a socialist utopia, which if you read your history you will find to be even worse and to be no utopia at all. In fact, its the nature of the world that there is no utopia. Life is a struggle to adapt to change and that will never change except to the extent we can adroitly adapt. I studied socialism in college and can tell you that socialist government is bad while socialism as an ideal is not so bad. Kibbutz's in Israel make for an interesting study. So does what Scpg02 once worked as a director for, the Grangers Coop. These are socialistic-like institutions that are not political bodies that can effectively take advantage of economies of scale and establish voluntary rules among members of the coop that are quite socialistic in nature but lack the socialistic dictatorship that a socialistic state represents. In other words adapt without buying the farm. In other words TESCO and Walmart pose some real problems, primarily from the fact they deliver only goods and few services so skill is not an issue except in the adoption and execution of their business plans. I do know that manufacturers work endlessly to get their products on Walmart and TESCO shelves because they will sell one heckuva lot of product. I don't study the issue from the small town aspect so I don't have a solution for that particular one but I am sure that people cooperating can find solutions that doesn't involve selling their soul to the devil. Part of the problem seems to be you see them as the Pied Piper drawing away people to unrewarding lives as employees of TESCO. Maybe they are the devil and maybe what needs to be done is find a way to attract people to more rewarding lives via a cultivation process. It may not be get rich quick but I have seen a lot of people succeed beyond their wildest dreams while helping others to achieve their dreams with that approach.
|
|