You'd think a Capitalist Mecca like the US would look for & embrace "Best Practices"

[elehhhhna]

We must decide whether we are going to emulate (and compete with) the old, dissolving USSR, Third World counties, or Western Europe. Once we make this decision (our overlord have already come down hard on the side of Russian style kleptocracy -- if-not-worse) we can look at how they "manage" and care for their dependent populations (kids, elderly, mentally ill, etc.) as well as their working class.

IMO the time to decide is dammned near over and unless we, the people, make our wishes known, loudly and consistently, we are doomed. (That's DOMED for you lurking Freeps).

[jody]

1. Our economic problems are primarily caused by lost manufacturing jobs, not service jobs. Please list

just one of the "Best Practices" that you generalize about that would make manufacturing effective and efficient in competition with other countries.

[elehhhhna]

3. there is a manufacturing base in Germany, Holland, etc. ad nauseum BUT

their governments PROTECT their manufacturing base & employees.

It's all about policy

[jody]

5. Please list just one of the "Best Practices" that you generalize about. n/t

[elehhhhna]

6. Okay. In general, I'm referring to socialistic policies:

like accessible affordable reliable regulated childcare, family leave, living wage rights, accessible (think globally financially competitive) affordable healthcare, and -- eek! -- protectionist trade agreements.



Shall I go on?

[jody]

7. Please describe how "accessible affordable reliable regulated childcare" reduces the cost of

production or improves the quality of products or improves delivery times such that a US manufacturing plant can counter products from other countries.

You can use the textile industry that has been destroyed by moving production overseas to show how you would recapture their lost jobs.

[Hello_Kitty]

8. Slap tariffs on imported goods so domestic ones can compete.

It's what other countries do to us.

[jody]

9. Interesting idea but what if other countries reciprocate? The US $900 billion trade deficit doesn't

give congress any leverage to use protective tariffs.

[Hello_Kitty]

11. Newsflash: They already do.

We put a 2% tariff on Chinese goods. They put 20% on ours. That's where our trade deficit comes from.

[jody]

13. Have you written Obama asking him to fight for protective tariffs as hard as he fought for universal

health care?

IMO the health of our economy is linked to the health of our citizens since a booming economy could pay for expanded personal health care.

You should also contact Pat Buchanan because like you he believes protective tariffs are an answer to our failed economy. see On The Issues http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Pat_Buchanan_Free_Trade.htm

[area51]

15. Obama fought for universal health care?

In what alternate universe? He immediately took single-payer off the table. The changes pushed through by congress don't guarantee universal health care, nor will they bring down costs, nor do they force the for-profit insurance agencies to care about people over profits, nor will they make premiums affordable, nor did they get rid of deductibles, nor will they keep people from going bankrupt from medical bills.

Each day, 273 people die due to lack of health care in the U.S.

We need single-payer health care, not a welfare bailout for the serial-killer insurance agencies.

[jody]

16. Hi area51, do you support increasing protective tariffs? n/t

[Enthusiast]

95. Many of us believe our tariffs

should be equal to those in countries we trade with. If a trade partner strictly prohibits organized labor then those policy differences should be reflected in tariffs. Same with environmental differences and worker health and safety. This is how the European countrys protect their vital industries, through reasonable tariffs. Otherwise these "trading partners" have an built-in unfair advantage.

Why would we give trading partners an unfair advantage unless we hated the U.S. worker? In looking at our trade policies for the last several decades it appears for all the world like our government and their business allies in fact do hate the U.S. worker.

Most of us don't subscribe to Republican trade theories. I am all for stamping them out. I guess all DUers don't feel this way.

[Hello_Kitty]

18. Pat Buchanan also opposed the Iraq war. Does that mean DUers have to support it now?

And protecting our key domestic industries from being destroyed by the products of other countries flooding our markets would do a lot to restore our economy. Have you been paying attention at all to what is going on?

[jody]

21. OP recommended "embrace Best Practices". Do you believe protective tariffs are best practices? n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

23. It's all relative.

Best practices for the CEO and shareholders aren't necessarily best for workers and the community.

[Oregone]

26. Unless the workes are the shareholders

And one day, hopefully people will wake up, murder capitalism, and make that so

[jody]

31. See #29 re best practices. n/t

[Enthusiast]

96. +1 nt

[Oregone]

25. Yes

Standard of living is not homogeneous, and therefore, the cost of labor is not either. If a government allows capital and the means of production to become mobile and exportable (to regions with a lower cost of labor/production), without recourse, jobs will be loss en masse. Tariffs are recourse.

[elehhhhna]

10. no thanks, you're right. Let's give up!

you're smarted than that and I suspect you could argue both sides convincingly. So go ahead!

[jody]

12. LOL you know I didn't suggest "Let's give up!" Have a great day and please keep thinking about the

problem we have with our economy because those who advise our presidents are financiers and economists with a macro view.

It's their recommendations that become "policy" and justify hundred billion dollar stimulus packages BUT their view is disconnected from activity at the "procedural" or micro economic level where jobs are lost or saved.

There is no accepted theory linking the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics and there is also no accepted theory linking macro economics and micro economics.

It's not surprising to me that federal "policies" justified by macroeconomic models fail to produce useful results at the "procedural" level where micro economic models govern.

[Oregone]

14. Socializing that sector would make it cheaper.Workers with children would require less compensation

By socializing many industries that could potentially cause rapid inflation in cost of living (and tangential sectors), it allows a company to stabilize wages somewhat (while still being competitive). If a worker's cost of living never dramatically increases, they will have less incentives to increase their compensation. The less a company must pay its workers, the lower the cost of production.

You can dramatically stabilize workers cost-of-living with socialized services, as well as bring down company overhead by socializing such sectors as health insurance and energy. Every penny saved through eliminating profit and increasing efficiency is a penny a company can subtract from the cost of production. NEJM suggests the US could save $400 billion a year alone switching to single-payer...currently, private companies are paying the bulk of those unnecessary expenses.

The magic free market, acting in a local context, lacks the mechanisms needed make a single country the most competitive in the entire world. Socialism can crutch these failings and aid companies and workers compete in the global marketplace.

[jody]

17. Please explain specifically how your "Socializing" would reduce the total cost of manufacturing such

that product cost would make US products competitive with those of other countries.

Do you mean take profits from other industries to subsidize production in your target industry?

How many manufacturing businesses face limited competition from other countries such that a national policy of robbing Peter to pay Paul domestically would survive?

[Hello_Kitty]

19. Several thousand dollars of the production cost of a US-made car is health care to workers. eom

[jody]

22. What is your point? The OP is about best practices. n/t

[Oregone]

24. "best practices" should include lowering the cost of production, right?

A government can clearly do that in many areas.


Less health care expenses.

Cheaper energy

Cheaper phone, internet, utilities

Lower cost-of-living for employees (retired or working)

etc...

[jody]

29. "best practices" in manufacturing discussions are those that reduce cost, improve quality, improve

delivery.

Government contracts under Federal Acquisition Regulations include parts that deal with those three goals known universally as "cost, schedule, and performance".

Papers and studies that examine "best practices" in a business context consider those three criteria.

If the OP wanted to consider "best practices" that excluded those that directly or indirectly affected cost, schedule, and performance then the author would or should have so stated.

[Oregone]

32. Are you playing semantics police?

You'd think a Capitalist Mecca like the US would look for & embrace "Best Practices"

We must decide whether we are going to emulate (and compete with) the old, dissolving USSR, Third World counties, or Western Europe. Once we make this decision (our overlord have already come down hard on the side of Russian style kleptocracy -- if-not-worse) we can look at how they "manage" and care for their dependent populations (kids, elderly, mentally ill, etc.) as well as their working class.

IMO the time to decide is dammned near over and unless we, the people, make our wishes known, loudly and consistently, we are doomed. (That's DOMED for you lurking Freeps).

Because, checking the OP, the word "manufacturing" isn't even mentioned. The term "best practices" is being used as something the nation state, the US (a government), should embrace. Further, references to entitlements is directly made ("we can look at how they "manage" and care for their dependent populations").

I think talk of socialization is entirely appropriate. You are attempting to narrow the context of a debate that seems to have originally started much wider.

[jody]

34. LOL, OP said "Capitalist Mecca . . . embrace 'Best Practices'". What type of functions do you think

a "Capitalist Mecca" would be engaged in that could "look for & embrace 'Best Practices'"?

I assume you know that capitalism is all about producing products or services so in context "best practices" means ways to either reduce cost, improve quality, or improve delivery.

If you believe it means something else then please explain what you mean.

[Oregone]

36. The subject in the OP is the US government. Plain and simple.

You read too much into the thread and mucked it up with trivial garbage, suggesting we cannot talk about what the government ought to be doing (only what manufacturing businesses should do). Clearly, the OP is about the government.


"I assume you know that capitalism is all about producing products or services"

No. I didn't know that. Rather, capitalism is entirely about how wealth created in production is distributed (due to the seperation of labor and capital). Now, there are plenty of theories about how those founding principles may effect production.

That aside, this isn't even what this OP is about. Its about policy the US should embrace to deal with economic realities.

"Its all about policy"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8710106&mesg_id=8710199

[jody]

38. OP author used Capitalist Mecca to begin the subject giving capitalism the focus. I understand how

you and others might want to tout socialism as a cure for all economic ills but the OP focused on capitalism.

Since the OP focused on capitalism, then we should consider "best practices" that use capitalism to manage the means of production and operations.

If you want to discuss how to distribute whatever profits are made from production and operations, then I submit that's a legitimate issue after profits are made.

In either case, the OP did not reject capitalism, instead it asked "Capitalist Mecca like the US would look for & embrace 'Best Practices'".

Socialism replaces capitalism.

[Oregone]

40. The OP focused on the US and what policies it should embrace

Sorry if that rocks your worldview. Whatever the OP called the US, perhaps it was meant to be an ironic reference to the proposed solution (Ill leave that to the OP the address).

Of course, a "Capitalist Mecca" needs socialism like nothing else, being that capitalism cannot stand on its own without a socialistic crutch. The more capitalism you have is probably the more socialism you need.

[jody]

43. I understand Oregone believes Socialism good, Capitalism bad. So re OP do you propose nationalizing

the means of production as the "best practice" for "a Capitalist Mecca like the US"?

[Oregone]

46. Everything depends on context. There is no one economy thats "good" for everyone

"do you propose nationalizing the means of production"

Im a fan of mixed economies. I like to see necessary entitlements & social services set up as non-profit, socialized government branches (like health insurance, banking insurance, and old age pensions). I like to see necessary goods & industrial services set up as socialized, for-profit corporations (like energy companies and ferry services). Id like to see the rest of the economy, the bulk, set up as private enterprise following a transitional capitalism-to-employee-owned model that strikes a balance between rewarding private investment and labor. You can greatly minimize the overhead of private enterprise with efficient socialization of core services and industries, giving them clear advantages internationally. Rewarding labor to a greater degree works to establish a firm consumer class and stable markets (all contributing to a high ease-of-business ranking)

[jody]

50. I've learned from history and realize that in general individuals are motivated by self-interest not

some altruistic idea.

That motivation however can become greed that encourages abuse of resources owned by society.

Any venture whether business or other has a risk of failure as well as potential for success.

IMO it's society that is the steward of society's resources and collectively we have to insure ventures that put society's resources at risk have properly consider the total cost of failure that society would bear as well as the benefits that would accrue to a select few.

I hate the game We the People have allowed where "Heads corporations make obscene profits, Tails We the People pay all the losses".

I've tried to capture my thoughts below.

[Oregone]

52. So?

Recognizing this incentive of self-interest without doing anything to harness it is useless in itself.

What I proposed has nothing to do with altruism. You lower the overhead and obligations of the private sector, thereby allowing them to turn more revenue into profit (you do this without compromising standard-of-living, but rather, lowering the cost of the current one through efficiencies). This is in the interests of the owners of capital after all (those who do not own the industries you are socializing). The only major change I really propose is eliminating infinite ROI, which greatly discourages abuse. By the time a company is ready to be raped or starved, the workers will already own a sizable portion of the enterprise, and selfishly look after their own long-term interests and security.

[jody]

57. OK but to "lower the overhead" etc. one must directly affect the bottom line of businesses. That

happens primarily by adopting changes that reduce cost, improve quality, or improve delivery.

That's why I went from the OP statement about "Capitalist Mecca . . . embrace 'Best Practices'" to the firm.

I suspect we are not very far apart or at all in our exchange and over lunch we might find much common ground.

[Oregone]

59. Yes, and if a business spends less on energy, communications, or worker entitlements...

That affects the bottom line.

*If* one can minimize the costs of these business expenses by socializing the providers, then it would greatly affect the bottom line.

Anecdotally, now that I receive socialized energy, socialized health insurance, socialized water, etc, I run my business much more efficiently than I did when I lived in Oregon, and thereby, I make more yearly in profits/revenue.

[jody]

63. What you describe in your last paragraph is how you benefit directly from subsidies provided by

others.

That is unless you contend that health insurance is not a responsibility of business but instead is the responsibility of each individual or perhaps some charitable or other agency collecting donations or taxes from other businesses.

[Oregone]

66. I pay my fair share and it has nothing to do with subsidies

I just pay less in a socialized system because it costs less per capita.

[jody]

68. If your "fair share" does not include all costs then you are being subsidized by others. Somebody

has to pay the bill.

[Oregone]

79. In an insurance system, few at any one time pay into it an equivilent amount that they take out

Everyone pays more or less. The average expense is about the average people put in, unless profit and overhead suck more out of that.

This is true in a socialized or a capitalistic insurance system. The entire concept of insurance has socialistic origins, in regards to spreading risk among a community.


"Somebody has to pay the bill."

In a low-overhead, socialized system, as time arbitrarily approaches infinity, the average person will pay the average bill

[jody]

83. I did not say you didn't pay your fair share. I said "If your 'fair share' does not include all

costs then you are being subsidized by others."

[Oregone]

85. Insurance is about spreading risk and subsidizing costs of other

So its just a really shitty area for you to roll that carpet out in.

If you hate the entire concept, you should equally hate all forms of insurance

That said, socialized insurance seems to cost, per capita, far less than a multi-payer, capitalistic insurance system. There is firm data behind that. And businesses in the US pay the bulk of the difference for sweet capitalistic insurance.

[jody]

90. I do hate some "forms of insurance" like government subsidies for people to cheaply insure homes on

beaches that are high risk areas and structures along flood prone rivers.

If people want to live on those areas, then let them pay for insurance where their premiums cover all actuarial costs.

[elehhhhna]

74. jody didn't read too much into the thread -- jody didn't read to OP

methinks jody only does headlines.

[jody]

81. Perhaps you don't understand that all services provided by government in your "Capitalist Mecca" are

paid for directly or indirectly by entrepreneurs who operate businesses and sell products and services.

Unemployed and underemployed people in the U.S. demand government provide jobs but the only jobs that produce real profits are businesses et al that sell a product or service for a profit.

You can write all you wish about other areas but our economy will not recover until jobs are created by entrepreneurs.

[Oregone]

82. Perhaps you don't understand, those entrepreneurs save money in a society with those services

BTW....you want to find a land of entrepreneurs, come up here to the big island. Just about every couple people I meet around my age work from home or have their own business. Its astounding how many minds can take business risks once you roll out a cheap safety net.

[jody]

84. If you want to argue that society should subsidize entrepreneurs like you then please describe the

business costs that society should pay.

[Oregone]

86. I don't. I haven't.

But its fun to make sloppy straw mans.

[jody]

88. Darn it, I was looking forward to ideas about how society should help start-ups. See my DU post on

"A few of the old-unemployable can leverage their experience by starting small businesses in niche markets."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8709459&mesg_id=8710451

[Oregone]

89. Thats another topic, but you know that lowering operating overhead will help startups

And if socializing industries like energy and health care can lower operational costs for start-ups, that is helpful to their success.

[jody]

91. I've helped many small businesses and found that most potential entrepreneurs have the knowledge,

desire, and modest capital to get started but they are intimidated by the overhead & administrative functions particularly the onerous job of book keeping.

That's what I see as a barrier that we "old-unemployable" types face.

We are "gray beards" in experience and wisdom but detest the administrative aspects necessary for a small business to succeed.

By the way, :toast: to you for your entrepreneurial spirit and may all your blessings be pure gold.

[Oregone]

92. Why thank you

I really don't want pure gold. I just want a little stability for my family. :)

[jody]

93. Understand but "pure gold" reinvested provides jobs and that's where the real stimulus begins. n/t

[elehhhhna]

73. jody, seriously, what part don't you understand?

The observation, analysis, etc. of 'best practices' can apply to more than just manufacturing processes, silly.

[jody]

87. Sure "best practices" apply to any function but given your use of "Capitalist Mecca" I discussed

businesses and "best practices" for them.

In any case, thanks for your OP that generated interesting exchanges and that's the purpose of internet forums after all, isn't it?

:hi:

[Oregone]

20. "robbing Peter to pay Paul"

Clearly, I think you have your mind up on this...judging by the language you use (rob...a criminal activity).

Lets just take health insurance for example, because it is beyond the most obvious here.

Currently, America must pay for private health insurance with low actuarial values. These private providers require profit, must consistently inflate negotiated rates to increase those profits, and they add to billing inefficiencies on the delivery side of an estimated 10% of so. Between profit, increasing rates, and inefficiencies produces by multiple payers with multiple risk groups, the US has the highest per capita health costs in the world:



Both the employers AND the employees (via low actuarial policies) must fork this difference over for health care. This immediately raises the cost of production because a large portion of the premiums are being covered by the employer, and it indirectly raises it because the worker has their cost-of-living raised and requires more compensation.

According to http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/349/8/768">Costs of Health Care Administration in the United States and Canada, "the gap between U.S. and Canadian spending on health care administration has grown to $752 per capita" (in 1999). Studies suggest the US could save $400 billion a year switching to socialized insurance, which eliminates profits, non-competing corporations consistently raising rates & premiums, and inefficiencies.

Now, much of that $400 billion or so is currently either being paid directly by companies, or being paid to employees, necessitated by the actuarial values. Removing that entire cost from the private sector instantly lowers the cost of production.

robbing Peter to pay Paul

The reality is this analogy is fiction. Peter needs health insurance. Either he can go out, fend for himself, and pay $8000K on his own. Otherwise, Peter can give $5000, or so, to the government, and have them provide an efficient insurance policy for him.

If you want to call it robbing, sure, all the power to you. Id rather have less robbed from me (and get a better service in return), than pay more and get shit. And paying more, per head, damn well raises the cost of production.

Most times that you can lower the cost-of-living for the workers (without sacrificing standard-of-living) or the overhead for the private industry (socialized energy, socialized insurance, socialized utilities), then you can lower the cost of production. And even if you cannot have the lowest cost of production, all these improvements can create an environment that is very easy to do business in (with good workers, infrastructure, and stable markets), which greatly contributes to profits over longer periods of time. Sure, you can run a crap shoot in Nigeria or have a sure thing in the US (http://www.doingbusiness.org/economyrankings/)

[jody]

27. OP suggested "embrace 'Best Practices'" that in manufacturing parlance means business practices

particularly those involving production and operations.

Some posts however supported socialism or subsidizing as solutions.

That may make sense however the burden of proof is upon those who recommend socialism or subsidies as "best practices" to show how those practices will reduce total cost of production or improve quality of products or improve on time delivery of products.

Absent such proof those claims are unsupported assertions.

[Oregone]

28. Wow

That may make sense however the burden of proof is upon those who recommend socialism or subsidies as "best practices" to show how those practices will reduce total cost of production

If a company pays less for their workers' health insurance*, that lowers the cost of production (socialized insurance would allow them to do this). If you cannot understand this, there is little more to say on the subject.


* without increasing the workers burden, thereby raising their cost-of-living (which makes them require more compensation or reduces their effectiveness as a consumer base)

[jody]

30. Note I said "reduce TOTAL cost of production" . What you recommend is shifting part of the cost of

production to another source OR you contend that workers' health insurance is not a legitimate cost of production.

Which is it?

[Oregone]

33. What part of saving $400 billion a year that you don't understand?

That savings isn't "shifted". Its saved. Its eliminated. The employers and employees don't have to pay for it anymore. Insurance shareholders wont receive it anymore. 3rd party redundant services wont be paid for it anymore. And care deliverers wont be paid some of it anymore.

That comes out of the Total. Crazy concept. Poof. Its gone. That skewed per capita healthcare spending graph would look more like "a level playing field".

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2004/november/single-payer-good-for-business

Publicly financed but privately run healthcare for all—including free choice of physicians--would cost employers far less in taxes than their costs for insurance. Universal coverage could also work magic in less obvious ways. For example, employers would no longer have to pay for medical care under workers' compensation, which in 2002 cost them more than $38 billion. Auto-insurance rates would fall for them--and everyone--if the carriers were no longer liable for medical and hospital bills.

[jody]

35. Please provide links to data proving $400 billion has been saved. All I've read is claims from

politicians about future savings.

Such claims have as much value as claims we are winning in Afghanistan or claims we are stopping the oil flow in the Gulf of Mexico.

[Oregone]

37. Ive already pointed you the the New England Journal of Medicine

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/349/8/768

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/6/549

But I don't think you care about that widely cited study. I think you are here to piss and moan about the semantics of the OP.

And since you consider paying taxes for a service "robbing", Im not sure why Im having this conversation. Good day to you.

[jody]

39. I'm sorry you could not support your assertion re $400 billion saved. Have a great day. n/t

[Oregone]

41. Sorry you cannot read a journal entry

"Profits, billing, marketing, and the gratuitous costs of private bureaucracies siphon off $400 billion to $500 billion of the $2.1 trillion spent"

(from the second link. The first is a 1999 study regarding cost differences and potential savings that you've yet to read, and things have shifted since then drastically)

More analysis here on this issue:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&refer=columnist_wasik&sid=ao58otXrmrPM

[jody]

42. Why persist when you and I both know there are no savings documented, only savings that someone

claims might occur.

If all the benefits claimed for government programs had been realized, the U.S. would not be $13 trillion in debt and the stimulus package would have reduced unemployment to a few percent.

[Oregone]

44. For the love of God...why persist at playing semantics police?

Its so fucking foolish. People use empirical evidence to create models for hypotheticals according to scientific standards; these models are in fact testable hypotheses if we had courageous politicians. According to you, we should just embrace the status quo, and sit and spin; after-all, no one has a crystal ball.


"If all the benefits claimed for government programs had been realized, the U.S. would not be $13 trillion in debt and the stimulus package would have reduced unemployment to a few percent."

:rofl:

You have no documented evidence to prove any alternative to the current reality, so this isn't something you should talk out of your ass on. The debt could simply be due to a failure to collect the necessary revenue to fund the services due to politics alone (rather than the service's inability to aid economic activity). And yes, without government spending, the US most certainly wouldn't have debt. On the other hand, it could also have the standard of living of Sudan. I guess we have no documented evidence either way, so its simply taboo to discuss.

Maybe the Tea Party would know

[jody]

48. You use lots of words to disguise the obvious fact you believe everything your particular politician

utters.

I on the other hand trust results confirmed by independent sources.

Our different approaches do present challenges for politicians.

[Oregone]

49. And you use any words possible to avoid a real debate

"I on the other hand trust results confirmed by independent sources."

Yeah...except the NEJM. But alas, you are so high and mighty and enlightened


"Our different approaches"

Semantic policing as a method of stonewalling debate does present challenges, yes

[jody]

51. Come on now, surely you've participate in or been privy to government studies that claimed benefits

would occur and when study recommendations were implemented not only did no benefits happen but instead costs that were not included in the report destroyed the program.

Just look at the F-22 and F-35 programs as one example.

The Rule of Ten for government programs is they have 1/10 the benefits, cost 10 times as much, and take 10 times as long as originally predicted.

Been there done that :shrug:

[Oregone]

53. You're right. Government spending is always bad. Its a rule afterall

:rofl:

[jody]

58. LOL but government is not efficient nor effective when performing many functions. n/t

[Oregone]

60. Funny that. Because private industry isn't kicking a whole lotta ass in many respects

My socialized energy costs less than my private energy ever did, and that goes the same for health insurance. Maybe its not a rule, but its an example of how it could be done. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water

[jody]

67. Are you sure that your "socialized energy costs" include all costs or does the provider receive

subsidies?

Are you comparing your "socialized energy costs" in one area versus your "private energy" cost in another area?

[Oregone]

75. "does the provider receive subsidies"

As far as I can tell, the provider gives out subsidies to the private industry to increase efficiency and invest in private energy projects (something that is very controversial, but has been cited by some to increase overall profits). And it still turns a sizable profit each year. Additionally, its raised $8.8 billion for the province since 1994 to be invested in public projects and vital social programs.


"Are you comparing your"

Merely an anecdote. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. It can be done correctly

[elehhhhna]

71. Ore, you totally need to post that as a separate thread

something like "How to ..."

Well reasoned and concise. I give it an "A".

[enlightenment]

2. They need to understand what 'best practices' means,

Since it clearly means different things to different capitalists.

“It is curious that the mass of the people of this country should fail to recognize that their best friends are the corporations, because corporations have been the only barrier between the despotisms of ignorance and the invasion of the rights of property. 
Doubtless they abuse their privileges at times but they alone have the ability and the courage to resist attack, and they are doing the work which was done by Jefferson and Madison in the early days of the Republic.” - Abram S. Hewitt to RD Haislip, 16 June 1898


“No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged”. - Adam Smith, 1776, An Inquiry in the Nature and Causes of Wealth of Nations, I.viii.36






edited for spelling

[jody]

4. 'best practices' may produce products chosen by a committee or it may produce products chosen by

each citizen.

If society has a few omniscient members to appoint to those committees, that would IMO be a very viable alternative.

Absent angels I opt for freedom of choice by each individual.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. First mistake to asume we live in a Capitalist system

And somebody else already offered you Adam Smith... I could add Ricardian economics, or for that matter Marx (who is considered among Classical Economists, to his shock and surprise I am sure)

But all argued for LIVING wages... and the promotion of workers rights. I am sure that will come as a shock.

What this country needs to do is GO BACK to the future, as in to the MIXED economy of the 1950s...

No I don't expect this to make sense in a post Chicago School, Neo Classical Economics that is all but...

Oh and best practices are those that improve the public welfare, not a few getting insanely rich. So yes. I am all for TAXING the very rich as we once did... ok I will settle for the 70% of Kennedy instead of the 90% under Ike. That led to... INVESTMENT in their companies instead of moving money somewhere ELSE... and NOT building jobs

I also would like to see an INDUSTRIAL POLICY that includes... TARIFFS for any good brought from above... go ahead call me protectionist... as well as EFCA and scrapping Taft Hartley.

There I said I mouthful.

[Oregone]

47. Leave capitalism alone!

Its not this ugly thing it turned out to be in real life! Its beautiful. Its like the writings of Adam Smith. It makes me want to cry! I love it! If only it could exist in real life...if only!!!

[jody]

54. Our economic system still evolving encourages entrepreneurs to risk all in a business venture

while limiting risk taking that places society and our resources in jeopardy if a business venture fails.

Add to that a realization that part of the cost of any business venture is protection in all it's forms by society and one can make a case that part of the profits from business ventures should go to society.

One might say that entrepreneurs are the best form yet discovered for making a pie but society is entitled to its slice of that pie once made.

[Oregone]

55. "entrepreneurs are the best form yet discovered for making a pie but society is entitled to ..."

It was society that schooled those entrepreneurs, laid the roads their flour traveled on, provided late-age security for the workers of that entrepreneur, etc.

I would say that entrepreneur depended a lot upon the society, and "owes" quite a bit back. Ayn Rand would probably disagree though

[jody]

61. Those who hate entrepreneurs hate capitalism in any form and love socialism and love collective

irresponsibility.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. You may want to look into what socialism is

by the way...

By the way I am asking you to do some HEAVY reading.

Hell you want me to share the reading list?

[jody]

69. Thanks for your interest but I've forgotten more on the subject that you'll ever know. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. I gues it shows then

I guess you are a fan of the Chicago School...

[Oregone]

65. Odd generalization. But why does suggesting an entrepreneur "owes" society equal to hate?

Sounds like you've fallen back to blind talking point here

As an entrepreneur myself, I'm astounded at this straw man

[jody]

70. You said "entrepreneur depended a lot upon the society, and 'owes' quite a bit back" is not an

expression of endearment.

But them you may not have meant what you said. :shrug:

[Oregone]

80. Nor is it an expression of hate. Its about recognizing obligation and debt

As a poor child coming from the lowest quintile (living on food stamps from time to time), I was able to be publicly educated and also obtain a private education at one of the top universities in America, with both public and private subsidies. It was not entirely on my dime whatsoever (hardly any cost at all for me). Debt free, and semi-educated, I was able to start a business in college using their internet infrastructure (all acting as a foundation for emancipating me to some degree and allowing me to immigrate to a country with a higher rate of social mobility).


It was not all on my own accord. We do not live in vacuums. Entrepreneurs are not instantly created, acting only by themselves, without any reliance on other public support/infrastructure. "Owing" is not a universal concept, but neither is "earning". Man's challenge is to structure societies in ways that address both ideas in balanced ways to promote overall general welfare, while not ignoring one construct for another dogmatically.

[elehhhhna]

78. thanks, kreskin. now I understand !1!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. It has not functioned that way

since oh the last 20 years or so.

And I highly recommend you pick up a copy of Adam Smith The Wealth of Nations and carefully read it. Your answer as to why it's been severely short circuited it's in there.

Economists are increasingly calling this a COMMAND ECONOMY... and doing all the heavy readying into economics I am doing, they have more than just a point.

In fact, we have more in common at the systemic level (you may call it macro level) with the Mercanitilistic economy of the 18th century, monopolies and all, that Smith railed against than you want to realize.

Yes entrepreneurs are great, small family bidnesses are magnificent... go down to main street and tell me how many of those businesses are ... NOT franchises? That is your reality check of the day.

Why I now refuse to call this economy capitalist. It is not. The myth is alive and well, but it is not.

[jody]

72. LOL have a great day and goodbye. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. Oh goody, she put me on ignore for daring to speak

against the myth...

Goody.

[njalbertini]

56. What is best?

Please check out www.electexperts.webs.com We are a nonpartisan movement to get PhD level experts in scientific disciplines relevent to governance elected to representative positions.

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. You did hit a few hot buttons I see

:-)

Good job!!!!

:hi:

[GeorgeGist]

97. Capitalism is a "Best Practice" ...

of Greed.