Elitist view or rational thing?

[Thorne]

Why are corporations "evil"?

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?

[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.

[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?

[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

[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]

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.

[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!

[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!!

[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?

[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?

[Kendal]

Economics is not a precise science (is it really a science). Economists can't agree amongst themselves most times.Economists are like astrologers advising Kings.

You call the people who read internet blogs "clueless". The reason they are clueless is because the economists writing the blogs they are reading are clueless. The public are not supposed to be experts or know. If they knew then what value does an economic phD have. Their job is to be convinced. It's like a jury. The jurors are not legal experts. The lawyers present their cases and the lawyer who presents the most plausible, logical and easy explanation is the one deemed to be right. Saying people are clueless is like a lawyer saying the jury was clueless after it returns a verdict against his client. Perhaps they are right and the lawyer is wrong. Perhaps those clueless blog readers are right and you are wrong.

But it does not matter because right is whatever the jury or blog reader think. Economy is all about trust and confidence in promises. America was ticking over nicely one day then crash the next. The machines are still in the factories. The oil is still in the ground and the oranges on the trees. The crash was all about loss of confidence and herd behavior. It takes just one sentence from a president or fed bank chairman and the stock market drops or rises ten percent and zillions magically appear or disappear. Europe did not suffer from the crash the same as american and moved out faster because European leaders told the people there was no problem and the people believed them and the problem went because of they believed. A self fulfilling prophecy. The army will win the battle if the soldiers believe they will. The soldiers will believe if the King believes and the King will believe if the astrologer can convince him he will. It is the same with the economy.

So to answer your question - let the economists advise but not decide. Let the president decide based on what astrologer (if any) he believes. Let the people believe the president and then whatever the president said will come to pass.

How's that for a theory. Didn't take me years, just a crate of beer to come up with that little thesis.

PS -You will do a written exam or thesis to be read by econmists to decide if you get your doctrate. I would throw you inot a hall full of people and say to you - convince them. Then I ask the people if you should get your degree. If they are clueless you know your fate. If they are conviced then congratuations doctor tedteague !!

[Thorne]

But it does not matter because right is whatever the jury or blog reader think.

This is so far beyond right that it's unfathomable. If I can convince some people that the moon is made of green cheese, does that make me right? Hogwash! It just makes me persuasive. That's why we have to rely on evidence, not on rhetoric. But evidence is tedious, boring, dull, and it goes downhill from there. Rhetoric is much more exciting, and much more enjoyable. Entire religions are based upon this, as well as most political systems.

Economy is all about trust and confidence in promises.

Which is why economy cannot be a science. It's far closer to a religion.

So to answer your question - let the economists advise but not decide. Let the president decide based on what astrologer (if any) he believes. Let the people believe the president and then whatever the president said will come to pass.

Oh, yeah. This will work.

How's that for a theory. Didn't take me years, just a crate of beer to come up with that little thesis.

That would have been my guess.

[Kendal]

This is so far beyond right that it's unfathomable. If I can convince some people that the moon is made of green cheese, does that make me right?
Yes to all intense purposes it will if you are selling shares in a cheese mining space expedition. Yes you are right that the moon's composition is a scientific fact. You are comparing economics to astonomy. Are you are saying economics is a science which can be proven like astronomy.

Which is why economy cannot be a science. It's far closer to a religion.
Here you are saying the opposite. Make your mind up. If we sitick on this side of the fence then if you convince millions of people there is a god then those people will act just the same as if it is a fact and it will make no differnce fact or fiction. You doubt me - tell the devout muslims, christians and jews of the world there is no god.

[Kendal]

Oh, yeah. This will work.
Why do stock market or currency prices react to a comment made by the federal bank chairman. Ever see the movie The Million Pound Note?

[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?

[Thorne]

This is so far beyond right that it's unfathomable. If I can convince some people that the moon is made of green cheese, does that make me right?
Yes to all intense purposes it will if you are selling shares in a cheese mining space expedition.

That doesn't make me right, just successful at exploiting stupidity.

Yes you are right that the moon's composition is a scientific fact. You are comparing economics to astonomy. Are you are saying economics is a science which can be proven like astronomy.

No, I'm not trying to say that. I'm saying that economics is essentially gambling. You're betting that your money will be worth something in the future. Sadly, too many people lose that bet because hucksters and thieves can manipulate the markets by making people believe they know what they're talking about.

If we sitick on this side of the fence then if you convince millions of people there is a god then those people will act just the same as if it is a fact and it will make no differnce fact or fiction.

My point exactly. Just because you can make people act as if something is true, doesn't make it necessarily true. It is quite easy for normal, everyday actions, to believe and act as if the world is flat. That doesn't make it so. It's possible for someone to preach beautifully and persuasively about how the world is flat. That does not make it so. Every world leader can stand up in solidarity and proclaim that the world is flat. It does not make it so.

But stand up with a bad toupee and coke-bottle glasses and state that the economy is in the toilet and idiots around the world will panic and make your statement right? That, my friend, is lunacy. We should immediately begin an investigation to see who will benefit from such a panic. I guarantee that Mr. bad toupee will be among them.

And yet again I long for that isolated cabin in the mountains where I can hole up and watch the human race destroy itself in madness.

[Kendal]

I'm saying that economics is essentially gambling. You're betting that your money will be worth something in the future.
I agree.

Just because you can make people act as if something is true, doesn't make it necessarily true. It is quite easy for normal, everyday actions, to believe and act as if the world is flat. That doesn't make it so.
You are fiocusing on what is or is not right (fact). I am saying there is in effect no difference between a real fact or a believed fiction. If we are playing poker and you think I have a full house it does not matter if I do or dont, you fold and I take the pot. You can later argue I did not have a full house. I will say whether I did or did not does not matter. You believing I did was "in effect" the same as me having one.

But stand up with a bad toupee and coke-bottle glasses and state that the economy is in the toilet and idiots around the world will panic and make your statement right? That, my friend, is lunacy.
And that my friend is my whole point. It is lunacy but that is what happens. You tell people there is no problem, they believe you, confidence returns in the economy, economy picks up and it becomes a self fullfilling prophecy. In the USA people do not believe the government. In Germany they do. German economy has picked up. American has not. It's all a game of confidence, trust and hokus pokus. It's poker.

We should immediately begin an investigation to see who will benefit from such a panic. I guarantee that Mr. bad toupee will be among them.Agreed. The is what people like George Soros (name) did with the Malaysian currency. Bulk sell, price falls, the herd rush to sell as well, value plumets then George buys back and makes a fortune while the Malaysian market crashes and Asian markets follow suit.

All these economists, financial experts and gurus yet nobody saw the bank collapse coming? How good are they if they cannot see a crash and depression looming. That's like a weather forecaster failing to see a hurricane coming.

[DuncanONeil]

Quote:
So to answer your question - let the economists advise but not decide. Let the president decide based on what astrologer (if any) he believes. Let the people believe the president and then whatever the president said will come to pass.
Oh, yeah. This will work.

Isn't that what the campaign platform was all about? Hope & Change?

Actually I have been wondering when he is going to stop campaigning!

[DuncanONeil]

Not even close to being mutually exclusive!!
Your statement that right is what a jury or blog says it is the source of the green cheese.
And the grounding in fact Thorne sees in economics is the source for his ascribing it to the realm of philosophy.

See not a single bit of conundrum in there at all!!

This is so far beyond right that it's unfathomable. If I can convince some people that the moon is made of green cheese, does that make me right?
Yes to all intense purposes it will if you are selling shares in a cheese mining space expedition. Yes you are right that the moon's composition is a scientific fact. You are comparing economics to astonomy. Are you are saying economics is a science which can be proven like astronomy.

Which is why economy cannot be a science. It's far closer to a religion.
Here you are saying the opposite. Make your mind up. If we sitick on this side of the fence then if you convince millions of people there is a god then those people will act just the same as if it is a fact and it will make no differnce fact or fiction. You doubt me - tell the devout muslims, christians and jews of the world there is no god.

[DuncanONeil]

Makes perfect sense if that comment is realted to the prime!
That affects all manner of business. Such then affects the value of those businesses. The pronouncement is not a relection on "economics" so much as a cost of doing business.

Oh, yeah. This will work.
Why do stock market or currency prices react to a comment made by the federal bank chairman. Ever see the movie The Million Pound Note?

[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?

[DuncanONeil]

In the US the Government is not the economy! When it is that is called socialism. Socialism in the US is the desired result of a minority of the people, those that seek power for themselves at the expense of liberty for all.

As for the poker reference you are both correct and incorrect. In truth it does not matter if you have a boat or not. It does matter if I am willing to put money on the table that I have better cards than do you. Were you to have a full house and I put my money in then you have to decide if I have aces full or four deuces, both of which beat you. However, poker is not a game of facts. It is a game of people.

I'm saying that economics is essentially gambling. You're betting that your money will be worth something in the future.
I agree.

Just because you can make people act as if something is true, doesn't make it necessarily true. It is quite easy for normal, everyday actions, to believe and act as if the world is flat. That doesn't make it so.
You are fiocusing on what is or is not right (fact). I am saying there is in effect no difference between a real fact or a believed fiction. If we are playing poker and you think I have a full house it does not matter if I do or dont, you fold and I take the pot. You can later argue I did not have a full house. I will say whether I did or did not does not matter. You believing I did was "in effect" the same as me having one.

But stand up with a bad toupee and coke-bottle glasses and state that the economy is in the toilet and idiots around the world will panic and make your statement right? That, my friend, is lunacy.
And that my friend is my whole point. It is lunacy but that is what happens. You tell people there is no problem, they believe you, confidence returns in the economy, economy picks up and it becomes a self fullfilling prophecy. In the USA people do not believe the government. In Germany they do. German economy has picked up. American has not. It's all a game of confidence, trust and hokus pokus. It's poker.

We should immediately begin an investigation to see who will benefit from such a panic. I guarantee that Mr. bad toupee will be among them.Agreed. The is what people like George Soros (name) did with the Malaysian currency. Bulk sell, price falls, the herd rush to sell as well, value plumets then George buys back and makes a fortune while the Malaysian market crashes and Asian markets follow suit.

All these economists, financial experts and gurus yet nobody saw the bank collapse coming? How good are they if they cannot see a crash and depression looming. That's like a weather forecaster failing to see a hurricane coming.

[tedteague]

Sorry for the delay in my response . . .
First off, while economics is not a precise science, there is reason to it. To use the religion example. You can have a catholic and protestant debate theology all day long, but if neither one understands transubstantions vs consubstantiation or apistolic succession, you're not getting anywhere.
My real problem with the increasingly mainstream economics being tossed around is the gross oversimplification of it. You can have people fire off talking points like "lowering business taxes will let them hire more people" or even the infamous "high unemployment means there wont be much inflation" and then you have people choosing politicians around here half truths.
Granted, economists may not always agree on the best course of action, but they all still understand the relationships between cause and effects within the economy that leads to the rational decision.
For the sake of example, the above used example of business and taxes
Someone may say lowering business taxes gives them more revenue which leads to more hireing. When you lower taxes on business, a number of things can happen. Sure, they might hire more people . . . or maybe they'll invest into more capitol (which very well may lead to layoffs as machines replace people) . . . or they can pocket the revenue as profit and give CEO bonuses . . . or maybe they'll use it to buy another company (which may also lead to more layoffs).
The point is, politicians and people oversimplify things into talking points. Even if it is more of a religion and nobody within the field agrees, nobody I know would agree with such talking points as universal truth. Instead, those within the field disagree based on big, complex models and years of research.
Whenever someone says "let the economy self correct" and you ask them how it would do that (its possible, dont get me wrong) they just go "well . . it does . . . because . . . it does"

[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?