mrjonno wrote:Short termism is basic biology, not going to change while we are human beings.

It's nothing to do with biology, it's the current economic, smash 'n' grab model. In the past Ltd. companies used to make profits over the long term. Those type of companies seem to be dying out though.

Seriously any evidence business is more short term than it used to ?, not sure how you would even measure that. You did have businesses less interested in short term profit but they tended to be state owned and I'm not sure that counts as business

mrjonno wrote:Seriously any evidence business is more short term than it used to ?, not sure how you would even measure that. You did have businesses less interested in short term profit but they tended to be state owned and I'm not sure that counts as business

I read it in this book.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/ ... -23-things

Communism is the way forward IMO. China is communist and is leading the way - it's only a matter of time until the rest of the world gives up on democracy. The population isn't informed enough to elect good leaders. Just look at the fact that Donald Trump stands a fair chance of being elected. The externalities of a free market economy are too great to validate it's credibility. The further left things go the truer the future holds. Just look at the rise of Corbyn in the UK.

China is highly capitalist and while definitely not a democracy its not a one man dictatorship either

Some sort of elite running things containing maybe 10% of the population with the opportunity to earn a place in that elite may well be the future. Starship troopers all the way

Me. I should make the decisions. Play your cards right and it's a company directorship for you. Otherwise - uranium mines.

mrjonno wrote:Some sort of elite running things containing maybe 10% of the population with the opportunity to earn a place in that elite may well be the future.

Isn't that basically what happens everywhere anyway?

It is really funny to think about the sources of economics.

Someone thousands of years ago had to have been like, "I can do this for you, but you need to do this for me in return." The basis of an exchange. Some favors arguably cost more than others.

Then other people found shiny rocks and gems and said: These are incredibly precious materials. Therefore these are valuable and worth a lot of favors.

Then people took shiny rocks and gems, and different cast metals and said this is currency and this currency has a set value completely determined by the fact that everyone agrees on how much this is worth.

Overall, people talk about the value of the dollar, or the pound sterling, or the euro and all I can think about is: It is all a made up value. If people shifted value away from the dollar and started trading in goods rather than currency the spending power of currency would plummet and trade goods would greatly increase. Likewise if people did things for other people for free out of a commodity of spirit and friendliness than nothing would technically have a value in terms of economic consideration.

I guess this is one of the reasons why the science of economics just bothers me. Unlike mathematics which exists to help humans make reason out of the natural world i.e. provide a language for science, economics is just arbitrary concepts which have become entrenched in culture. How many other animal species I wonder actually have consideration for economics? Do other animal species barter and trade? Do other animal species place economic value on possessions?

willhud9 wrote:How many other animal species I wonder actually have consideration for economics? Do other animal species barter and trade? Do other animal species place economic value on possessions?

Reciprocal altruism (the exchange of favors, often combined with keeping track of who reciprocates and penalizing those who do not) is practiced by many social animals. So yes, yes, no. Other animals probably value possessions, but "economic value" carries baggage beyond that to the extent that I'm pretty confident there isn't any other species deciding how many coconuts they can get for a banana, or how many mating opportunities they can get for x amount of food.

Macdoc wrote:

some asshole wrote:I'm pretty confident there isn't any other species deciding how many coconuts they can get for a banana, or how many mating opportunities they can get for x amount of food.

I suspect you are incorrect.

How would we know?

When presented with coin-like tokens, tiny yet savvy capuchin monkeys inhibit their natural impulses and make more calculated, rewarding decisions, according to new research.

http://www.globalanimal.org/2011/04/25/ ... -your-kid/

Not really the same thing. Lots of other animals will figure out optimization problems if you give them a chance. My example was rather the assignment of finite relative values to things- numberness relationships. Most animals don't create numberness relationships between valued resources. Yes, they'll use one to get more of another, but I really doubt any animal but humans says to itself "one of resource A is worth two of resource B."

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Byron wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Byron wrote: leave competitive sectors to the free market, but with tough regulation; provide comprehensive social insurance to protect people from misfortune.

Can you clarify through, if necessary, theoretical, examples?

Railroads, natural monopoly, in state hands (whether directly, or via a state-controlled company).

Cars, not natural monopoly, market open to competition.

I think I understand this reasoning. So.... power grid = natural monopoly? (I hate my local power monopoly.)

I remember living through this debacle after the privatization of power in California... We became a collective piggy bank for Enron.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Californi ... ity_crisis

CdesignProponentsist wrote:
I remember living through this debacle after the privatization of power in California... We became a collective piggy bank for Enron.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Californi ... ity_crisis

That was a particularly slimy move. I'm currently mad at our local power monopoly for trying to suppress the large-scale adoption of private photo-voltaic power infrastructure by lobbying our state legislature to pull dickish stunts because they're too cheap to invest in the latest technologies. This is not the sort of behavior they could get away with if there were any sort of market competition.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:This is not the sort of behavior they could get away with if there were any sort of market competition.

Or if it were a public utility.

Monopolies should be treated like guard dogs in a hen house. Their natural tendency is to eat the chickens and a shit ton of regulation needs to be employed to prevent them from doing what is in their nature.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:This is not the sort of behavior they could get away with if there were any sort of market competition.

Or if it were a public utility.

Monopolies should be treated like guard dogs in a hen house. Their natural tendency is to eat the chickens and a shit ton of regulation needs to be employed to prevent them from doing what is in their nature.

Yep.

Macdoc wrote:nice myth bust here on the shelter hucksters.....

As with any general treatment of a topic, while there may be a number of situations for which these claims are true, there are also a number of situations for which they are false. Ultimately, the relative advantages of owning versus renting living space will depend on the priorities of the owner/renter.

Solar panels would not be doing as well as they currently are if not for homeowners. Renters aren't able to install that technology and there is little (albeit growing) incentive for property investors to spend money on tech they're not going to directly benefit from.

[quote="Thomas Eshuis";p="2476253"]I'm unclear about what you mean by "will of the people as expressed by the profit motive".
Could you clarify or expand?[quote]

Sure. This isn't my deduction, or even any kind of business science thing. It is modern common political manipulation. The people who push it, do so by responding to things like proposed regulation, or restriction of harmful products, by declaring that "the people have spoken by buying the product or service, and that makes it something that the government should therefore not regulate."

They also use the idea that something isn't profitable, as an excuse to declare that nothing should be done. It has long been the primary reason to oppose efforts to move away from oil-based fuels in any way, for example.

Mortgages are contracts where if done right the homeowner has more lean into then the bank. If I default a mortgage payment, but turn around and pay it in full the next month chances are there will be little consequences.

However, rents are non-negotiable a good portion of the time and unlike my bank's loan, my apartment rent rate can and does increase every year. Furthermore missing a months worth of rent can and often does lead to an immediate eviction.

I personally would much rather finance a house than rent an apartment. Not for any ideas about the American dream, but because I have more control over my house than an apartment. I cannot just rip up my apartment complex's carpet and replace it with hard wood floors for example. I cannot just buy a brand new stove, or a new refrigerator because the apartment's ones are 20+ years old. I cannot extend the kitchen and add more counter space. In order to make those modifications to an apartment I have to actually move to apartments that offer it whereas in a house I can renovate whatever I want.