or you can change it for the better

5/18/2007 12:11:12 PM

or for the worse

5/18/2007 12:12:21 PM

Quote :

"Salisburyboy, I mean, hooksaw, you are hopelessly trolling again. The 'Green' in my name is not in reference to any political party."

MisterGreen

Defensive much?

First, I don't troll anybody, dumbass--never have and never will. Check my posts--all I do is post in threads and simply respond to the trolls that attack me.

Second, if I ever were to troll, it would imply that I give a shit about the person. I don't give a shit about you or whatever your fucking political party is, get it?

Third, all I did was quote from your original post. And I posted your username correctly.

Conclusion: You whine worse than a little bitch. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

5/18/2007 12:26:35 PM

you know when somebody registered 6 days ago and they somehow know all about tww and its regular posters, its a pretty safe bet to assume its just another alias

5/18/2007 12:43:05 PM

>.<

MisterGreen = PinkandBlack?

[Edited on May 18, 2007 at 1:14 PM. Reason : .]

5/18/2007 1:03:05 PM

^^^ If you didnt give a shit about my politcal party, I am curious as to why you posted the quote of my reference to left-wing people and my username at the same time?

But then again, you would just be contradicting yourself...and as we have all seen, you would NEVER do a thing like that...jackass

And no - I am not an alias. I looked over TWW, particularly the Soap Box, for a few weeks before I bothered to join.

[Edited on May 18, 2007 at 7:26 PM. Reason : .]

5/18/2007 7:26:02 PM

Quote :

"But I thought power corrupts, or perhaps it doesn't neccesarily?"

Where did I say democracy wasn't corruptable? strawman much? No, I said that democracy is preferable to socialism/communism because democracy doesn't have 100% control over people, that it is more palatable. I might not have spelled it out that explicity, but it was quite clear that that was what I meant.

5/18/2007 7:50:25 PM

^ wait... you're trying to compare and contrast democracy with socialism?

explain to me again, please, why anyone should pay attention to anything you say on this subject?

5/18/2007 9:08:30 PM

well, genius, considering that Kris was asking why democracy is all over the place, I think it's only fair to discuss democracy wrt to socialism. but hey, thanks for reading the thread genius. now shut the hell up

5/18/2007 9:11:06 PM

Quote :

"I recently had a political discussion with a few people that believed Socialism would be a superior system in the United States than Capitalism. The people were extremely left-wing, but I would like to ask TWW to weigh in on the subject...would, or could, the USA benefit from switching to a socialist government, or any other type of government for that matter? "

I'm in favor of switching to laissez-faire capitalism.

5/18/2007 10:19:56 PM

haha if we had true laissez faire capitalism, this school wouldnt exist

5/18/2007 10:45:40 PM

^
Probably not...but a better one would.

5/18/2007 11:02:46 PM

Quote :

"Technically we don't have a diamond monopoly. If you are willing to accept artificial diamonds then there are hundreds of manufacturers competing fiercely on price; the problem is most consumers want the real thing from the ground."

Then there technically is a monopoly. It doesn't matter what could happen, it matters what does happen, if people were willing to buy artifical diamonds, then in that little fantasy land we wouldn't have a monopoly, but here in the real world, we do.

Quote :

"That said, I will concede that resource monopolies are possible given the right circumstances if you concede that production monopolies, requiring little more than land/labor/capital, cannot be maintained much beyond the point of optimal size."

I provided evidence.

Quote :

"The most obvious source of dis-economy is technical: a single automotive assembly line can only move so fast, limiting the possible production. Once this point is reached you have no choice but to duplicate it, doubling production but not gaining any additional economy."

There are plenty of benefits you could still gain, you could fit both of those lines in one factory, you'd only need a marginally bigger maintence division, etc. There are plent of advantages you are gaining in having one larger company over two smaller ones.

Quote :

"Where did I say democracy wasn't corruptable?"

You stated socialism couldn't work because power corrupts, I then asked you why the same wouldn't apply to democracy.

Quote :

"No, I said that democracy is preferable to socialism/communism because democracy doesn't have 100% control over people, that it is more palatable."

Democracy and socialism are not mutually exclusive.

Quote :

"Probably not...but a better one would."

Yeah, didn't you see all those great schools in Mad Max 2:Beyond The Thunderdome

5/18/2007 11:24:39 PM

Quote :

"I provided evidence."

So did I. My evidence is simple and straight forward: in every industry of consequence, dis-economies of scale act to keep firms reasonably close to the optimal firm size. My evidence included the restaurant industry, whose optimal firm size is rediculously small. The evidence is in the headlines: Daimler and Chrysler are more profitable apart than they were during the merger. Every other industry is also offered as evidence, as conglomeration has grown very slowely relative to the economy at large (we have more firms today than ever in history).

Quote :

"There are plenty of benefits you could still gain, you could fit both of those lines in one factory, you'd only need a marginally bigger maintence division, etc. There are plent of advantages you are gaining in having one larger company over two smaller ones. "

So, Kris, explain to us why one large conglomerate does not buy up all the McDonalds in America; increasing firm size 10,000 fold would allow for immense gains in economies of scale, right?

Quote :

"You stated socialism couldn't work because power corrupts, I then asked you why the same wouldn't apply to democracy."

"Democracy and socialism are not mutually exclusive" put it best. So, since democracy suffers corruption, and socialism suffers it more-so, I seriously doubt combining the two would magically produce less corruption. More likely, it would do what it has always done when the two were combined, as in Britain: corruption runs wild, society suffers, and systemic legitimacy suffers.

5/19/2007 1:03:55 AM

Yes, jacking yourself in the ass would be a good idea, MsGreen.

Your initial post contained the following quotation concerning the people you were getting these "ideas" from: "The people were extremely left-wing. . . ." Those are your words--not mine.

My point was why would I or anybody else think that the United States could "benefit," as you posed the question, from the ideology of left-wing or right-wing extremists? Has this thought not occurred to you?

V I invite you to pleasure yourself in a similar fashion.

[Edited on May 19, 2007 at 1:28 AM. Reason : .]

5/19/2007 1:16:03 AM

so mature

5/19/2007 1:19:10 AM

hooksaw, we could go back and forth on this forever, but I think it's time to stop, considering you claim to be a grown adult yet still insult people by telling them to "jack themselves in the ass."

grow up.

[Edited on May 19, 2007 at 5:27 AM. Reason : .]

5/19/2007 5:27:06 AM

socialism is a fine idea... it'll never work though on a long term basis

5/19/2007 1:48:59 PM

Quote :

"My evidence is simple and straight forward: in every industry of consequence, dis-economies of scale act to keep firms reasonably close to the optimal firm size."

You've yet to name one.

Quote :

"My evidence included the restaurant industry, whose optimal firm size is rediculously small."

Really? At least 90% of the resturants people go to are part of some national chain, like McDonalds, Olive Garden, etc.

Quote :

"The evidence is in the headlines: Daimler and Chrysler are more profitable apart than they were during the merger."

You know there are far more factors at play there. Look at the site you referenced, they explained the mechanism behind diseconomies of scale, most of them would be irrelevant.

Quote :

"So, Kris, explain to us why one large conglomerate does not buy up all the McDonalds in America"

Anti-trust laws.

Quote :

"So, since democracy suffers corruption"

Any system suffers corruption, you know this. My point was that there are measures in place to handle and prevent it.

Quote :

"I seriously doubt combining the two would magically produce less corruption"

That's a strawman.

5/19/2007 2:38:00 PM

Quote :

"Really? At least 90% of the resturants people go to are part of some national chain, like McDonalds, Olive Garden, etc."

Really? We've covered this; walk into any McDonalds and ask who owns the business. They will not say McDonalds Incorporated. The only national chain that actually tried to keep all the stores under single management was White Castle, and even they gave up after awhile and started using franchises (after bankruptcy). The purpose is just as I said: diseconomies of scale made such a business un-manageable and they quickly lost market share to franchised businesses, where most stores had their own autonomous owners that paid the national chain for equipment and franchise rights.

To put it in a way you cannot misunderstand: the McDonald's Corporation does not sell hamburgers: it sells fryers, tables, chairs, and advice to independent entrepreneurs that then try to sell hamburgers to the general public. They tried it your way, but the businesses were less efficient and went bankrupt.

Quote :

"Anti-trust laws."

Really? You think Anti-trust laws explain the extreme fragmentation of the restaurant industry?

Quote :

"Any system suffers corruption, you know this. My point was that there are measures in place to handle and prevent it."

Democracy is not an effective measure, as many of the most corrupt nations on this planet are democracies.

5/19/2007 3:41:57 PM

it would never work. it's a stupid idea. it's something that the liberal hippies who protest everything want to put in place (directly or indirectly), while the rest of us are off working to make a living.

5/19/2007 4:46:19 PM

That's right, because liberal "hippies" don't work.

5/19/2007 4:55:37 PM

if you put forth effort to educate yourself and work hard than you can be extremely successful in America as it is. The people who would rather have things handed to them and be slack pieces of shit are usually the ones in favor of socialism.

5/19/2007 4:59:50 PM

Thanks for the sweeping, yet enlightened, generalization...

5/19/2007 5:07:30 PM

Quote :

"walk into any McDonalds and ask who owns the business."

But clearly there's some reason they aren't just joe's resturant.

Quote :

"the McDonald's Corporation does not sell hamburgers: it sells fryers, tables, chairs, and advice to independent entrepreneurs that then try to sell hamburgers to the general public"

It's more than just that, it would more accurately be described as entrepreneurs act as private investors in the McDonalds chain financing a local resturant.

Quote :

"Really? You think Anti-trust laws explain the extreme fragmentation of the restaurant industry?"

It's not fragmented, most of the restaurants we see are linked to a corporation.

Quote :

"Democracy is not an effective measure"

That's a strawman agian. Don't try to make up an arguement here.

5/19/2007 6:08:50 PM

Quote :

"But clearly there's some reason they aren't just joe's resturant."

Yes, and it has nothing to do with economies of scale and everything to do with trust.

Quote :

"It's more than just that, it would more accurately be described as entrepreneurs act as private investors in the McDonalds chain financing a local resturant."

How? How the hell could it be described that way? The entrepreneur picked the location, raised the money to build it, hires and fires the staff, purchased the rights to the McDonalds name ($45,000) reaps most of the profits (McDonalds takes a 12.5% Royalty Fee), absorbs all of the loses, and can sell the business to whomever he likes at any time. All McDonalds owns is the name on the building.
http://www.franchiseadvantage.com/handbook/mcdonalds.ihtml

Quote :

"It's not fragmented, most of the restaurants we see are linked to a corporation."

Linked, sure; but collectively the 30,000 McDonalds in the world are not controlled by McDonalds. The are controlled (since they are owned) by their respective owners, and could switch Franchises becoming Burger Kings if they so chose.

I guess that is why you became a communist. You just cannot imagine any economic relationship that was not direct control. Too bad, it really limits your understanding of real-world economic life.

[Edited on May 19, 2007 at 6:40 PM. Reason : .,.]

5/19/2007 6:33:13 PM

Quote :

"But clearly there's some reason they aren't just joe's resturant. "

Because you can make a shit ton more money selling crappy food and calling yourself McDonalds than selling crappy food and calling yourself "Joe's house of shit you wouldn't feed your dog" but it's more the value of the brand name than any economy of scale.

5/19/2007 7:19:58 PM

Quote :

"Yes, and it has nothing to do with economies of scale and everything to do with trust."

That's just another aspect of economies of scale.

Quote :

"ow the hell could it be described that way?"

The entrepreneur picked the location, raised the money to build it, hires and fires the staff, purchased the rights to the McDonalds name ($45,000) reaps most of the profits (McDonalds takes a 12.5% Royalty Fee), absorbs all of the loses, and can sell the business to whomever he likes at any time.

I'd say that's a perfectly good description. You never said anything that would indicate that it's not a form of investing.

Quote :

"Linked, sure; but collectively the 30,000 McDonalds in the world are not controlled by McDonalds."

So then it's not fragmented? Which is it?

Quote :

"Because you can make a shit ton more money selling crappy food and calling yourself McDonalds than selling crappy food and calling yourself "Joe's house of shit you wouldn't feed your dog" but it's more the value of the brand name than any economy of scale."

That's an aspect of economies of scale.

5/19/2007 7:53:27 PM

Quote :

"I'd say that's a perfectly good description. You never said anything that would indicate that it's not a form of investing."

You are not reading what I am typing. I am arguing that the restaurant industry is fragmented into tens of thousands of firms. You said it was not. So I demonstrated that all these franchise chains are in fact a collection of tens of thousands of autonomous firms; proving that the industry is in fact fragmented. From this you deduce I am arguing investing to start your own company is not a form of investing? Absurd.

Quote :

"So then it's not fragmented? Which is it?"

By the 30,000 McDonalds being distinct and independent firms, I think I'd say the industry is quite fragmented.

Quote :

"That's an aspect of economies of scale."

Do explain yourself. I can't wait to hear how having a third party insure the first parties food for quality as respect to the second party qualifies as economies of scale in relation to the first party. It sounds a lot more like outsourcing to me.

[Edited on May 19, 2007 at 10:49 PM. Reason : .,.]

5/19/2007 10:48:46 PM

Quote :

"You stated socialism couldn't work because power corrupts, I then asked you why the same wouldn't apply to democracy. "

and again, it's because democracy does not have 100% control. The failure of socialism should always be expected because socialism involves absolute control over the economy by some organization, while usually claiming that everyone is equally important. But, since someone must control it all, then someone will have power, and that power will corrupt them, ultimately causing failure of the system.

At least in democracy, there is no one person or entity with 100% control over everything. Corruption still occurs, yes, but not to the extent that it causes the failure of the entire system.

5/19/2007 11:55:40 PM

Quote :

"So I demonstrated that all these franchise chains are in fact a collection of tens of thousands of autonomous firms; proving that the industry is in fact fragmented."

No you didn't. Nothing you said indicates that.

Quote :

"By the 30,000 McDonalds being distinct and independent firms, I think I'd say the industry is quite fragmented."

They're not independent, if they were, they'd be Joe's Hamburger Shop.

Quote :

"Do explain yourself. I can't wait to hear how having a third party insure the first parties food for quality as respect to the second party qualifies as economies of scale in relation to the first party."

Branding is an aspect of economies of scale.

Quote :

"and again, it's because democracy does not have 100% control"

That's irrelevant, either power corrupts or it doesn't. You said it did, therefore democracy must always be corrupt, or more likely, your logic is faulty.

5/20/2007 2:46:40 AM

Concerning the McDonald's example, some of you seem to be forgetting that--unlike many other burger chains--the company has made a significant amount of its profits by selling real estate. I haven't seen this fact posted here, but it has been an integral part of McDonald's business model since Ray Kroc bought the company.

FYI: As of just a few years ago, only about ten percent of McDonald's outlets met the company's own service standards. So, if McDonald's is "selling advice," it's doing a shitty job of getting its stores to buy into that advice.

Quote :

"Anti-trust laws."

Kris

You list this as your reason that one entity cannot purchase McDonald's? You are flat wrong and you can't support the position with anything other than your opinion.

5/20/2007 2:59:48 AM

Quote :

"They're not independent, if they were, they'd be Joe's Hamburger Shop."

So, me and my car are not independent because it has "Ford" stamped on the front grill? A Movie Theater is not independent because it has THX stamped on the marque? My friend is a subsidiary of a shoe maker just because his shoes have Nike emblazed across them?

Kris, please; stop being silly. "Independence" is a measure of autonomy with relation to control over decision making. McDonald's Incorporated has no control over the local restaurants beyond the terms of the license, therefore they are autonomous; therefore I can call them independent firms; therefore I can say the industry is fragmented.

Quote :

"Branding is an aspect of economies of scale."

Odd. A small firm can have a strong highly recognized brand for quality; meanwhile their large competitors have no brand whatsoever. Therefore, since the two are not necesarily linked I don't believe you can reasonably argue one is an aspect of the other.

Quote :

"That's irrelevant, either power corrupts or it doesn't. You said it did, therefore democracy must always be corrupt, or more likely, your logic is faulty."

Or the system we are talking about is not a Democracy. Which I find far more likely, since there are very few true democracies in the world. Most are Republics, most are Constitutional, and especially in the sucessful countries there is an brain-washed tradition of allowing individuals to make most economic decisions without governmental involvement, which substantially limits how pervasive corruption can be.

5/20/2007 8:56:34 AM

Quote :

"You list this as your reason that one entity cannot purchase McDonald's? You are flat wrong and you can't support the position with anything other than your opinion."

No, I list it as the reason one entity can't buy every burger store.

Quote :

"So, me and my car are not independent because it has "Ford" stamped on the front grill? A Movie Theater is not independent because it has THX stamped on the marque? My friend is a subsidiary of a shoe maker just because his shoes have Nike emblazed across them?"

Those are very bad analogies. We both know that McDonalds has far more to do with it's chain than any of your examples.

Quote :

"Kris, please; stop being silly. "Independence" is a measure of autonomy with relation to control over decision making."

Exactly. Who does a McDonalds chain buy it's equipment from? Anyone? What products can they serve?

Quote :

"A small firm can have a strong highly recognized brand for quality"

Chances are that the larger firm will have a much more highly recognized, but you can continue to name anamolies if you like.

Quote :

"Or the system we are talking about is not a Democracy. Which I find far more likely, since there are very few true democracies in the world. Most are Republics, most are Constitutional, and especially in the sucessful countries there is an brain-washed tradition of allowing individuals to make most economic decisions without governmental involvement, which substantially limits how pervasive corruption can be."

You're still making a strawman arguement here, either figure out what that arguement is about, or don't get involved with it.

5/20/2007 1:34:06 PM

Quote :

"But clearly there's some reason they aren't just joe's resturant." "

Quote :

"Yes, and it has nothing to do with economies of scale and everything to do with trust."

Well, this depends on exactly what you mean by economies of scale.

There are economies of scale in advertising, marketing, product development and strategic management.

There are diseconomies of scale in managing workers, choosing locations, relating to the local regulatory environment and culture as well as assessing localized risk.

This is why it is profitable to have two seperate companies handling the two ends of the enterprise.

5/20/2007 2:24:08 PM

Quote :

"Exactly. Who does a McDonalds chain buy it's equipment from? Anyone? What products can they serve?"

Anyone and anything they want, within the limits as outlined in the contract they signed for the use of the McDonalds trademark. But having signed a contract with a company for use of their trademarks doesn't make you that company. There was a really good article on Hardees in a business magazine sometime last year that gave a very good example of how this works. You should look it up sometime.

Quote :

"Chances are that the larger firm will have a much more highly recognized, but you can continue to name anamolies if you like"

Recognized perhaps, but the value of a brand name is more than just how many people recognize it. Everyone recognizes Enron, but I doubt many people would see having or operating under that brand name as very valuble.

5/20/2007 2:25:40 PM

no, will not happen, will never happen, and if it did it would not be as they imagine it...

socialism/communism is a theoretical pipe dream only, in reality it's despotic and incredibly harsh

if someone really wants to live under such a system, they can move to one of the few remaining countries that are still limping along like a leper....

I do agree that there needs to be a restructuring but it needs to be self initiated and not imposed by the government.

I also think that I know best how to spend and earn my money, more so than anyone in an office thousands of miles away...

and to be expected Kris came out of the wood work to blather on about the benefits of socialism....

there aren't any, b/c the system does not function well in this place the rest of us call the real world...

you talk about corruption... with socialism the corrupt don't have to answer to anyone, in a capitalist system the corrupt are answerable to several factors, one of which being the market.

[Edited on May 21, 2007 at 12:35 PM. Reason : s]

5/21/2007 12:32:29 PM

"We're heading toward socialism, and nothing and no one can prevent it," said Venezuela's strongman president, Hugo Chavez, in a televised address in January. Mr. Chavez had won re-election the month before after a campaign in which he promised to more aggressively advance socialism in Venezuela. Included in this push is what Mr. Chavez calls land reform: the redistribution of Venezuela's arable land from large farms to cooperatives, often nothing more than squatter homesteads. The Chavez government encourages the practice by offering loans de facto grants, as they are regularly not repaid to co-ops. Mr. Chavez argues for land redistribution in his usual Marxist rhetoric of social equality and class struggle, but the Venezuelan government also hails the practice as an essential step toward agricultural self-sufficiency.
The irony, if history is any guide, is that this kind of land reform promises to make Venezuela even more dependent on imported food. Mr. Chavez's brand of land reform is a proven failure, and in some cases, has led to disaster. One example that the Venezuelan leader is quite familiar with is Cuba, where the collective farming that Fidel Castro introduced proved ruinous.
Land redistribution has been ongoing since 2005, and the results are starting to emerge already. By some estimates, Venezuelan farmers produced 8 percent less food in 2006 than in 2005. Sugar cane production in particular is down, in one northwestern state by 40 percent. Landowners are trying to sell their property, knowing that if the land is taken over by one of the cooperatives financed by the Chavez government, they will not be compensated. Also for fear of losing their property, large landowners are no longer investing any more than they need to in their farms. Even if they wanted to, farmers who own more than 100 acres are categorically denied loans by Venezuela's state banks, according to one farmer interviewed by the Wall Street Journal.
Mr. Chavez may think that oil revenue will buoy his social agenda, as it does his diplomatic one. Despite high oil prices, however, Mr. Chavez has done little to reduce poverty in Venezuela. Land redistribution will be yet another failed policy, and a reminder that Latin American's retrograde Marxist left stubbornly refuses to learn from past mistakes.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070520-094056-6295r.htm

5/21/2007 3:55:53 PM

and his silencing dissenting voices (eg shutting the oldest television network in the country because it was often critical of him) isn't winning him many friends inside or out of the country

5/21/2007 4:00:53 PM

i feel sorry for Venezuelan's.... then again they are partly doing it to themselves (only partly tho)

and we didnt help matters

5/21/2007 4:13:56 PM

^^^ an editorial by the illustrious Washington Times, eh?

you suppose the Reverend Sun Myung Moon wrote that one himself?

5/21/2007 8:44:14 PM

If not then perhaps his secretary. So what?

5/21/2007 9:50:14 PM

^ [/thread]

5/22/2007 12:20:55 AM