People Power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

No, you have, and in a very reasonable way. Sorry if any of my contributions towards you came across as unduly aggressive.

---

I took no offense, and I don't think any of your comments were aggressive. I hope mine weren't either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

However, I think you're wrong about the face of the protestors being seen as the hard left. I think that's maybe the case if one is oneself positioned on the right. To many right-wingers, anyone who takes part in what could be called a left-leaning protest — anti-war marches, the current demonstrations, etc — must be an unwashed, unemployed socialist. I have always found that view quite offensive, as well as simply untrue. And in the UK at least, where politics has thankfully become less polarised than is the case in the USA, I think more people are coming to realise this. The all-encompassing nature of objection to the Iraq war probably had a hand in this.

---

True I am probably biased a bit, and that could color my opinions some. But when you hear about rapes, thefts, assaults, etc. that sure does not put a good spin on things either. And I have heard many, many of the protesters calling for the overthrow of the government (violent and otherwise), arrests of CEO's, "taking" by any means necessary people's wealth and property. I honestly have not heard anything of the sort coming from the TEA party. The closest thing to violence that I've heard of was Palin's "target these districts" ad which was a bit of a stretch to make violent if you ask me.

Again, I think that I could sit down with probably the majority of the protestors and we would agree on the problems. We may not totally agree on the solutions, but even that I think if we talked it out in a rational way we'd find more common ground than not. But it's the fact that no one has distanced themselves from the rabble-rousers in the group that bothers me. The mayor of Oakland is still expressing support for the occupy Oakland crowd even after all their violence. And Obama is still embracing the movement, and hasn't said anything to denounce the violence surrounding it. I find that disappointing to say the least.

Perhaps the coverage is just different in Europe compared to the US?

I missed this post earlier, but it merits a response

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I made no reference to 'expensive' meaning 'good', and find it quite telling that you make that connection.

---

No, you did not say expensive was good. However those are my choices. Go to a chain story and pay less, or go to a mom & pop store and pay more. What would you do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

EDIT: As, indeed, it is that you apparently have no opinion on homogeneity. I see it as an almost indisputably bad thing in any sense. In the case I was describing, you say that '(at the moment at least) [it] makes economic sense'. By 'at the moment', what you mean is 'as a result of an unstoppable process dating back very many years'. And given attitudes such as yours, is this any surprise? What consumers are left with is less choice — not what you free-marketeers would deem a good thing. What, after all, is the rightful purpose of a company if not to seek to gain market domination and thus increase its profits?

---

Yes free-marketeers see choice as a good thing. However, let's look at a simple example. Let's say you have a choice between store A & store B. After direct competition over a number of years store A has gained a large share of the market, and store B has such a low market share that it can no longer cover it's costs. From your comments it seems that you would rather artificially prop up store B than let the markets work (store B goes bankrupt). To what end do you force competition on the market? Do you not see a situation where store B fails, someone learns the lessons of what went wrong there, they start store C and successfully compete with store A? Is that not the true free market at work?

This free-marketeer wants to see the markets work to give me choices. I don't want to see any failed businesses being artificially propped up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

It is statements like this one, in fact, that I'm referring to in my post above.

---

Referring to how?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

If everyone was motivated there aren't enough jobs for everybody.

---

So we should just create jobs for everyone wether they are needed, productive jobs or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

But to whom? In the company I'm working for, the boyfriend of the boss's daughter is being trained (funded partly by the government). The wife of the boss is the secretary and their son worked for the company until he moved to a different company.

---

And you feel that you have the right to tell that company how to run it's business? Are you saying that that company should be forced by some government agency to not help out family members? Or perhaps they should be forced to train some one off the street?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Yes free-marketeers see choice as a good thing. However, let's look at a simple example. Let's say you have a choice between store A & store B. After direct competition over a number of years store A has gained a large share of the market, and store B has such a low market share that it can no longer cover it's costs. From your comments it seems that you would rather artificially prop up store B than let the markets work (store B goes bankrupt). To what end do you force competition on the market? Do you not see a situation where store B fails, someone learns the lessons of what went wrong there, they start store C and successfully compete with store A? Is that not the true free market at work?

This free-marketeer wants to see the markets work to give me choices. I don't want to see any failed businesses being artificially propped up.

---

Hence you have no objection to the lowest-common denominator, crap-but-popular endlessly holding sway?

Before you ask, I am not in favour of propping up failing businesses either, but the reasons behind these processes do concern me, and for that reason I do support a degree of regulation and restriction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Referring to how?

---

Your comments about the types of people protesting being utterly inaccurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

And you feel that you have the right to tell that company how to run it's business?

---

Does not an employee have that right? Or should they be endlessly grateful, like some mediaeval serf, for the very fact of their having a job and never offer an opinion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Hence you have no objection to the lowest-common denominator, crap-but-popular endlessly holding sway?

---

I have no objection to the lowest-common-denominator. Crap has it's place. As does fine quality merchandize. If there is a market for the fine quality merchandize then the store that sells it will be profitable. If there is no market, or the store's business model is off then it fails. That's life. To go back to your Starbucks example. Starbucks is everywhere, but that does not mean that there are no other coffee joints. The popular does not exclude the smaller niche stores. Not in the least. I don't understand all the animosity directed at chain stores. It's not like they got to the position/market share for some mysterious reason. If you have a problem with them, no one is forcing you to patronize them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Before you ask, I am not in favour of propping up failing businesses either, but the reasons behind these processes do concern me, and for that reason I do support a degree of regulation and restriction.

---

What are you proposing to regulate and restrict?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Does not an employee have that right? Or should they be endlessly grateful, like some mediaeval serf, for the very fact of their having a job and never offer an opinion?

---

No, an employee has every right to express concern. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "you" in that example as Eki is an employee. I should have said something like ... Why should someone from outside the company tell that company how to do business?