*Anarcissie* wrote:
On Nov 3, 1:04 am, John Galt <kady... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
*Anarcissie* wrote:
On Nov 2, 3:11 am, John Galt <kady... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
...
If you want to remove the "busts" from the free market cycle you also
remove the "booms." ...
It seems rather curious that that hasn't happened already,
indeed, hadn't happened long before the idea of evening
them out through government intervention was thought of.
For those who own much, there is little to be gained by
taking chances.  The situation, the behaviors, suggest
pathology.
The answer is in Vegas.

The human creature consistently believes that their individual abilities
  will permit them to navigate the treacherous waters of the investment
markets with better success than average. Research shows this to be
untrue, as the level of knowledge and sophistication required to make it
so is either (1) beyond the ability of the average person to learn, or
(2) once learned, the time involved to be successful is beyond that of
the average person to give.

That doesn't mean we don't want the chance to do so, however.

Well, I suppose that's what I'm getting at when I say pathology,
although the pathology may be social and collective rather than
individual.  When I was a child, though, bankers and investors
were supposed to be cautious and conservative as a matter not
only of personal disposition but the dictates of the culture.

Right. However, demographics change.



When the average person repeatedly bets the farm on a long
shot, he or she is generally advised to seek therapy.

Yes, but when the average person is 35 and has means and has never seen
a bear market, they don't think they're betting the farm.

More to this is demographics that people care to realize. For example,
you've read that seniors, after decades of being a reliable Democratic
voting bloc, are now trending GOP. Does that mean the GOP has wooed
them? Hardly. The FDR seniors are going into the grave and being
replaced by a group which has fond memories of both parties, Eisenhower
and Kennedy. They will soon be replaced by seniors whose favorite
president in their lifetime is Reagan. What else could occur?

*Anarcissie* wrote:
On Nov 4, 4:56 pm, John Galt <kady... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
*Anarcissie* wrote:
On Nov 3, 1:04 am, John Galt <kady... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
*Anarcissie* wrote:
On Nov 2, 3:11 am, John Galt <kady... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
...
If you want to remove the "busts" from the free market cycle you
also remove the "booms." ...
It seems rather curious that that hasn't happened already,
indeed, hadn't happened long before the idea of evening
them out through government intervention was thought of.
For those who own much, there is little to be gained by
taking chances. The situation, the behaviors, suggest
pathology.
The answer is in Vegas.

The human creature consistently believes that their individual
abilities will permit them to navigate the treacherous waters of
the investment markets with better success than average. Research
shows this to be untrue, as the level of knowledge and
sophistication required to make it so is either (1) beyond the
ability of the average person to learn, or (2) once learned, the
time involved to be successful is beyond that of the average
person to give.

That doesn't mean we don't want the chance to do so, however.

Well, I suppose that's what I'm getting at when I say pathology,
although the pathology may be social and collective rather than
individual. When I was a child, though, bankers and investors
were supposed to be cautious and conservative as a matter not
only of personal disposition but the dictates of the culture.

Right. However, demographics change.

When the average person repeatedly bets the farm on a long
shot, he or she is generally advised to seek therapy.

Yes, but when the average person is 35 and has means and has never
seen a bear market, they don't think they're betting the farm.

More to this is demographics that people care to realize. For
example, you've read that seniors, after decades of being a reliable
Democratic voting bloc, are now trending GOP. Does that mean the GOP
has wooed them? Hardly. The FDR seniors are going into the grave and
being replaced by a group which has fond memories of both parties,
Eisenhower and Kennedy. They will soon be replaced by seniors whose
favorite president in their lifetime is Reagan. What else could
occur?

That makes sense.  In fact, one might say it is rational
behavior.  Who would you rather see on television in the
old folks' home, someone you like or someone you don't
like?
In any case, for the poor, risky behavior may be
reasonable, since they're poor anyway and may feel
they don't have much to lose.  The powerful and rich,
however, usually think they have a great deal to lose,
so I would expect to see cautious, conservative behavior

Trouble with that line is that that isnt usually what got them
rich in the first place, so its not that easy for them to change
something so very fundamental to their character/behaviour.

and the construction of a political and economic
system which ensured that those who were at
the top stayed there in relative peace and
security with too many waves being made.

Thats a hell of a lot easier said than done with so many prepared to
take a risk to get rich or even just wealthy like a good salesman can etc..

But instead we see these people applauding and supporting Bubbles Greenspan.

Presumably because most of them have even less idea about what drives the economy than he did.

*Anarcissie* wrote:
On Nov 4, 12:09 am, James A. Donald <jam... at (no spam) echeque.com> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:41:16 -0800 (PST), <darwin... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

James A. Donald:

Suppose company A sells ten times as much as company B. To drive
company B out of business, it lowers its prices to make a loss -
but oops, it is making ten times as much loss as company B.

darwinist

These numbers do not add up. Company B could well be making a profit
on each unit sold, but if the volumes are too low those profits
won't cover its running costs.

If they don't cover its running costs, it is *not* making a profit.

Company A might be making only a small loss
on its product (or breaking even) in order to undercut company B,

Well if company A is producing the same stuff, or better stuff,
cheaper than company B, company B damn well *should* go out of
business.

Your argument is "suppose there are economies of scale, then the
bigger company will win". Indeed it will, and should, but when you
get big enough, there are also diseconomies of scale. The bigger the
company, the more it tends to become bureaucratic and Dilbertesque.

My understanding of the way big companies crush small
companies in such cases as Standard Oil is the following:
SO picks out a smaller company whose market is regional.
SO then begins to sell its oil at a loss in the same region,
while maintaining normal prices elsewhere.  Moreover, SO
will have prepared for a price war by saving cash in
anticipation, thus providing it with much longer pockets
than its target.  When the target runs out of cash
reserves it loses the price war and has to sell out to
somebody, possibly SO.

However, there is another advantage of size which
applies even though companies are badly run or
produce an inferior product, which is the tendency
of the lazy- and simple-minded to worship size.
Merrill Lynch and Microsoft are good examples
of companies that have exploited this sort of
advantage to considerable profit although the
Lynch was so badly run it finally went aground.

Microsoft actually exploited a completely different effect, its
much harder to change OSs and software than anything else.

On Nov 2, 1:17 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

........... Plenty of examples of profitable state capitalism.

Liar, the state can only violate or uphold capitalism, it does not and
can never engage in it.

MG

On Nov 3, 1:04 am, John Galt <kady... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
*Anarcissie* wrote:
On Nov 2, 3:11 am, John Galt <kady... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
...
If you want to remove the "busts" from the free market cycle you also
remove the "booms." ...
It seems rather curious that that hasn't happened already,
indeed, hadn't happened long before the idea of evening
them out through government intervention was thought of.
For those who own much, there is little to be gained by
taking chances. The situation, the behaviors, suggest
pathology.
The answer is in Vegas.

The human creature consistently believes that their individual abilities
will permit them to navigate the treacherous waters of the investment
markets with better success than average. Research shows this to be
untrue, as the level of knowledge and sophistication required to make it
so is either (1) beyond the ability of the average person to learn, or
(2) once learned, the time involved to be successful is beyond that of
the average person to give.

That doesn't mean we don't want the chance to do so, however.

Well, I suppose that's what I'm getting at when I say pathology,
although the pathology may be social and collective rather than
individual. When I was a child, though, bankers and investors
were supposed to be cautious and conservative as a matter not
only of personal disposition but the dictates of the culture.

When the average person repeatedly bets the farm on a long
shot, he or she is generally advised to seek therapy.

On Nov 4, 12:09 am, James A. Donald <jam... at (no spam) echeque.com> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:41:16 -0800 (PST), <darwin... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

James A. Donald:

Suppose company A sells ten times as much as company B. To drive
company B out of business, it lowers its prices to make a loss -
but oops, it is making ten times as much loss as company B.

darwinist

These numbers do not add up. Company B could well be making a profit
on each unit sold, but if the volumes are too low those profits
won't cover its running costs.

If they don't cover its running costs, it is *not* making a profit.

Company A might be making only a small loss
on its product (or breaking even) in order to undercut company B,

Well if company A is producing the same stuff, or better stuff,
cheaper than company B, company B damn well *should* go out of
business.

Your argument is "suppose there are economies of scale, then the
bigger company will win". Indeed it will, and should, but when you
get big enough, there are also diseconomies of scale. The bigger the
company, the more it tends to become bureaucratic and Dilbertesque.

My understanding of the way big companies crush small
companies in such cases as Standard Oil is the following:
SO picks out a smaller company whose market is regional.
SO then begins to sell its oil at a loss in the same region,
while maintaining normal prices elsewhere. Moreover, SO
will have prepared for a price war by saving cash in
anticipation, thus providing it with much longer pockets
than its target. When the target runs out of cash
reserves it loses the price war and has to sell out to
somebody, possibly SO.

However, there is another advantage of size which
applies even though companies are badly run or
produce an inferior product, which is the tendency
of the lazy- and simple-minded to worship size.
Merrill Lynch and Microsoft are good examples
of companies that have exploited this sort of
advantage to considerable profit although the
Lynch was so badly run it finally went aground.

On Nov 4, 4:56 pm, John Galt <kady... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
*Anarcissie* wrote:
On Nov 3, 1:04 am, John Galt <kady... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
*Anarcissie* wrote:
On Nov 2, 3:11 am, John Galt <kady... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
...
If you want to remove the "busts" from the free market cycle you
also remove the "booms." ...
It seems rather curious that that hasn't happened already,
indeed, hadn't happened long before the idea of evening
them out through government intervention was thought of.
For those who own much, there is little to be gained by
taking chances. The situation, the behaviors, suggest
pathology.
The answer is in Vegas.

The human creature consistently believes that their individual
abilities will permit them to navigate the treacherous waters of
the investment markets with better success than average. Research
shows this to be untrue, as the level of knowledge and
sophistication required to make it so is either (1) beyond the
ability of the average person to learn, or (2) once learned, the
time involved to be successful is beyond that of the average
person to give.

That doesn't mean we don't want the chance to do so, however.

Well, I suppose that's what I'm getting at when I say pathology,
although the pathology may be social and collective rather than
individual. When I was a child, though, bankers and investors
were supposed to be cautious and conservative as a matter not
only of personal disposition but the dictates of the culture.

Right. However, demographics change.



When the average person repeatedly bets the farm on a long
shot, he or she is generally advised to seek therapy.

Yes, but when the average person is 35 and has means and has never
seen a bear market, they don't think they're betting the farm.

More to this is demographics that people care to realize. For
example, you've read that seniors, after decades of being a reliable
Democratic voting bloc, are now trending GOP. Does that mean the GOP
has wooed them? Hardly. The FDR seniors are going into the grave and
being replaced by a group which has fond memories of both parties,
Eisenhower and Kennedy. They will soon be replaced by seniors whose
favorite president in their lifetime is Reagan. What else could
occur?

That makes sense. In fact, one might say it is rational
behavior. Who would you rather see on television in the
old folks' home, someone you like or someone you don't
like?

In any case, for the poor, risky behavior may be
reasonable, since they're poor anyway and may feel
they don't have much to lose. The powerful and rich,
however, usually think they have a great deal to lose,
so I would expect to see cautious, conservative behavior

and the construction of a political and economic
system which ensured that those who were at
the top stayed there in relative peace and
security with too many waves being made.

But instead we see these people applauding and supporting Bubbles Greenspan.

On Nov 4, 12:09 am, James A. Donald <jam... at (no spam) echeque.com> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:41:16 -0800 (PST), <darwin... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

James A. Donald:

Suppose company A sells ten times as much as company B. To drive
company B out of business, it lowers its prices to make a loss - but
oops, it is making ten times as much loss as company B.
darwinist

These numbers do not add up. Company B could well be making a profit
on each unit sold, but if the volumes are too low those profits won't
cover its running costs.
If they don't cover its running costs, it is *not* making a profit.

Company A might be making only a small loss
on its product (or breaking even) in order to undercut company B,
Well if company A is producing the same stuff, or better stuff,
cheaper than company B, company B damn well *should* go out of
business.

Your argument is "suppose there are economies of scale, then the
bigger company will win". Indeed it will, and should, but when you
get big enough, there are also diseconomies of scale. The bigger the
company, the more it tends to become bureaucratic and Dilbertesque.

My understanding of the way big companies crush small
companies in such cases as Standard Oil is the following:
SO picks out a smaller company whose market is regional.
SO then begins to sell its oil at a loss in the same region,
while maintaining normal prices elsewhere.

Moreover, SO
will have prepared for a price war by saving cash in
anticipation, thus providing it with much longer pockets
than its target. When the target runs out of cash
reserves it loses the price war and has to sell out to
somebody, possibly SO.

However, there is another advantage of size which
applies even though companies are badly run or
produce an inferior product, which is the tendency
of the lazy- and simple-minded to worship size.

Merrill Lynch and Microsoft are good examples
of companies that have exploited this sort of
advantage to considerable profit although the
Lynch was so badly run it finally went aground.

Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
John Galt <kady... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
John Galt <kady... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
John Galt <kady... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote

If you want to remove the "busts" from the free
market cycle you also remove the "booms." ...

It seems rather curious that that hasn't happened already,
indeed, hadn't happened long before the idea of evening
them out through government intervention was thought of.

For those who own much, there is little to be gained by taking
chances. The situation, the behaviors, suggest pathology.

The answer is in Vegas.

The human creature consistently believes that their individual
abilities will permit them to navigate the treacherous waters
of the investment markets with better success than average.
Research shows this to be untrue, as the level of knowledge
and sophistication required to make it so is either (1) beyond
the ability of the average person to learn, or (2) once learned,
the time involved to be successful is beyond that of the
average person to give.

That doesn't mean we don't want the chance to do so, however.

Well, I suppose that's what I'm getting at when I say pathology,
although the pathology may be social and collective rather than
individual. When I was a child, though, bankers and investors
were supposed to be cautious and conservative as a matter
not only of personal disposition but the dictates of the culture.

Right. However, demographics change.

When the average person repeatedly bets the farm on a
long shot, he or she is generally advised to seek therapy.

Yes, but when the average person is 35 and has means and has
never seen a bear market, they don't think they're betting the farm.

More to this is demographics that people care to realize. For
example, you've read that seniors, after decades of being a
reliable Democratic voting bloc, are now trending GOP. Does that
mean the GOP has wooed them? Hardly. The FDR seniors are going
into the grave and being replaced by a group which has fond
memories of both parties, Eisenhower and Kennedy. They will soon
be replaced by seniors whose favorite president in their lifetime
is Reagan. What else could occur?

That makes sense. In fact, one might say it is rational
behavior. Who would you rather see on television in the
old folks' home, someone you like or someone you don't like?

In any case, for the poor, risky behavior may be
reasonable, since they're poor anyway and may feel
they don't have much to lose. The powerful and rich,
however, usually think they have a great deal to lose,
so I would expect to see cautious, conservative behavior

Trouble with that line is that that isnt usually what got them
rich in the first place, so its not that easy for them to change
something so very fundamental to their character/behaviour.

That was said in this thread previously, but I am not at all sure it is so.

Not that the billionaires are all children of billionaires,

but I think a majority of the seriously well-off are children of the seriously well-off.

However I'm too lazy to look up the statistics.

and the construction of a political and economic
system which ensured that those who were at
the top stayed there in relative peace and
security with too many waves being made.

Thats a hell of a lot easier said than done with so many prepared to
take a risk to get rich or even just wealthy like a good salesman can etc.

At a corporate, institutional level?

Big things can't be moved very quickly

and when they do move they can't be hidden very well.

But instead we see these people applauding and supporting Bubbles Greenspan.

Presumably because most of them have even less idea about what drives the economy than he did.

That's going some.

Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
James A. Donald <jam... at (no spam) echeque.com> wrote
darwinist <darwin... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
James A. Donald wrote

Suppose company A sells ten times as much as company B. To drive
company B out of business, it lowers its prices to make a loss -
but oops, it is making ten times as much loss as company B.

These numbers do not add up. Company B could well be making a
profit on each unit sold, but if the volumes are too low those
profits won't cover its running costs.

If they don't cover its running costs, it is *not* making a profit.

Company A might be making only a small loss on its
product (or breaking even) in order to undercut company B,

Well if company A is producing the same stuff, or better stuff, cheaper
than company B, company B damn well *should* go out of business.

Your argument is "suppose there are economies of scale, then the
bigger company will win". Indeed it will, and should, but when you
get big enough, there are also diseconomies of scale. The bigger
the company, the more it tends to become bureaucratic and
Dilbertesque.

My understanding of the way big companies crush small
companies in such cases as Standard Oil is the following:
SO picks out a smaller company whose market is regional.
SO then begins to sell its oil at a loss in the same region,
while maintaining normal prices elsewhere. Moreover, SO
will have prepared for a price war by saving cash in
anticipation, thus providing it with much longer pockets
than its target. When the target runs out of cash
reserves it loses the price war and has to sell out to
somebody, possibly SO.

However, there is another advantage of size which
applies even though companies are badly run or
produce an inferior product, which is the tendency
of the lazy- and simple-minded to worship size.
Merrill Lynch and Microsoft are good examples
of companies that have exploited this sort of
advantage to considerable profit although the
Lynch was so badly run it finally went aground.

Microsoft actually exploited a completely different effect, its
much harder to change OSs and software than anything else.

That's called "path cost" I believe.

But my personal experience of major software-buying
struggles was that path cost was not taken into
consideration very much by big corporations building new
systems which happened to include PCs or small servers.

Likewise the small consumer who wants only a browser,
email and maybe a word processor doesn't really have
to consider path cost in going from M$ to Mac or Linux.

It seems to me the main thing getting people's
attention was simply the ubiquity of Microsoft.

Most people are cowed by size and prominence.

On Nov 4, 4:56 pm, John Galt <kady... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
*Anarcissie* wrote:
On Nov 3, 1:04 am, John Galt <kady... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
*Anarcissie* wrote:
On Nov 2, 3:11 am, John Galt <kady... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
...
If you want to remove the "busts" from the free market cycle you also
remove the "booms." ...
It seems rather curious that that hasn't happened already,
indeed, hadn't happened long before the idea of evening
them out through government intervention was thought of.
For those who own much, there is little to be gained by
taking chances. The situation, the behaviors, suggest
pathology.
The answer is in Vegas.
The human creature consistently believes that their individual abilities
will permit them to navigate the treacherous waters of the investment
markets with better success than average. Research shows this to be
untrue, as the level of knowledge and sophistication required to make it
so is either (1) beyond the ability of the average person to learn, or
(2) once learned, the time involved to be successful is beyond that of
the average person to give.
That doesn't mean we don't want the chance to do so, however.
Well, I suppose that's what I'm getting at when I say pathology,
although the pathology may be social and collective rather than
individual. When I was a child, though, bankers and investors
were supposed to be cautious and conservative as a matter not
only of personal disposition but the dictates of the culture.
Right. However, demographics change.



When the average person repeatedly bets the farm on a long
shot, he or she is generally advised to seek therapy.
Yes, but when the average person is 35 and has means and has never seen
a bear market, they don't think they're betting the farm.

More to this is demographics that people care to realize. For example,
you've read that seniors, after decades of being a reliable Democratic
voting bloc, are now trending GOP. Does that mean the GOP has wooed
them? Hardly. The FDR seniors are going into the grave and being
replaced by a group which has fond memories of both parties, Eisenhower
and Kennedy. They will soon be replaced by seniors whose favorite
president in their lifetime is Reagan. What else could occur?

That makes sense. In fact, one might say it is rational
behavior. Who would you rather see on television in the
old folks' home, someone you like or someone you don't
like?

In any case, for the poor, risky behavior may be
reasonable, since they're poor anyway and may feel
they don't have much to lose.

however, usually think they have a great deal to lose,
so I would expect to see cautious, conservative
behavior and the construction of a political and
economic system which ensured that those who
were at the top stayed there in relative peace and
security with too many waves being made.

But instead we see these people applauding and
supporting Bubbles Greenspan.

Yes, certainly an interesting conundrum. Again, demographics may explain
a lot. People who had some of their adult years during the Depression
were famously adverse to the stock market. The following group saw
*some* good years after WW2, some bad, and were therefore properly
cautious. Since 1980, however, it's been largely boom with a bit of bear
thrown it. This encouraged, as I see it, the attitude that "if you stick
with the markets through the busts, they will always reward you in
spades during the booms."

JG

John Galt wrote:
snip

Yes, certainly an interesting conundrum. Again, demographics may
explain a lot. People who had some of their adult years during the
Depression were famously adverse to the stock market. The following
group saw *some* good years after WW2, some bad, and were therefore
properly cautious. Since 1980, however, it's been largely boom with a
bit of bear thrown it. This encouraged, as I see it, the attitude that
"if you stick with the markets through the busts, they will always
reward you in spades during the booms."

JG

You got that right.

The antithesis to that thesis is .. Qutbism.

The resulting synthesis is very, very messy.

--
Les Cargill

Les Cargill wrote:
Mark M. wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:
Mark M. wrote:
Fred Weiss wrote:
On Oct 28, 11:23 pm, Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:

As you can see, Fred is hopelessly ensnared in justification of
ownership
as opposed to rational expectations or common good.

Fred proudly advocates private property and consider it essential for
the common good.

Which is more important, the private good or the common good?

Mark M.

There is no common good. There may only be goods in common.

Proving the negative, eh, Les?

To do that you must show there is no possible condition, physical
environment, knowledge, tool, technology, that has ever existed or
ever could exist that could be a universal boon to humankind or even
a boon to a specific inclusive community of humans that happen to
inhabit a particular geographical area.

Not one.

How will you prove it?

There is no collective anything, only individuals. Public
goods are explicitly nonrival and nonexcludable, the common
*weal* is a social construct of language only. And the common
weal is not what people mean by "the common good".

QED.

What QED? You give declarative statements without support. Where is
the syllogism that includes a major premise, minor premise, and
conclusion that answers the points I made above.

It could go something like this:

Major Premise: Since....blah, blah, blah

Minor Premise: And since....blah, blah, blah

Conclusion: Therefore, there is no common good.

QED

Just fill in the blahs.

The major premise could be something like,"Since humans do not inhabit
the same environment," or "Since humans don't have similar bodies and
desires."


Mark M.

the state can only violate or uphold capitalism, it does not and
can never engage in it.

MG

What do you mean? Your own government engages in venture-capitalism:
http://www.nzvif.com/