Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
I'm not talking specifically about demand or whether a market exists or is yet to be created. Wealth creation is dependent on a number of factors, including supply, demand, production, and a market for exchange. You have been implying that wealth comes literally from nowhere, brought forth—somehow—and solely—by an idea.
|
Your attempt to recast what I wrote is misleading. If we reverse engineer wealth creation, we see patterns. From my reviews there are correlations between those who have created wealth from "ideas" and major benefits to mankind as measured by standard of living improvements. In order for "ideas" to have an impact, synergy has to be created - where the total is greater than the sum of the parts - this affect in an economic perspective is the creation of wealth. These "ideas" leading to the creation of synergy comes from a place I don't understand - and I called it nothing. Perhaps it is something, I don't understand it. If you do, explain it please.
Quote:
|
Ideas aren't created, they're stolen.
|
Is it your position, that "man" has never had an original idea? Your statement is confusing to me.
---------- Post added at 07:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:37 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuglyStick
Wait, what? The reason people couldn't read was because there was no reading material available, outside that available to clergy, academics and nobility, and no need to learn as there wasn't literature available to read anyway. But I suppose your version is preferable amongst the crowd that strives to justify a have/have not system.
|
There was no need to read. There was no real opportunity to read. It was a time when time was consumed by more pressing (pardon the pun) needs, like avoiding starvation. However, given the synergy created from the invention of the printing press, reading began to have value and allowed for increased productivity. This lead to material standard of living increases for the populations with access to the new technology.
---------- Post added at 07:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:45 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by pig
A couple of thoughts stuck me today as I followed this unfolding thread periodically on work breaks...
1. ace: The situation with Tesla Motors is a bit more complicated than you are trying to make it out. In terms of picking winners and losers at the behest of the US Government...both GM and Tesla Motors have received government support. Tesla has been lobbying for years to gain US government support, and at this time have $465M ($465,000,000 / almost half a billion dollars) in government subsidized loans to develop their sedan class vehicle. I believe the initial target price will be in the neighborhood of $50,000 and judging from the way the hybrid vehicles have been handled, will likely rely on tax incentives to get any market share initially. From what I've read, they will have a target range of ~220 miles per charge, with an option to buy a more expensive battery pack that will boost them up to ~300 miles. To argue that the government could have chosen to stabilize GM or boost up Tesla, but chose to support GM because of entrenched politics is too simplified. If Tesla were to grow in market share in the near-term to the size of GM, or even nearly the size of GM, they would have to adopt GM's technology. The pure electric vehicle technology that is ready to go today is simply not ready for mass marketing without significant changes in expectation on behalf of the United States public. This why they are an early adopter technology company, and this is why they are being supported by the United States government. Incidentally, I believe they are probably also receiving some assistance from Japan and/or Germany, as they are now teamed up with Daimler/Mercedes and Toyota.
|
Of course things are more complicated than what will be communicated here - even more complicated that your expansion of the original point. However, the basic question, does Telsa compete with GM, can not even be agreed upon here.
Quote:
|
2. Another issue with the lack of widespread reading in Europe was also that wily Catholic Church, who used literacy or illiteracy, if you will, as a tool to retain power over the populace. Its tough to argue with the interpretation of God's Word if you can't read it.
|
Hence, a centralized power weather it is the church or government using its power to control people/markets/etc. is wrong in my view. I think an informed populace with the freedom to choose is best for mankind.
Quote:
|
3. This entire issue seems to rotate around that nasty phrase "redistribution of wealth," and it seems to me that no matter how you look at it, any form of government will entail a redistribution of wealth. "Class Warfare" is simply a reality. What I see is that those with money/power are simply using that money and power to reframe the discussion, such that if you allow the current ordering to stand, then these concepts go away. If you believe in a more uniform distribution of wealth in a given society, then you are promoting these concepts. No matter what you choose, someone will not be happy. But you can't simply wash away the underlying concepts simply because you happen to like things the way they are.
|
I think it possible for government to play a productive role, create synergy without redistribution of wealth. I am not an anarchist and I think markets need a governmental regulatory body with enforcement power. That then helps markets operate at higher efficiency.
---------- Post added at 08:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:54 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
Still don't understand the hate for the unions. In a Capitalist utopia where everyone is trying to get as much money as possible, why is it suddenly offensive for the workers to want their slice?
|
I don't hate unions, nor do I hate corporate lobbyist. They have a job to do. the problem is how liberals try to separate the two. For example GM has about 300,000 employees, the protection those employees received from government is disproportional to the general population. Why? My answer is the power of their political influence. If it is wrong, it is wrong - or lobbying is lobbying. I prefer government to be neutral. If you don't, then the next time a big corporate lobby "wins" in Washington, tip your hat to them rather than complain. Be consistent.