Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 63 of 63
Thanks Tree83Thanks

Thread: The perceived superiority of the private sector...

  1. #61
    Scucca Ęthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,658
    Thanks
    1349

    Quote Originally Posted by Claudius the God View Post
    This is something many people who are not in business or in corporations don't fully grasp unless they are executives or in marketing and sales. I cannot tell you how many times I was told to put our competitor out of business. That is the goal, to be the last one standing holding 100% market share. Every sales person in industry loses a deal and many of them hear the same thing when they do, how did you lose it, why did you lose it, you should never have lost it, don't lose another one, etc. Implicit in this response is the idea that you should win everything, all the time which implies that your competitor never wins, ever.
    But the search for monopoly power is used, via Schumpeterian analysis, as the perceived driver of innovation. I always find it funny to see free marketeers using it mind you, given Schumpeter's end prediction is socialism

  2. #62
    Junior Member Claudius the God's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,717
    Thanks
    971

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by Ęthelfrith View Post
    But the search for monopoly power is used, via Schumpeterian analysis, as the perceived driver of innovation. I always find it funny to see free marketeers using it mind you, given Schumpeter's end prediction is socialism
    Agreed but lets face facts, no one ever looks at the long term in capitalism as we know it, its all about the quarter. Our national conversations about complex issues like this used to be one led by intellectuals, now it is led by people who know very little about the subject matter. Not sure if you have ever watched archived clips of the old Mike Wallace show from the 50's but if you have you will notice he had intellectuals on constantly, these were people of substance that were interviewed by a man who did research and could engage with the guest on a wide range of very esoteric topics. People watched it, we used to celebrate excellence even if we disagreed. Now no real intellectual makes the national news scene but for brief snippets of meaningless tit for tat exchanges. Think back to the old Buckley days, like him or not, he engaged in philosophical and rhetorical combat with anyone and everyone. His bouts with Gore Vidal created the modern news format. I listen to podcasts of Intelligence Squared a lot, its my lifeline to sanity these days, you should check it out sometime.

  3. #63
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    7,827
    Thanks
    2118

    Quote Originally Posted by Ęthelfrith View Post
    But the search for monopoly power is used, via Schumpeterian analysis, as the perceived driver of innovation. I always find it funny to see free marketeers using it mind you, given Schumpeter's end prediction is socialism
    We've adopted the profit motive as the driver of competition and accepted it as some sort of Natural Law. But what about competition? Don't most people compete just to compete? If you're a scientist looking to cure cancer, don't you just want to cure cancer? Don't you love your job? Wouldn't you love being the one who cracked the code and got it done? Wouldn't people compete to solve problems because we're literally hard-wired to solve problems and to love it?

    The profit motive certainly works, no denying it. But it works not just to bring out the best in people and get their healthy competitive juices flowing. Because money is power, it also brings out the psychopaths and sociopaths, and without any question it rewards things like ruthlessness, a willingness to cheat and lie. That's not something you hear when the free market fundamentalists are preaching. It's all about the competition bringing out the best, the most talented, the hardest working. Not the cheaters and the liars and the people who operate without ethical or moral restraint.

    The left is there to keep the right from disintegrating into a free-for-all jungle that rewards cheating the same way it rewards quality.

    We've seen enough examples of what happens if you go too far left (or try to, anyway). And we've seen what happens if you go too far to the right. I don't see how looking through history we can believe that anything other than the proper balance of the two is the way to go, and that the fulcrum must move back and forth according to the circumstances of the day.

    And that's just practically speaking.

    Never mind the impact that an unrestrained free market has on the collective soul of humanity. We have one chance as a species. Do we want to look back at humanity, whenever it ends, and see just another pack of squabbling dogs that couldn't raise itself up, and died in a pit we dug for ourselves? Or are we better than that? Does it matter to us? Markets are a tool we can use to our great advantage, but if we do not control them they will control us. We will become, in effect, possessed.
    Thanks from labrea

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567

Similar Threads

  1. Public sector versus private sector unions
    By Amelia in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 121
    Last Post: 10th March 2015, 06:48 PM
  2. The Private Sector Always Gets It Right.
    By HenryPorter in forum Current Events
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 27th December 2013, 12:55 PM
  3. Harry Reid has NEVER had a private sector job.
    By mrfurleylives in forum Current Events
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: 7th August 2012, 04:32 PM
  4. A question of private sector ethics
    By Cicero in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 4th November 2011, 01:04 AM
  5. Private Sector Jobs Grew By Only 38,000 in May
    By Six in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2nd June 2011, 01:27 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed