no one gets rich without help

[evolve]

[BitcoinRedLight]

Excellent.

[hugolp]

[hugolp]

I dont think you understand the libertarian position.

Smart woman. And I'm all for entrepreneurship, as long as people remember who enables it.
Without help from the rest of organised society, alone, you or I are nothing.

Very true. This is one of the core believes of libertarianism. But I dont see how this is related to what she said.

Even in Somalia which is under complete anarchy, you cannot conduct any sort of business without vast support from other [armed] people.

Somalia is not under complete anarchy, only parts, but regardless I dont understand the point you are trying to make.

So it seems parasitic to loathe those beneath you or deprive them. They are all part of the equilibrium that maintain your riches & create new wealth.

Again, the point being?

[johnyj]

Good post, and I think she missed the big point:

Without CONSUMER, every enterprise is just unprofitable, no one gets rich without CONSUMER

[cbeast]

Good post, and I think she missed the big point:

Without CONSUMER, every enterprise is just unprofitable, no one gets rich without CONSUMER

I don't think consumers are doing anything wrong that deserves admonishment. How can you shame consumers that are just plain poor?

[Litt]

Everything would be fine if the corporations were actually sided with the idea of paying it forward to the consumers, but given the choice, they will simply choose profit to shareholders over people in general society that enables them to operate.

This is why we have a problem.

[johnyj]

Good post, and I think she missed the big point:

Without CONSUMER, every enterprise is just unprofitable, no one gets rich without CONSUMER

I don't think consumers are doing anything wrong that deserves admonishment. How can you shame consumers that are just plain poor?

Quite right, enterprises' success depends on consumers who have enough income and willingness to spend, and that comes from a low jobless rate and high minimum wage

[jwzguy]

FTFY

[kjj]

At least they are getting closer to being out in the open about their intentions.  Her little speech can easily be taken another way.

Nice factory you've got there.  We wouldn't want anything to happen to it..

[FreeMoney]

So they stole my parents stuff to make some crappy infrastructure in the wrong places and that is the justification for taking my stuff? Even if it wasn't mostly a subsidy for car manufacturers and large corps it wouldn't be them that I owe anyway, they are some oddly determined group who blows shit up and pays off anyone who might care to stop them.

[Brunic]

Everything would be fine if the corporations were actually sided with the idea of paying it forward to the consumers, but given the choice, they will simply choose profit to shareholders over people in general society that enables them to operate.

This is why we have a problem.

They have to, it's written in the law.

In the canadian law(and I believe it's similar in the US too), a corporation exist to create profit for the shareholders. They don't choose profit over people, they are forced by the law to do it. In theory, if a corporation would give to the people instead of making profit for its shareholders, it would act against the law and could be dissolved.

If you don't like the situation, talk to your politicians to change the law about the corporations, but don't go blame them because they respect the law.

If they are nice to customers, if they promote local events, whatever they do, they do it believing it can help them make more profits. That's the nature of a corporation, that's why they exists.

Shitting against the corporations because they make profits top priority is like shitting against the police because they make security & order top priority. That's their job!

[doobadoo]

Quite right, enterprises' success depends on consumers who have enough income and willingness to spend, and that comes from a low jobless rate and high minimum wage

WTF?   If you knew jack about economics you'd know that "minimum wages" creates unemployment.  See 1970s US. 

[johnyj]

Quite right, enterprises' success depends on consumers who have enough income and willingness to spend, and that comes from a low jobless rate and high minimum wage

WTF?   If you knew jack about economics you'd know that "minimum wages" creates unemployment.  See 1970s US. 

unemployment is caused by lacking of demand. No matter how low a wage is, you won't hire a worker to sweep snow in summer, since you just don't have that demand

Another example, you are willing to pay 20$/hour for gardening work, and the auto gardening robot only cost 200$, your investment in robot will get full return in 1 month. In this case, even a gardener only charges you 5$/hour, it is still not attractive

[doobadoo]

Quite right, enterprises' success depends on consumers who have enough income and willingness to spend, and that comes from a low jobless rate and high minimum wage

WTF?   If you knew jack about economics you'd know that "minimum wages" creates unemployment.  See 1970s US. 

unemployment is caused by lacking of demand. No matter how low a wage is, you won't hire a worker to sweep snow in summer, since you just don't have that demand

Another example, you are willing to pay 20$/hour for gardening work, and the auto gardening robot only cost 200$, your investment in robot will get full return in 1 month. In this case, even a gardener only charges you 5$/hour, it is still not attractive

WRONG!  "demand" is just a concept.   A job is created when a person figures out a way to create something valuable with his or her effort and talents and trade it for  something of value in return (paycheck).  Demand is mutual.  Honest mutually benefitial trading of goods and services is what 'jobs' is all about.  That which restricts people from naturally earning an honest living, creates unemployment.  Those hurdles can include: complex regulations, taxes, lack of a stable and fair legal climate (vis-a-vis property claims, contracts, violence), or outright prohibitions on trade (illicit items).

[Steve]

Everything would be fine if the corporations were actually sided with the idea of paying it forward to the consumers, but given the choice, they will simply choose profit to shareholders over people in general society that enables them to operate.

This is why we have a problem.

Not quite.  Corporations exist to make money for their shareholders.  They do it by providing a good or service to customers that place a higher value on that good or service than their money.  Problems arise when corporations start to monopolize a certain market.  Problems also arise when governments make laws or regulations that favor these corporations over the interests of the general population.  Governments are supposed to set a regulatory environment that ensures fair and competitive market places, however all too often, they create laws and regulations whose primary purpose is to establish monopolies, duopolies or oligopolies by creating artificial barriers to competition.

To a lesser degree, there is also a problem with the corporate liability shield that sometimes leads to bad behavior by people on behalf of the corporation knowing that they'll be insulated from the consequences.  Groupthink can also lead to incredibly poor behavior by corporations.

[cbeast]

For-profit corporations have the moral obligations to maximize profits for their stockholders in any legal manner necessary. That is their prime directive. The only way to modify a corporate behavior is to enact laws that minimize damage to the society in which they reside. If you want a society to grow and improve, you must place even further restrictions on corporate behavior that forces them to provide support for the community.

[amincd]

This is the biggest load of crap I've seen. I'm by no means an anarchist, but the logic she's using resembles this:

The only way to modify a corporate behavior is to enact laws that minimize damage to the society in which they reside.

Of course, but you don't need a complex set of laws to do that. Common law basically prevents all forms of destructive behavior (e.g. theft, fraud, destruction of property, murder).

The more complex the laws, the less just the society.

[cbeast]

This is the biggest load of crap I've seen. I'm by no means an anarchist, but the logic she's using resembles this:

[snip image]

The only way to modify a corporate behavior is to enact laws that minimize damage to the society in which they reside.

Of course, but you don't need a complex set of laws to do that. Common law basically prevents all forms of destructive behavior (e.g. theft, fraud, destruction of property, murder).

The more complex the laws, the less just the society.

Wow, are you promoting organized crime? Where did she say anything beyond common law or even common sense? If you don't want taxes, try finding any country that doesn't have them.

[johnyj]

A job is created when a person figures out a way to create something valuable with his or her effort and talents and trade it for  something of value in return (paycheck).  Demand is mutual.  Honest mutually benefitial trading of goods and services is what 'jobs' is all about. 

So, honest man, please create somthing valuable with your effort and trade it for something of value in return, can you?

If you can not, how could others can? What you create must suit others desire, but once others desire are mostly filled up by those corporations, you will have a hard time come out with an idea that can continously impress consumers. Housing used to be such an impressive idea, but now it is busted, please find out another idea that can impress consumers 

In another word, why someone needs to be impressed at all?

[The Script]

A job is created when a person figures out a way to create something valuable with his or her effort and talents and trade it for  something of value in return (paycheck).  Demand is mutual.  Honest mutually benefitial trading of goods and services is what 'jobs' is all about. 

So, honest man, please create somthing valuable with your effort and trade it for something of value in return, can you?

If you can not, how could others can? What you create must suit others desire, but once others desire are mostly filled up by those corporations, you will have a hard time come out with an idea that can continously impress consumers. Housing used to be such an impressive idea, but now it is busted, please find out another idea that can impress consumers 

In another word, why someone needs to be impressed at all?

As soon people have all the horses and carriages they need and enough kerosene for their lamps they will never desire ("demand") any other luxuries or goods. 

[johnyj]

As soon people have all the horses and carriages they need and enough kerosene for their lamps they will never desire ("demand") any other luxuries or goods. 

They will, but that is some kind of luxury they do not need in a recession. And people's consumption behavior takes a long time to change

I forgot, there is one thing that people always want more no matter what, it is money,  printing more money is right on the spot 

[The Script]

As soon people have all the horses and carriages they need and enough kerosene for their lamps they will never desire ("demand") any other luxuries or goods.  

They will, but that is some kind of luxury they do not need in a recession. And people's consumption behavior takes a long time to change

I forgot, there is one thing that people always want more no matter what, it is money,  printing more money is right on the spot  

How do you know what people need or desire in a recession?  Are you omniscient?

Money is indeed the commodity that is the exception to the law of diminishing marginal utility because people always want more of it so they can use it to get more of the things they want.  However, printing it reduces its purchasing power which means people can get less of what they want with the money.

Edit: Law of DIMINISHING marginal utility

[johnyj]

How do you know what people need or desire in a recession?  Are you omniscient?

Money is indeed the commodity that is the exception to the marginal law of utility because people always want more of it so they can use it to get more of the things they want.  However, printing it reduces its purchasing power which means people can get less of what they want with the money.

You don't need to be a prophet to know that people are saving more in money's form in a recession, the financial security is the first thing people seek when in trouble

High jobless hurt economy because those people who have a job feel unsecure and they have to save a lot to prepare for the hard job-hunting time just in case they get fired one day

People want money not because of the products they want, they just want money, so if there is anything that they are interested showed up in the future, they can purchase, but if there is nothing interesting showed up, they just hold the money and feel comfortable  

[FreeMoney]

Money is indeed the commodity that is the exception to the marginal law of utility because people always want more of it so they can use it to get more of the things they want.  

What? This is just wrong. You think you would want 1 more dollar just as much when you had a million as when you had 2?

edit: sorry, I assume you mean law of diminishing marginal utility.

[The Script]

Money is indeed the commodity that is the exception to the marginal law of utility because people always want more of it so they can use it to get more of the things they want.  

What? This is just wrong. You think you would want 1 more dollar just as much when you had a million as when you had 2?

edit: sorry, I assume you mean law of diminishing marginal utility.

Yes, sorry.  I edited my post.  Thank you.