Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 11 of total 11 in this topic |
Scared Silly
Trad climber
UT
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 12:10pm PT
|
iPod ...
|
|
nutjob
Stoked OW climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 03:09pm PT
|
I like to think of a single company as a microcosm for the global issue of economic organization and productivity.
You can be a one or couple person company, create real value through your efforts, earn a profit, and use the profits to fund your expansion slowly. Then you are in control and can stop growing at any point you decide because you are not beholden to anyone. When you have a profit rate that meets your needs/desires, you can keep steady at that size assuming you can effectively compete in the market place as the environment changes.
Or, you can take on investors up front who give you money in exchange for a return. Now these investors are focused on multiplying their equity, not on necessarily running the company the way you want. So they want you to GROW. MORE. QUICKLY. After this initial seed is set, then the early investors trigger newer investors to be there to get more money to grow faster to make more money, and then those new investors (folks who are buying and selling stocks by this point) demand more earnings so the value increases and then you need more money to grow faster... an endless cycle.
Borrowing money instead of taking on equity investors changes the dynamic somewhat... I haven't thought this option through as much, but in moderation it seems better for the companies. There is still an exit strategy where a company's direction is not forced toward continual growth.
Now put together all of the large companies in the world being driven by the same dynamic, and it becomes more clear why the world and the economy is the way it is.
To reverse it, companies would need to create real value from nothing and grow slowly based on their own profits or modest borrowing.
This is a path to long-term business and economic freedom (i.e. freedom from the need to grow), but it is a difficult path. I am following that path right now; life would be so much easier to accept investors and receive in advance the benefits that I am working hard to earn right now. But the long term cost is too high for me. That's what I keep telling myself at least :)
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 03:16pm PT
|
Perhaps this is interesting and informative in some way, but I wouldn't know since I stopped watching at about 2:00 minutes when I caught the narrator in a whopper (remember, the OP said this had "good hard facts"). She said that 50% of federal taxes goes to the military. It's actually about 9% (add 5.8 % if you want to add VA benefits, which go not really go to the military but I could see someone counting). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2007
The difference between her statement and the truth is so great, and so easily verifiable, that it seems foolish to credit this person in any way, and I hope the OP will think twice before recommending this further.
When I was a kid, we were told not to lie b/c when caught, as we would inevitably be in the long run, no one would believe anything else we had to say. Don't they tell that to kids anymore?
Edit: thanks Greg for pointing out my mistake and please see my follow up post for a detailed explanation. Thanks for reading and please keep an open mind when evaluating the contentions made in this thread. This stuff isn't rocket science--it is easy to get to the bottom of it if you want to spend maybe 5 minutes or so.
|
|
rmsusa
Trad climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 03:21pm PT
|
*This is the path to long-term business and economic freedom, but it is a difficult path.... life would be so much easier to accept investors .... But the long term cost is too high for me..... *
There are many paths to long-term business and economic freedom. Which one you take is a personal decision that you have to base on your own goals in life. None of them are the only path or the right path. All of them can be traversed with integrity and pride.
Personally, I'd rather own 10% of $100MM than 100% of $1MM. It does take both people and business skills to deal with a board. Having investors doesn't give you anything except enough money to do bigger things. To get the benefits in your own life, you still have to perform.
|
|
couchmaster
climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 03:25pm PT
|
blahblah, I'm with ya but tell Philo. Oh he of "2 millions of innocent Palestinians slaughtered" by the Israelites since 1948.
|
|
Greg Barnes
climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 03:59pm PT
|
blahblah, you were looking at the percent changes from previous year, not total percent. Click on the pie chart for the 2007 percents.
|
|
SteveW
Trad climber
The state of confusion
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 04:29pm PT
|
Thanks for posting, Wes.
Good stuff, that's for sure.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 05:19pm PT
|
Greg--thanks for pointing out my mistake in reading the Wiki website. But it does not change the point of my post that the narrator was incredibly wrong about the amount of defense spending compared to the federal budget. I don't think you meant to suggest that I was wrong about that point, but perhaps you did. No worries either way—-we can sort this out. Let me try again by posting another source as the pie chart in the last reference is tough to read. This is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Budget in case the picture I'll try to post doesn't come through (never posted pictures here).
Del cross: you can try to defend her, but please consider the following and just keep an open mind, and I think you'll conclude she is full of it. From the script, she says "after all more than 50% of our federal tax money is now going to the military." From the sources I have referred to, her statement is wildly wrong (this is clear from my first source, although I candidly I admit I was "wildly wrong" in the way I read the source and tried to summarize it for convenience. My bad.) The citation in her script is bull as can easily be seen by comparing it to the neutral sources I've referred to above. I think what her source does is remove all of the so-called federal "non-discretionary spending" from the real budget to create some sort of fake federal budget. Non-Discretionary spending, which is a term of art in this context, includes social security and other entitlement programs, which constitute the bulk of the true federal budget. So what her BS cite translates to is "if you take away the majority of federal spending, military spending is the majority of federal spending."
In summary, read what she says: "more than 50% of our federal tax money is now going to the military," and defend it if you dare. And will someone please explain why people are saying how great this is when the first so-called fact in it is complete hogwash? Jeez
Edit: I took a closer look at the cite http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm referred to above. You can think whatever you want to about that cite (it is contentious--everyone can have his/her own opinion as to whether it's "good" or "bad"). But that cite does NOT support the narrator's statement. Her statement refers to "our federal tax money." Surely not even the most partisan poster here would try to defend her statement by arguing that payroll taxes are not federal taxes, or that social security and medicare etc. are not part of the federal budget? What we can conclude is that this is the worst form of propaganda: it purports to be facts, rather than opinions, and includes footnotes that don't actually support the alleged "facts." Sadly, despite the ease with which the "facts" are refuted, many of you seem incredibly willing to be deceived and even to defend this nonsense. Is this a new form of religion for you? Just trying to figure out what's going on here.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 07:04pm PT
|
Wes, please retract your last last comment. Most people here don't have time/interest in fully checking the cites, and I don't blame them. I had a little free time on my hands today and was able to debunk her, and now I'm going to do the same to you.
This is what she said, according to the script cited to above:
"Well, let’s start with the government. Now my friends tell me I should use a tank to symbolize the government and that’s true in many countries and increasingly in our own, after all more than 50% of our federal tax money is now going to the military, but I’m using a person to symbolize the government because I hold true to the vision and values that governments should be of the people, by the people, for the people."
She said "more than," not "nearly." Your statement regarding "nearly" is a gross distortion of what she said. Remember the cover up is often worse than the crime--you're trying a cover up for some reason, and I ain't gonna let you get away with it. Don't get mad at me, remember: The truth shall set you free.
edit: forgot to thank del cross for the cite to the script: that's what allowed me to expose Wes' little deception with such ease.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 11:59pm PT
|
Weschrist, like this topic. Life is pushing here, so not much time to comment. Just want to say that planned obsolescence is not the way for our planet.
Bitd things rarely got discarded, they got fixed. Needed, manufactured items were made to last for generations.
Before I read your thread I said at work today, "This in no longer the United States of America." BITD a persons honor and name were behind their product and their work.
The longing of some (many ?) for enormous amounts of money has tweaked our country. Make shite, sell it and when it breaks make more.
"For what price will a man/woman sell their soul?"
I hope and think the tribe cares more for people and what their name stands behind than $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Jess Sayin', Lynne
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 12:14am PT
|
I like yo Weschrist, thanks for the Thread. Is your girlfriend still on the "other" coast ?
There is no hope in materialism or anything "man" creates or devises. : D Lynnie
|
|
| Messages 1 - 11 of total 11 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!