<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Oh, you and everyone else are certainly free (in my opinion) to slam it
as much as you want...I just question the importance. Now China, number
2 economically and soon to be number 1 I'd think, with very little
trickling down, almost now worker rights or avenue of redress, etc.,
that could be a very interesting discussion :-)<br>
<br>
On 08/21/2010 04:12 PM, Victor Kane wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTi=1WKnRYoXjerDj72cLBitt7D4n49c2jX=gfawB@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">What we have to get straight, is that "slamming the US
system" (actually it's slamming the US bosses system, not the US),
cannot be invoked every time working people defend their rights, just
as WikiLeaks is not responsible for the defeat of the US in the
countries it invades.<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Jeff
Greenberg <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jeff@ayendesigns.com">jeff@ayendesigns.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Well,
one informal measure can be derived from the invention provenance<br>
of everything you use in the next hour... your pen, your computer,<br>
phone, electricity, toilet, bluejeans, PVC pipes, etc., and what % of<br>
that was invented in the U.S. under its system.<br>
<br>
If the U.S. is not a leader anymore, then perhaps constantly slamming<br>
its system is of little importance. After all, in numbers of population,<br>
there are many other countries much more ripe for the slamming.<br>
<br>
I would suggest that private businesses are created by private<br>
individuals, and that they should be able to make their own business<br>
decisions, and people can work for them or not, and buy from them or<br>
not, as they see fit. If morality is dictated by the control of others<br>
than those whose business it is, let that be a competitor: privately<br>
run, union run, and government run, and let the employees decide where<br>
they want to work, and the public decide who they want to buy from.<br>
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
On 08/21/2010 04:00 PM, Sami Khan wrote:<br>
>> I don't think the thoughts represent anything new here.<br>
>><br>
> I identified the morality of my position. You dismissed it by
talking<br>
> about efficiency. So one fundamental question about this discourse
is<br>
> whether it even has a morality or that the morality is that the end<br>
> justifies the means. And that ends is measured in terms of the
number of<br>
> profitable businesses that exist? It ignores issues about quality
of life<br>
> of the worker, their rights as employees, and their welfare... in
favour of<br>
> innovation which is defined by profit.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>> This country might seem to be one of corporations, but it's
primarily of<br>
>><br>
><br>
>> small businesses. Every mandate costs them money. Every
mandate is paid<br>
>> for by taxing them, which causes some to close or raise
prices, which<br>
>> costs everyone else more.<br>
>><br>
> Small businesses may have as bad employment policies as other
businesses.<br>
> This is also to discount that quality of life questions outside of
how much<br>
> money is paid out. 40 hours worked does not tell us under what
conditions<br>
> the<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>> It seems to me that successful companies can be measured by
innovation,<br>
>> discovery, and ongoing success.<br>
>><br>
> I want to take a detour and talk a bit about innovation. This is
some<br>
> brain storming, so don't hold me to it forever, my ideas are bound
to<br>
> change.<br>
><br>
> I don't particularly know what easy piece of research would allow
us to<br>
> compare whether the US is innovative. For instance there are many
companies<br>
> that are very profitable, but only innovative in terms of
marketing or<br>
> gaming its customers. Starbucks or Zynga the markers of Farmville
come to<br>
> mind. Many food franchises also come to mind, they mostly produce<br>
> well-branded junk food. There have been many billion dollar
miracles<br>
> recently in gaming, where the game was simply predatory on the
psychology<br>
> of the consumer. There have been suggestions that Google will be
doing this<br>
> next.<br>
><br>
> As time goes on, I think this is the only sort of "innovation"
left; if<br>
> that is not the type of innovation left, I don't see why guarding
it is so<br>
> important, I could care less whether or not Starbucks exists and
rather<br>
> trade the job created for a welfare subsidy to the counter clerk.
Nothing<br>
> is produced any more, only imaginary experiences created. So
really the<br>
> question about innovation is whether we want more imaginary
experiences and<br>
> for that we are willing to subject a significant percent of the
population<br>
> to misery in their day-to-day lives. That's what innovation these
days<br>
> seems like.<br>
><br>
> Or take the Apple iPod, it's planned obsolescence is 18 months. Now<br>
> imagine the externality created from dumping that many units, and
how that<br>
> number would compound over time as the company stays "innovative".
So<br>
> innovation as defined by profit is difficult to define as a social
good as<br>
> you may win big in the market, and not have contributed anything
other than<br>
> the illusion of value or it might cause environmental problems or<br>
> psychological or physical problems which are bigger than the little<br>
> innovative experience it imparted the user with. If that all
innovation is<br>
> about, than using that as the primary decision criteria as to
whether or<br>
> not the citizens be made to suffer so the market is efficient, to
me is not<br>
> justifiable.<br>
><br>
><br>
>> To achieve that, they have to attract<br>
>> the best and brightest talent, and have a market.<br>
>><br>
> Yeah, what percentage of the population does this make? Let's
say< 10%,<br>
> so what about the rest of the population and the 90% of companies
that are<br>
> not innovative?<br>
><br>
><br>
>> To do that they have<br>
>> to invest in their people and research and development. To do
that, they<br>
>><br>
><br>
>> need profit, rather than have it redirected by the government.<br>
>><br>
> Or they can get a loan or they can get investors. If they are so<br>
> innovative, I don't see why more people would not put money back
into the<br>
> company to keep it going? In the end it's a question of how the
equation is<br>
> balanced and who ends up holding how much money. If it's too
little it's a<br>
> problem if it's too much it's a problem. It to me is a question of
balance,<br>
> and balance on which ends: government, market, corporation. Further<br>
> corporations want to pay as little as possible, over time with
increasing<br>
> competition this drives the wage down. The way to prevent this and
look out<br>
> for their own interests is a union which makes the game
inefficient for the<br>
> corporations and works as long as all companies in the industry are<br>
> unionised by law... It fails when this is no longer the case.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>> How many of these other societies that burden businesses so
heavily<br>
>><br>
> lead the<br>
><br>
>> world in technological and scientific discovery? I don't
recall Canada<br>
>> being at the top of the list.<br>
>><br>
> Well Open Source and Drupal are not examples of this "innovative"<br>
> behaviour. Without this innovative behaviour Google would not have
been<br>
> possible. Canada has produced Flickr and Stumbleupon on the web
stage. We<br>
> also produce Blackberries. We also produce tons of known game
titles<br>
> through a number of game studios like EA Canada.<br>
><br>
> I further don't know of studies which confirm your hypothesis or to<br>
> compare the innovativeness of the US to other countries. It may
well be a<br>
> misnomer left over from post-WWII.<br>
><br>
> Sami<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>> On 08/21/2010 02:53 PM, Sami Khan wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>> I'm not sure as to why this is much of a surprise.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>> Because many other people in other countries (like mine)
get a better<br>
>>> deal... and their societies work just fine. Society is a
massive game<br>
>>><br>
> and<br>
><br>
>>> we control all the rules. It is better if the rules are
utilitarian<br>
>>> meaning<br>
>>> the greatest good for the greatest number of people rather
than<br>
>>><br>
> favouring<br>
><br>
>>> the few at the cost of the many so that they may make even
more wealth.<br>
>>><br>
> I<br>
><br>
>>> would find it acceptable to take every penny they have say
over a<br>
>>><br>
> million<br>
><br>
>>> dollars and redistribute it to entrepreneurs with viable
business<br>
>>><br>
> ideas.<br>
><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>> There are certain<br>
>>>> protections, and the rest is a consumer market like
anything else. In<br>
>>>> other words, if you don't like the wage, if you don't
like the<br>
>>>><br>
> benefits<br>
><br>
>>>> package, if you don't like the job title or the
wallpaper ... don't<br>
>>>><br>
> take<br>
><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>> the job.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>> The question then is not whether or not protection should
exist, but<br>
>>> which<br>
>>> rules should exist so that they create the greatest amount
of good for<br>
>>> all<br>
>>> who are involved... Not just the shareholders but the
stakeholders too.<br>
>>> That does not mean management goes away, or that disparity
is<br>
>>> eliminated...<br>
>>> but that it is reduced to the greatest level possible
while keeping the<br>
>>> system function. Thereby limiting the leisure class
significantly<br>
>>><br>
> rather<br>
><br>
>>> than magnifying its power.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>> On the other hand, there are protections here that are
NOT afforded<br>
>>>> elsewhere. If you are asked in an interview about your
marital status,<br>
>>>> location of residence, past times, religious
participation, etc., and<br>
>>>><br>
> do<br>
><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>> not receive the job, you can sue (which is why
companies in the know<br>
>>>> train their staff not to ask such questions). I know
people in other<br>
>>>> countries (especially in Asia) who have been asked in
an interview why<br>
>>>> they are not married, what their parents do for a
living, when they<br>
>>>><br>
> met<br>
><br>
>>>> their boyfriend and how, and if they had sex outside
of marriage.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>> I am sure there are countries like this, India being a
prime example of<br>
>>> where some of these questions might be asked. I consider
such<br>
>>><br>
> environment<br>
><br>
>>> failures and I think only because of overpopulation they
can get away<br>
>>> with<br>
>>> this sort of shit; too much competition. I don't think we
want to<br>
>>><br>
> emulate<br>
><br>
>>> failure, I think we want to emulate success.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I don't particularly care about shareholders.<br>
>>><br>
>>> If every citizen thought like a business, which is the
purview of<br>
>>> economists, then I think every citizen should be strategic
in<br>
>>><br>
> maximizing<br>
><br>
>>> their personal utility... They should all be taught to
behave<br>
>>><br>
> rationally<br>
><br>
>>> and treat their lives like a business. That means
attempting to<br>
>>><br>
> maximize<br>
><br>
>>> personal profit at the cost of everyone and looking out
only for their<br>
>>> shareholders: i.e. themselves... Which would then in turn
lead most<br>
>>> businesses to fail and society to fall into pieces because
of the zero<br>
>>> sum<br>
>>> game which would be created. It is good for corporations
and societies<br>
>>> that<br>
>>> employees for the most part don't behave this way. It
would therefore<br>
>>><br>
> be<br>
><br>
>>> good for employees and society if corporations did not
behave this way<br>
>>> either.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>> consulting mailing list<br>
>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:consulting@drupal.org">consulting@drupal.org</a><br>
>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting"
target="_blank">http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> consulting mailing list<br>
>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:consulting@drupal.org">consulting@drupal.org</a><br>
>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting"
target="_blank">http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting</a><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> consulting mailing list<br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:consulting@drupal.org">consulting@drupal.org</a><br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting"
target="_blank">http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting</a><br>
>><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> consulting mailing list<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:consulting@drupal.org">consulting@drupal.org</a><br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting"
target="_blank">http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting</a><br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
consulting mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:consulting@drupal.org">consulting@drupal.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting"
target="_blank">http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
consulting mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:consulting@drupal.org">consulting@drupal.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting">http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>