Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is a Liberal, and What is a Conservative?
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 53 of 254 (138073)
08-30-2004 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Asgara
08-29-2004 2:36 PM


I am down around where the Dali Lama is located.
-6.25 and -7.74
Cool site, thanks Asgara.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-30-2004 10:25 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Asgara, posted 08-29-2004 2:36 PM Asgara has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 56 of 254 (138092)
08-30-2004 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Buzsaw
08-30-2004 11:06 AM


Re: And the grid Buz?
quote:
I read off the questions in page one and considered what I saw to be so biased and politically motivated that I declined to participate.
Don't worry, buz, I went ahead and did the survey for you.
You scores:
Economic Left/Right: 5.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 7.18
You scored in the same range as Margaret Thatcher and Ariel Sharon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Buzsaw, posted 08-30-2004 11:06 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Buzsaw, posted 08-30-2004 2:48 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 65 of 254 (138171)
08-30-2004 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Buzsaw
08-30-2004 2:48 PM


Re: And the grid Buz?
quote:
Thanks, but no thanks Schraf. Judging as to how you spin about everything else to suit your own whims, biases and purposes,
Gee, last time I checked I tend to support what I say with objective evidence quite a lot of the time.
Oh, right, I guess you wouldn't remember that because you tend to run away from our debates just about the time you have been backed into a corner with the facts.
Gosh, what a poor loser you are.
Remember, you don't win debates around here by whining and calling people you disagree with dishonest; you win them by presenting factually-supported, logical arguments.
It's not my fault you rarely manage to do this.
quote:
your conclusion is moot anyhow since it may or may not come out as an accurate assessment.
True, but since you deign to complete the survey, you're free game as far as I'm concerned.
Besides, wouldn't you say that you are in the same basic place, politically, as Sharon, Thatcher, and Bush, because thet's where I ended up plotting you.
I'd say that's pretty accurate, wouldn't you?
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-30-2004 02:20 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Buzsaw, posted 08-30-2004 2:48 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 08-30-2004 5:46 PM nator has replied
 Message 88 by joshua221, posted 08-30-2004 9:43 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 98 of 254 (138380)
08-31-2004 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Buzsaw
08-30-2004 5:46 PM


Re: And the grid Buz?
quote:
OK mother Schraf, but after this, I'd like you to allow me to represent myself when and if my opinion is given in surveys.
Fine, but I think you are overreacting.
Everybody knows that you haven't taken the survey.
And I think I was pretty accurate, don't you? Aren't you pretty much in line with Bush, Ariel Sahron, and Margaret Thatcher?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 08-30-2004 5:46 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Buzsaw, posted 08-31-2004 10:04 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 99 of 254 (138382)
08-31-2004 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by crashfrog
08-30-2004 10:32 PM


Re: Just to clarify
quote:
and has never, to my knowledge, abandoned threads simply because she wasn't "winning".
Oh, I have done this on a couple of occasions with Holmes, but never, ever with Buzsaw.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by crashfrog, posted 08-30-2004 10:32 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by joshua221, posted 08-31-2004 2:47 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 110 of 254 (138585)
08-31-2004 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Buzsaw
08-31-2004 10:04 AM


Re: And the grid Buz?
quote:
Madear, likely you also would've considered it boldly intrusive of me to try and represent your score by answering for you and pidgeonholing you into the slot of my pick.
Well, no, I don't think it would be intrusive for you to take the survey as if you were me. I really don't see how anybody could be offended. It's like somebody filling out a Cosmo survey as if they were someone else. I wanted to see how accurate I could be, and I think I probably did pretty well where your views were concerned. It's not like you haven't been consistent over the years in stating your rather black and white views, buz.
It would actually be interesting to see how your impression of my values and opinions match up against how I answered.
Feel free to answer as I might answer and we can see where I land.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-31-2004 05:11 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Buzsaw, posted 08-31-2004 10:04 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 140 of 254 (138749)
09-01-2004 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Darwin Storm
08-31-2004 7:26 PM


quote:
Frankly, if I were a shareholder of Tyco, I would probably drag the manegement of Tyco into court for missappropraiting funds that should have either gone to buisness expansion or to the shareholders.
...or to the workers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-31-2004 7:26 PM Darwin Storm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Darwin Storm, posted 09-01-2004 12:04 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 141 of 254 (138750)
09-01-2004 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by crashfrog
08-31-2004 9:00 PM


quote:
In many examples, goods become more expensive as a result of corporate control; for instance, the music industry.
Cable TV is another example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by crashfrog, posted 08-31-2004 9:00 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2004 10:29 AM nator has not replied
 Message 145 by Darwin Storm, posted 09-01-2004 12:07 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 169 of 254 (138916)
09-01-2004 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by ThingsChange
09-01-2004 1:15 PM


quote:
The owner takes a bigger economic risk than a worker.
Eh, not always, and I'm not even sure it's often.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by ThingsChange, posted 09-01-2004 1:15 PM ThingsChange has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 170 of 254 (138919)
09-01-2004 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by RAZD
09-01-2004 1:46 PM


quote:
Try parasites, especially in the sense of the exessively greedy CEO's that take salaries many many times higher than workers (do they really even work twice as hard?)
That's reason number #79 why I really, really love where I work.
I am what you might call a mid-level product specialist that gets a higher-than-average hourly rate for the industry I'm in, but the partners of my business only make about 5-6 times what I make.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2004 1:46 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2004 9:18 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 177 of 254 (138969)
09-01-2004 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Darwin Storm
09-01-2004 10:04 PM


Do these unemployment rates include the people who are dropped off the count of unemployed people regarldess of if they found work or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Darwin Storm, posted 09-01-2004 10:04 PM Darwin Storm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Darwin Storm, posted 09-01-2004 10:14 PM nator has not replied
 Message 180 by Darwin Storm, posted 09-01-2004 10:18 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 181 of 254 (138979)
09-01-2004 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Darwin Storm
09-01-2004 10:12 PM


That is part of the reason why the national debt is still ballooning ( and this the fault of both parties).
Actually, spending tends to go up under Republican administrations. It's a myth that democrats run up the deficits.
Here's a site which show the difference on many, many economic measures between Reagan and Clinton:
RVC--Graphs
...and now a graph showing that, in the business cycle, the expansions are larger and the contractions are smaller under Democratic administrations, and the expansions are smaller and the contractions are larger under Republican administrations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Darwin Storm, posted 09-01-2004 10:12 PM Darwin Storm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Darwin Storm, posted 09-01-2004 10:49 PM nator has replied
 Message 184 by Darwin Storm, posted 09-01-2004 10:59 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 209 of 254 (139107)
09-02-2004 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Darwin Storm
09-01-2004 10:49 PM


quote:
the Simple fact is that the deficit has increased because of both parties over the last 30 years. Frankly, neither has a lick of financial responsiblity.
...except, during the Clinton years, when there was no deficit, but a sizeable surplus.
How can you ignore that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Darwin Storm, posted 09-01-2004 10:49 PM Darwin Storm has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 213 of 254 (139116)
09-02-2004 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by paisano
09-02-2004 9:33 AM


quote:
True, it also allows for abuses, the executives can use the profit to throw lavish parties.It's a bad business strategy, and competition and the marketplace tend to eliminate such firms.
Are you actaully claiming that none of the fortune 500, successful companies ever throw lavish parties?
Furthermore, the last kind of abuse I am concerned with are "lavish parties". I am much more concerned with the abuses of golden parachutes, huge executive bonuses awarded for laying off thousands of workers, and in general, the trend in the US for there to be an enormous, unreasonable disparity in compensation from the bottom of the organization to the top.
quote:
Are you suggesting a system in which all firms are operated on a break-even basis and run by workers?
Two words for you. Soviet Union.
Two words for you. "Employee-owned", which is a growing trend in the US. These companies are certainly for-profit, though the profit is shared among everyone, because everyone owns a part of the company.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by paisano, posted 09-02-2004 9:33 AM paisano has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 232 of 254 (139529)
09-03-2004 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by ThingsChange
09-02-2004 12:03 PM


Re: Run by workers?
quote:
However, they don't always compete as well as a decisive structured organization.
Actually, the opposite seems to be the case.
Southwest Airlines was the only airline to remain profitable when all of the other domestic airlines were in the red, and they have something very different than the typical higherachical corporate structure.
http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~bunz/southeast.pdf
I can also give my own company as an example. Here's an article in Inc.:
The Coolest Small Company in America | Inc.com
'The environment is, indeed, ZCoB's most striking feature, combining a strong sense of community, a deep belief in people, a fascination with management and business, and a passion for great food and great service. It's an entrepreneurial environment in which good ideas become real businesses, and employees with good ideas have an opportunity to become owners. More to the point, it's an environment that many can't resist. "Working here has never felt like a job to me," says Wickstrom. "I'm constantly learning about managing, about food, and about myself."'
quote:
Decision-making and risk/reward can get murky and hard to reconcile. Some fail because of the competing self-interests of human nature in a company "run by workers". I am back to the evolution analogy of businesses surviving.
Of course, you forget that humans are social animals, not loners.
One of the major reasons we humans became successful is because of our abilito to work together towards a common goal.
We have a well-developed sense of fairness, too, which is why we are having this discussion.
Most humans are team players who are willing to work in a group to accomplish something, and if we are treated fairly as far as rewards and compensation, and as long as we see that those with greater responsibility actually do more work, I think most of us have no problem with people with greater responsibility getting greater compensation.
At least, this is how it is in my company.
Of course, those of us at the bottom and mid-level of the company have higher wages than the industry average, and those at the top
have lower wages than the average.
Additionally, we practice open book management, so aside from individuals' compensation everybody knows and discusses the financials of their department every week.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-03-2004 09:48 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by ThingsChange, posted 09-02-2004 12:03 PM ThingsChange has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by ThingsChange, posted 09-03-2004 1:05 PM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024