text:
- Taylor Tomasini
- Sugar Land, TX
- United States
This conversation is closed.
What if profit maximization is not only wrong, but dangerous?
Profit maximization implies hierarchy, standardization, and efficiency (how else do you maximize?) but these activities limit diversity and create bureaucracy.
Genetic diversity is what helped people survive the Bubonic plague. Terrorist organization survive because they have no leader (hierarchy). Your body creates redundancies (think two kidneys). And your psychological frame (profit maximization) can help you act in highly unethical ways.
What if profit maximization is contributing to unethical behavior, economic fragility, boom and bust cycles, and the degradation of society?
What if instead of placing profit at the center of our aims and desires we sought to maximize something else and simply made profits a constraint -- your business must be profitable in order to continue to exist?
Feb 1 2013: Profit is a kind of fruitfulness. So, what is the use of being in business if one does not aim to make profit? The most important things to consider in business are the boundaries that are meant to gude against unethical behaviour. Quality services and lasting relationships are important. If quality service is offered, then profit is almost inevitable; so, as you've wisely observed, profits should not be the center of our aims or desires. But it is important.
Feb 1 2013: Thank you Feyisayo. Profits are important, but the things you talked about like quality service and lasting relationships should be at the center of corporate action, with profits as a necessary and good constraint for continued existence.
pat gilbert
Feb 1 2013: The most ethical thing in the world is the free market economy.
- +1
Why you ask, glad you asked.
Because when people exchange freely no one is forced to buy what the other is selling. So the person who is selling has to offer something the buyer is willing to trade his hard earned dollars for. The seller either does this or perishes, this means he has to be competitive with the other sellers in the marketplace. This is as ethical as it gets, and the standard of living of the whole world has been raised by exactly this mechanism.
The exception to this is through crony capitalism, which is extremely unethical. E.G. GM would be gone if not for this, the big banks portfolio would look different if were not for this, many of the defense contractor's portfolios would look a lot different as well especially when they prosper through war.
Fritzie -
Feb 1 2013: Could you elaborate on why you believe profit maximization implies hierarchy and standardization and limits diversity? I am not following the logic.
- +1
Feb 1 2013: Sure thing. I'm going to elaborate in a new comment just so it appears at the top of the page.Feb 6 2013: One thought, and then I'll restate my question:
The thought: Leverage helps companies make larger profits, but it also fragilizes the organization -- making it susceptible to volatility.
The question: What if profit maximization is responsible for over-leveraging our companies and thus making our companies susceptible to unforeseen risks and to shocks and volatility?
Example: You see this in the banking crisis -- over-leveraged banks not capable to withstanding extreme market volatility. Why is this problematic? Because what we found was that we couldn't let the banks fail. We couldn't let them fail because we realized how much our livelihood was tied to theirs. That's the problem and that's my question. What if profit maximization means fragility, and even worse; in today's society, what if profit maximization means fragility for the entire global economy because of how interconnected we are?
That's my question.
Feb 7 2013: The first barrier to learning anything is knowing that you don't know...
Feb 7 2013: Is this what you meant to write?
Feb 9 2013: You betFeb 9 2013: I would have thought you meant the first requirement for learning is knowing that you don't know- that the barrier is thinking you know when you don't.
Feb 9 2013: Oh I see your point, yes that is what I meant.Feb 7 2013: risk management is something the free market can handle excellently. if the situation allows more risktaking, you can leverage. if risk is too much, you can hedge or buy insurance or CDS.
leverage is a tool that helps risk management, and thus makes business more effective. when things go in the wrong direction, one can say that efficiency is a bad thing. going slow in the wrong direction is better than going fast. but i think everyone in the right mind would say that it is not a solution. the solution is to turn to the right direction.
one needs to analyze the situation, and find the real causes.Feb 1 2013: coincidentally, a lecture about the topic just came out on the mises institute youtube
Why Capitalism Needs Losses, Too | Robert P. Murphy
Feb 1 2013: Awesome. I'll check it out.Feb 2 2013: Robert Murphy is a great speaker, I wonder if even he can get a word past the OP's economic memesFeb 6 2013: I happened to be going through old TED conversations and stumbled across a post you made. It was in response to the question: Passion versus enough money to make a living.
"let me add that we (often) live our lives in a way that is not fault tolerant. if i look around, i see people who are indebted to a level and have a lifestyle that consumes all their income. should their income drop 5%, they are in trouble. should it drop 20% and they are screwed. they just burned the bridges behind themselves."
Your quote is what I'm getting at in my question. What if by seeking to maximize profits companies are leveraging themselves to the point where they are screwed if their income drops? What if profit maximization is the problem?
Feb 6 2013: your metaphor does not work for the following reason. if a person fails, it is a problem. but if a company fails, it is not. the people making up the company simply leave, and join other companies. it does not directly affect their wellbeing.
btw strangely, free market and actual reality has the same attitude to human beings. in a free market, if you make bad decisions, you suffer the consequences. society, in general, benefits from that, as smart individuals succeed, not smart ones fail.
the only difference is perception. whenever a human suffers, it is a problem. we can feel pain and pity. whenever a company fails, the same instinct kicks in, but we have to override this with reason. we need to understand that companies does not suffer. if they fail, they need to reform or die. no sorrow in that. that is progress. that is the free market. we want this. companies can die. companies are ideas. ideas die. that is cool.
Feb 7 2013: You make a good point, but what about the financial crisis? Banks that were over-leveraged and should have failed were 'too big too fail' because we realized that their demise meant an economic free fall for the rest of the nation, which meant that our fate was tied to their failure.Feb 7 2013: they were not too big to fail. they were big enough to be able to loot the central budget, and essentially steal money from the people. failing of the big banks would have been beneficial to smaller banks that followed more prudent protocols, and did not stack up worthless assets. many small firms were ready to soak up the capital and workforce of the big failing firms. they have waited for that moment for years. they suffered loss of business, and now they were ready to reap the profits of their patience and foresight. saving the big firms was a mistake, and detrimental to those many small firms.Feb 1 2013: In talking with Fritzie and Krisztian I've realized that I've veered off course a little bit, so I want to re-focus. I want to know everyone's thoughts on the statement below. Like it? Agree with it? Don't agree with it? What do you think?
"The need for profit is universal for all businesses in a healthy market economy. Unfortunately, early economists went far beyond merely describing how entrepreneurs always seek profits as an important goal, to concluding that maximizing profits is the only important goal of business."
Mackey, John; Sisodia, Rajendra (2012-12-25). Conscious Capitalism: Liberating the Heroic Spirit of Business (Kindle Locations 486-488). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.Feb 1 2013: Maximization of profits is only wrong if it is not accomplished using legal AND ethical means.
Feb 1 2013: Good point. Will you elaborate a little bit?
Feb 1 2013: Sure. If profits are made using illegal OR unethical methods that is wrong. Defining societal laws and ethics is a monumentally complex process which is yet to be pefected in human history. Whatever the laws AND ethics of a society are they must be the governing principle of business. For example, it might be legal to destroy a parcel of land in order to extract some minerals. But can we say it is ALSO ethical do so when the parcel is home to the last surviving members of a species? If not it would be wrong to profit from such a venture.Feb 1 2013: I am affraid you are mixing up a couple of things here. It seems like you are trying to heal the imperfections of human soul with economics, whereas it is not the proper tool.
If you want people to be more human then appeal to their souls (like the churches are doing) but do not try to redefine economics as such.
The field of economics is concerned with the human action, and it could not care less for people's motivations or beliefs.
Profit maximization is neither good nor bad. Everything depends on how people understand 'profit and what are their intentions'. Economics can later help realize it.
Feb 1 2013: I disagree. In Friedrich von Hayek's 1974 Nobel address titled The Pretense of Knowledge he talks about the uniqueness of the social sciences. Economics, as it exists today, is founded on mimicking the great success of the physical sciences -- here are the laws and they never change. But the social sciences are different because human intentionality changes the nature of what's being studied. People's motivations and beliefs are at the heart of the social sciences.
Rory Sutherland also speaks to this point. He talks about the power of perceived value, which has everything to do with people's motivations and beliefs.
Yes, you are right. Economics, as it exists today, is not concerned with people's motivations or beliefs; but this is because of our push to make it logical and rational and deductive. By separating Economics from people's motivations and belief's you, as von Hayek puts it, make the assumption that that which can be measured is all that matters.Feb 1 2013: Or.
What if profit maximization is harmful because it causes companies to pursue high levels of efficiency and standardization and hierarchy to the detriment of the organizations flexibility and ability to deal with risk and stressors.
Profit maximization frames the world as a zero-sum game. We have a company. It does a process. And if we could only eliminate this many people, and standardize these processes, and make sure that everybody follows the rules we could have a slightly larger slice of the pie.
You see it all around. Pink slime was an effort to cut costs by 2c per pound in the meet packing business. Your company buys the worst coffee and creamer it can find because its cheaper and it 'maximizes' profits.
Innovation, which is the driver of economic value because its the only means by which we create that which hasn't existed before, is risky and it's not efficient, and it doesn't quite align with profit maximization. Sure, it'll get you higher profits in the long-run, but when you're on the hook to maximize profits for your investors now it's really easy to shirk innovation and go for some more efficiency and standardization (as cost cutting measures).
What if profit maximization is creating a psychological frame that causes us to be too short-term focused? What if it really is doing us harm?
What if it's antithetical to capitalism? What if it's opposed to free trade? What if it's opposed to all of the good things we think of when we think of capitalism's role in raising our global standards of living?
Feb 1 2013: Are you saying, then, that flexibility and innovation are not good for business- that businesses maximize profits by not being able to make flexible adjustments to changing market circumstances and by not innovating?
And in terms of hierarchy, that businesses tend to be more hierarchical than nonprofit and public sector organizations that do not aim to maximize profits and that profit maximization is at the root of hierarchy?
I am only looking for you to support these specific claims with which you open.
I see you assert these claims to Kristzian in the thread, but I still see only claims rather than support. As he is pushing you for specific support for these unusual assumptions, I will leave it to him.
Feb 1 2013: Here's the thought: The goal of an organization must be to survive, first, before an organization even thinks about maximizing profits. So the question is this: In an attempt to seek maximal profits by standardizing processes, eliminating redundancies, and using a centralized command and control hierarchy, are you directly contracting your need to survive?
This isn't science fiction. Your body uses redundancy to help you survive stressors it can't predict. Terrorist organizations would be gone if they had a centralized command and control structure -- because the US government could have easily just gone after the center / the head / the one in control.
What if profit maximization contradicts survival?
Feb 1 2013: I would like to see you address my question first, please, as it is a question of clarification.
You say the body uses redundancy and other organizations need to have a flexibility to move beyond hierarchy in order to survive. But THEN you claim that profit-maximizing organizations do not build in redundancy or flexibility of this kind.
You claim that profit-maximization causes organizations to standardize processes, shun innovation, and so forth. I am asking that you defend these claims if they are the foundation of your argument.
It is not controversial that businesses need to be flexible and innovative in order to survive.Feb 1 2013: proficiency kills; The more proficient a species becomes at procuring its food source , the more rapid its decline. DANGER DANGER DANGERFeb 1 2013: Defend them? They're so ubiquitous I didn't realize they needed a defense. UPS has a commercial running right now that touts how wonderful they are at helping companies realize supply chain efficiencies. That's how ubiquitous it is. The commercial is literally about how UPS can take an organization -- and without adding any innovation -- create more money by reducing the cost of doing business.
Every single organization I can think of standardizes their processes. Look at the educational system. It's literally built of off the industrial model of standardization. Kids batched by age and compared against quality standards. Watch Ken Robinson's TED talk on education. Standardization and efficiency and hierarchy are everywhere.
And they are fine. And good -- but to a point. My question is whether we've exceeded that point. Seth Godin writes about how our educational system is producing compliant, mindless, box-checking workers and how our educational system is killing creativity and initiative. My question is: is this right? Should it be this way? Are we okay with the trade-off of: I'll make your educational system efficient if you just kill individual creativity and initiative? That's the question?
And the same question goes for business. By standardizing and seeking efficiency, have we killed initiative and creativity, which are things I believe are crucial to continued economic growth.
Feb 1 2013: Businesses do seek to reduce costs, of course. They do not rely on product innovation alone.They also consider a variety of process innovations.
School systems swing from less standardization to more and back, with the standardization right now being a response to government inducements for common core standards and standardized testing. But this does not help your case about private profit-making companies, because schools are not that.
I am familiar both with Kenneth Robinson and with Seth Godin and also extremely familiar with the inner workings of schools, the myths and the realities. But that is, I think, a different discussion than yours which is specifically about profit-maximizing businesses.Feb 1 2013: All great points. I understand what you're saying and I think I've gotten off track so I want to bring it back to one question that I'd like your thoughts on.
"The need for profit is universal for all businesses in a healthy market economy. Unfortunately, early economists went far beyond merely describing how entrepreneurs always seek profits as an important goal, to concluding that maximizing profits is the only important goal of business."
Mackey, John; Sisodia, Rajendra (2012-12-25). Conscious Capitalism: Liberating the Heroic Spirit of Business (Kindle Locations 486-488). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
Question: What are your thoughts on John Mackey's statement? Is he right? Is he wrong? Is there something to it? That's all I'm after. What do you think?
Feb 1 2013: My purpose was to get you to reconsider some dubious assumptions you are making without, I think, research to verify their validity. A case based on those assumptions (about incentives to standardize or not to innovate) cannot stand if the assumptions are misconceptions.
To your question about whether maximizing profits is the only important goal of business, let me step sideways to broaden the picture. Externalities are real and economists typically argue for a structure of property rights or incentives to internalize them. Given such a structure, profit-maximization is not at odds with pursuing these values. If I remember correctly, Coase will be a reference on this. Public goods too are, in my opinion, real, and require a mechanism for sustaining them.
One of the issues of Harvard Magazine in Fall or Winter would likely be of interest to you. There are interviews or papers from a variety of prominent Harvard Business School faculty about how the interests of business line up well with the investment in certain public goods.
I will look for the link. Okay, go to the site and find October.
(You may also take interest in the article in the same issue about some of the experimental initiatives in classroom organization Harvard is undertaking. As I recall, it was either with their most popular class, CS50, or with a math class. I cannot remember now. This is not related to the present topic).Feb 1 2013: Kathy, will you elaborate?Feb 1 2013: I'll check out the Harvard Magazine issue your talking about. Always glad to learn something new. Thanks.Feb 6 2013: I've gone back and read through some of your posts on this page, and they make more sense to me now. You wrote:
"You say the body uses redundancy and other organizations need to have a flexibility to move beyond hierarchy in order to survive. But THEN you claim that profit-maximizing organizations do not build in redundancy or flexibility of this kind."
I get what you are saying here, so I'll take another attempt at responding.
There is a inverse relationship between company leverage and profits -- the more debt you take on the more capital you can employ toward making profits. This inverse relationship means that as you seek to maximize profits through leverage you simultaneously fragilize your organization.
We saw this in the banking crisis with banks that couldn't deal with a weakening economy because they were over-leveraged.
Here is my question: What if profit maximization is to blame here because a focus on maximizing profits pushed banks to fragilize themselves?
And to Mackey's point, What if there is a more holistic way to look at business; for example, maximizing value for all stakeholders?
Feb 6 2013: What is difficult for me to follow is your (changing) premises. Before you put forward an unsupported argument that profit maximization is inconsistent with working in a flexible and innovative way and then asked why wouldn't firms do better building in such flexibility and innovativeness. Why would you assert that profit-maximization is inconsistent with flexible and innovative organization? What is your theory or evidence? Many might argue it makes flexibility and innovativeness MORE likely.
Now you have reread my post, say you understand my question, and then reply by saying profit maximizing firms borrow in order to have resources to put toward making profits.
I don't see the connection between borrowing for the business and innovativeness/flexibility. Borrowing reduces flexibility to do some things in order to increase flexibility to do others.
I could look up the word 'fragilize.' It was not a term of art in the economics I have taken or read. I assume it means vulnerability to some things. When a business takes risks, as innovation requires, that may "fragilize" the organization, then, in the sense that the innovation might fail to produce its expected return? So are you saying that profit maximization produces too many forays into unknown territory- too much innovation that carries risk?
I am in a position again of not understanding where your assumptions are coming from- how they make sense.
That's okay, though. If others follow your argument better, I will leave this discussion in their hands and yours.Feb 7 2013: I think my premise has changed. I've learned from what you've said. You've rightly pointed out that firms can make money from both cutting costs and innovating and you've also pointed out that innovation can be part of any firm.
I think that at the end of the day I'm worried about the psychology of profit maximization and whether it leads our organizations to act in ways that are sub-optimal. That's all.
The discussion over flexibility or redundancy or debt or antifragility were all to get at the idea that perhaps by maximizing profits firms act in a way that hampers their overall wellbeing.
I have appreciated the discussion.Feb 1 2013: The previous post was from John Mackey in his new book Conscious Capitalism. Here's what I'm thinking:
Profit maximization is not synonymous with free trade. It was an economic concept that was developed after seeing the success of free trade. So, what if this concept is not only useless, but harmful? What if it creates the wrong psychological frame? I'll expand the idea a psychological frame just a little bit.
A quote from Ann Tenbrunsel, "...certain cognitive frames make us blind to the fact that we are confronting an ethical problem at all." This quote is from an NPR story entitled Psychology of Fraud: Why Good People Do Bad Things. The point of what Ann is saying is that the way you frame a decision affects how you approach it. So if you see a legal contract as strictly a business document your more likely to be okay with breaking it, but if you see the document as an ethical contract you're less likely.
What if by seeing the purpose of business as profit maximization we've created a psychological framework that allows us to act highly unethically because we no longer see business in terms of its impact on the people around us?Feb 1 2013: In my worldview, profit maximization is short-sighted and destructive.
Feb 1 2013: : )
I can't tell if you are kidding or not.
Feb 1 2013: not. I believe that money itself the problem
Feb 1 2013: I'm interested in hearing what you have to say. Will you elaborate a little?Feb 2 2013: Money is a human invention, and it serves as the "glue" that holds our cultures together. In human history, it's a rather recent invention. We can thank the Romans for popularizing it to the degree that it exists 2da.
John Locke ("Treatises of Government") states that property ownership rights are based on three principles.
1) There must be enough left over for others
2) You must not let it spoil
3) Must mix your labor with it
So, for as long as you take no more than you can use, and you mix your labor with it, private property ownership works well. BUT, he then goes on to say that once the introduction of money is made by men's tacit consent, the rules change. Now
1) You don't have to mix your labor with the world - you can buy labor using money. (pro inequality)
2) Money doesn't spoil so you can have as much as you can get your hands on. (pro greed)
3) There is no longer consideration for whether there is enough left over for others. (poverty creation and senseless destruction of earth resources encouraged)
This appealed to the interests of capital owners (wealthy)
Then Adam Smith comes along. He says that markets become stable through the invisible hand of the markets (invisible hand = a god-concept). He says that that among the inferior ranks of people (the not wealthy), the scantiness of subsistence sets natural limits on their reproduction - so that the "race" of laborers will be held in check by "natural law". The greater number of their children MUST die of poverty related causes - keeping the fiscal system stable. (The wealthy have no responsibility to the poor they created, because God takes care of that through "natural law" that protects the wealthy = divine right and divine intent.)
Without the money that is intentionally threatening the lives of most, there cannot be profit maximization. No more plundering the earth's resources & devaluing fellow humans (inequality.) It is replaced with community working towards our self-iinterestsFeb 1 2013: Fritzie Reisner asked me to elaborate, so here's a shot at it:
When businesspeople operate with a low level of consciousness about the purpose and impact of business, they engage in trade-off thinking that creates many harmful, unintended consequences. Such businesses view their purpose as profit maximization and treat all participants in the system as means to that end. This approach may succeed in creating material prosperity in the short term, but the resultant price tag of long-term systemic problems is increasingly unacceptable and unaffordable. Too many businesses fail to recognize the significant impacts they have on the environment, on other creatures that inhabit the planet (such as wildlife and livestock animals), and on the physical health and psyches of team members and customers. Many businesses have created stressful and unfulfilling working conditions and fostered and fed unhealthy appetites and addictions in their customers. Many companies tend to treat all these as externalities, outside the scope of their own concerns.
Mackey, John; Sisodia, Rajendra (2012-12-25). Conscious Capitalism: Liberating the Heroic Spirit of Business (Kindle Locations 457-464). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.Feb 1 2013: profit maximization implies none of those. profit maximization greatly enhances and requires diversity. bureaucracy is the greatest enemy of profit.
if one studies proper economic theory, one realizes that the opposite of profit is waste. profit is synonymous with creation and efficiency, loss (negative profit) is synonymous with waste.
every notion that condemns profit actually promotes waste.
Feb 1 2013: I disagree. Innovation is wasteful because it incorporates failure. Innovation isn't the most linear path to profitability, but it tends to be the most profitable.
I think there is a difference in mindset here. In a zero-sum system waste is tantamount to negative profits, but in a value-creating system you're not certain that your actions will yield profits and thus you subject yourself to waste and failure on your journey to create something of social value.
Feb 1 2013: i fail to follow you. you claim that i can't add positive and negative numbers together? or that businessmen can't? i can assure you, both are false. entrepreneurs are quite capable of understanding that if you want a greater profit in the future, you need to sacrifice some profit today. it is called investment. costs and risks are all part of this system.
and we only know in retrospect for sure if we were right or wrong. if we generated profit, we were right. if we did not invest in something that would have generated loss, we were right. if we invented in something that generated profit, we were right. if we invested in something that generated loss, we were wrong. if we did not invent in something that would have generated profit, we were wrong. the goal is always profit.
as profit, as i explained, but you just ignored, *equals* to creation. it does not follow or correlate. it is the same thing. profit means you have grabbed some resources, and transformed them into something more valuable then other usual possible uses of the same resources. you have added to the world's wealth. loss means you have grabbed some resources, and transformed them into something less valuable than other known uses of those resources could have been transformed into. you deprived the world of some wealth.
that is the economic meaning of profit.
Feb 1 2013: But what if profit maximization blinds entrepreneurs from having a long-term focus. You mentioned that entrepreneurs are able to rationalize and to sacrifice short-term gains for long-terms gains, but what if that's not true?
What if profit maximization causes an individual to frame their situation so narrowly that all you can see is the short-term? There's a psychology to take into account here.Feb 1 2013: an entrepreneur without long-term focus is a fail entrepreneur. he will fail in the long term, and will be replaced with successful entrepreneurs that have long-term focus.
Feb 1 2013: Yeah. But what about the organization that has enough capital to exist for a long, long time? That organization can be a drain on its stakeholders, its customers, and society for a long time before it ever eventually goes out of business; especially if it can find ways to create walls and barriers around itself through regulation and barriers to entry.
Markets are efficient in the long-run, but they're sticky in the short-run.Feb 1 2013: if the company has capital to exist for a long long time, and all the owners are stupid as hell, it will take a long time for that company to go under.
why would that concern us? how realistic that scenario is? companies controlling huge amount of capital usually have multiple means of checks and evaluation. they have a board of directors, many teams of revision and control, they have detailed public reports, and many of them have zillions of shareholders and a liquid market of stocks.
another thing is that it is happening in parallel. there is zero chance that on 03/2013, all companies go bankrupt at the same time. and honestly, i could not care less if say apple goes bankrupt. its competitors are still there to satisfy the market.
it is funny that you say markets are not efficient in the short run, because you have accused companies to be short sighted. these are two opposite views.
the reality is that long term and short term need to be balanced. this balance is unknown. it is the task of an entrepreneur to find that balance, and risk his own money doing so.
Feb 1 2013: I'm going to say the same thing I said to Fritzie:
I think I've gotten off track so I want to bring the conversation back to one question that I'd like your thoughts on.
"The need for profit is universal for all businesses in a healthy market economy. Unfortunately, early economists went far beyond merely describing how entrepreneurs always seek profits as an important goal, to concluding that maximizing profits is the only important goal of business."
Mackey, John; Sisodia, Rajendra (2012-12-25). Conscious Capitalism: Liberating the Heroic Spirit of Business (Kindle Locations 486-488). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
Question: What are your thoughts on John Mackey's statement? Is he right? Is he wrong? Is there something to it? That's all I'm after. What do you think?Feb 1 2013: the john mackey quote is meaningless. business is created solely to make stuff we want. profit is a measurement how good they make the stuff we want. any other measure is either superfluous or downright wrong. this is my point from the beginning. you can only make profit if you deliver what people want. valuations of people appear in the profit. it might be the case that people are after things they should not be after. but if you "correct" people's valuation, it merely means that demand for certain things will drop, and for other things rise, thus changing the prices, thus rendering some business activities profitable, others not profitable. business still needs to seek profits only. profit is a message from people to business.
Feb 1 2013: Thanks for the input. I understand what you're saying, but I just don't think we're going to reach an agreement on this issue. I do, however, appreciate you talking through all of this stuff with me.Feb 1 2013: Organizations see standardization and efficiency as their saving grace. It's their way of 'maximizing profits' for their shareholders without doing the hard work of creating something new. Much easier to cut costs, than to risk failing at creating something new.
So why does profit maximization not imply diversity? Because standardization and efficiency are systemic ways of killing internal diversity. That's what creates the inefficiencies. If processes are diverse and actions are diverse and the way each division or geography or sub-division of the organization acts is different from the other then there's waste. That waste is the cost of diversity.
The same rings true for hierarchy. Hierarchy is a way to garner efficiency. This is why you saw government agencies clamoring for shared-service organizations 10 years ago. If you centralize everything. If you make things neat, and you get efficiency.
But standardization and efficiency come at cost. They come at the cost of creating systematic risks. Now your entire organization is subject to the same risks because all of your processes and actions and aims are homogeneous. Now, instead of having parts of your organization as being more robust than others, it's all the same. If one part goes down. It all goes down.
Feb 1 2013: let us have an example. we both have a company, we both install air conditioners. i come up with a way to decrease the time needed from 4 hours to 2 hours. thus i can cut my price significantly. you don't do anything of the sort. who will be more successful on the market? what do you think, creativity and inventions increase profit or decrease it?
profit seeking corporations are the single biggest sources of innovation by a huge margin.
Feb 1 2013: I'm not talking about profit seeking corporations, I'm talking about profit maximizing ones. You can't not seek profits, or else you wouldn't be around very long. And I'm not talking about non-profit organizations.
I'm talking about the difference between, profit maximization being the only goal a corporation should have -- as has been stated by Milton Friedman -- and organizations that seek to benefit society first and make profits in doing so.Feb 1 2013: what is the difference between profit seeking and profit maximizing? profit is like health. there is no such thing as too much health or too much profit
Feb 1 2013: : )
A.J. Jacobs has a TED talk titled How Healthy Living Nearly Killed Me. His talk articles his journey to live as healthy of a life as he possible could for a year. To do this he heeded all medical advice, including wearing a walking helmet. And he maximized his health.
But his talk lead me to question the point of his actions and whether maximizing health really is the goal. Like all things, his actions had trade-offs. And I think what I'm trying to say with profit maximization is that while profits are good they have trade-offs -- most of which are completely justified and worth it, just like your air conditioning company example.
The concern I have is on the maximization part. Just as in maximizing one's health you can lose sight of that which really matters -- which is the beneficial trade of value for the good of all involved.
What's if we've gone too far with the maximization part to the detriment of our employees, stakeholders, customers, and society? That's what I'm getting at with the call center example I gave in another post or the think pink slime example. What if the creation of pink slime is that step too far, that trad-off too many, that maniacal focus on profit maximization that is doing us harm?Feb 1 2013: i'm trying to explain you for a long time, to no avail, that profit === opposite of waste, opposite of failure, opposite of loss. how on earthy could less waste hurt society? it has no meaning to say more profit hurts society. society is the very thing that benefits from profit. the valuations of people are already included in profit. you can not prefer the needs of people over profit, because it is the same thing.
you obviously have some metaphorical mental concept about profit, and you imagine a bunch of suits conspiring to exploit and brainwash people.
Feb 1 2013: Maybe it's something similar to what Jesus did - he won by losing.Feb 2 2013: This guy puts me in mind of a young Paul Krugman?
W. Ying
Feb 1 2013: . Yes, dangerous!
- 0
Profit maximization makes inequality, anti-symbiosis, war, .... self-extinction of humankind.
Thus, the profit above its OPTICAL POINT gives us untrue, unreal, INVALID happiness.
(For INVALID (ineffective) happiness and OPTIMAL POINT, see the 1st article, points 1-3, 10, 14, at https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=D24D89AE8B1E2E0D&id=D24D89AE8B1E2E0D%21283&sc=documents)Feb 1 2013: That's fairly general maybe you should look at specifics.


text:
Shop By Category
Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
Bras & Briefs
At Mio Destino we know what women (and men) want when it comes to bras and briefs. We have an extensive collection of luxury designer bras and briefs in different shapes and sizes. If you're not quite sure which size you need, you can consult our help pages to find out. Here you will be able to find the perfect bra and brief for any occasion. We have bras and briefs for everyday but we also have pieces especially for that romantic night in or cheeky weekend away. You can find luxury mastectomy and maternity bras in this section as well as a girl's first bra. For the retro fans, browse our Bullet Bra section. If you're looking for a specific brand visit our Brands page.
Object reference not set to an instance of an object.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
If you are a commercial property owner, investor, or manager, you tend to have a lot on your plate when it comes to maintenance. Certainly, you want your building or complex to look its best, but at the same time, it is essential to keep in mind the bottom line. See full article.
By Melissa CrawleyMore Content Now
I first fell in love with felt Advent calendars about six years ago when I saw a Christmas tree with 25 superbly decorated pockets at Pottery Barn.
WEEK IN RELIGIONAn evangelical Muslim preacher is being investigated by Pakistani police for allegedly making blasphemous comments about Islam in a viral video that began circulating earlier this month.
A visual step-by-step that will teach you how to glaze a holiday ham from start to finish.
Tis the season to be jolly�and get fat. Fend off holiday weight gain with our practical tips.
And then there were five.The finale of�Survivor's 29th season...
- Events Calendar


text:
Hood Pin Kits
Gives Competition LookQuick Removal Of Hood/DeckHardware Included
Secure hoods with a competition look. Kits permit quick removal of hood or deck. Two chromed safety pins, scuff plates, and necessary hardware included. Overall pin length is approximately 4'' with 2-1/2'' of threads. Cables, additional pins/clips, and scuff plates available separately.


text: I'm disgusted at how many times this kid turns over the ball. He showed a lot this game, but I'm tired of predicting when he will throw an interception. It's still young in his career, but his inability to keep the offense on the field and stop putting our defense in terrible positions is disheartening.


text:
Class Profile
Class of 2016 Profile
Westminster College welcomes another class of hardworking, determined, ambitious, open-minded and caring freshmen who will thrive in the classroom and bring vibrancy to our comprehensive, liberal-arts campus where impassioned teaching and active learning are the hallmarks of the Westminster experience.
Application Activity
Geographic Information
32 states and 15 countries are represented including:
States: AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, GA, ID, IL, MA, MD, ME, MI, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, OH, OR, PA, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY
Countries: Canada, China, Ethiopia, Italy, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Nepal, Norway, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, Vietnam
In addition, transfer students are enrolling from: Austria, Chile, El Salvador, Japan, Kenya, Phillipines, Serbia, Slovak Republic
Financial Aid Awarded
96% of incoming freshman class received a financial aid award.
2012 - 2013 Comprehensive Fees
Tuition and Fees: $28,210
Admissions Philosophy
We seek students who will thrive in our classrooms and bring vibrancy to our campus. We review each application individually and holistically, taking into consideration quality of academic preparation (which includes both difficulty of course work and grades), extracurricular activities, individual talents and character, recommendations, and ACT or SAT scores. A campus visit to meet with an admissions counselor is recommended, as it helps complete the picture for both the prospective student and the college.


text:
Watch Dogs Video Game Giveaway
Posted by Jennifer on June 25, 2014 at 11:45 am
Would you like to win the video game Watch Dogs for XBOX 360, XBOX ONE, PS3 or PS4? Enter on our Facebook page for a chance to win now! Last day to enter is July 14, 2014.
Read More...
Tags: PS3, ps4, Sweepstakes, video game, video game giveaway, Video Games, watch dogs, Xbox 360, xbox one
Filed Under: Announcements, Contests, Video Games


text:
- Robert Winner
- Joseph City, AZ
- United States
This conversation is closed.
Discuss the ways the media influences or tries to influence your vote.
Lets not discuss the people who are seekiing office ... Lets talk about the campaign. Many have said this was the United States dirtest election campaign ever. How.
One of the examples I see is that the newspaper in our area shows one person looking very Presidential and the photo of the other one is a wild eyed wide open mouth reminder of a serial killer. These are shown side by side.
Tell me what you see. Do you think that papers should try to influence your vote .... other than running paid for ads? How about the other medias?
Oct 16 2012: I shall add one word to your title and this will show my opinion on the media's efforts to influence public's vote:
"Discuss the (Disgusting) ways the media inluences or tries to influence your vote."
Today's media of the free world reminds me the ex-Soviet Union regime. Because they both try//tried to re-educate the public according to their own narrow views, without respecting each individuals right to have his/her independent political views.
Fritzie -
Oct 16 2012: I don't think even the candidates aim to focus people's attention on substantive differences or substance altogether. Campaigns in their every aspect are about image-making and seem little different in that regard from calculated ways to get people to buy one vehicle over another, one cosmetic over another, or one beverage over another.
- +2
Media coverage, as far as I can perceive (though I probably read fewer newspapers and certainly see less television news than most people), seem to cover all public figures, candidate or not, as they would cover celebrities- or as celebrities. It all feels like reality television, what is real seen through a looking glass that, like Alice's, distorts in the manner of fun house mirrors.
But the candidates distort themselves as well, very likely as their PR consultants advise them to.
In terms of your question about whether newspapers should influence your vote, I think that is fine on the editorial page.
Dan Geurin
Nov 5 2012: The media exists because of advertising dollars. They have to manufacture drama and suspense to keep ratings at a level that is profitable. It is my opinion that Obama wins by a huge margin, but the media is playing it more even to keep up the suspense. If they say it will be a blowout, people won't tune in as often.
- +1
I must note that I am not a fan of Obama or Romney. I was into both Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul before they were drummed out of contention
Nov 9 2012: here in the uk the media use there cunning to split the vote by publicising minor partys that dont stand a chance winning, but enough publicity to take away a particular type of voter i.e a labour voter swings to nationalist e.t.c.
therefore conservative voters remain the same amount as nationalist policies are of no concern to conservatives or vice versa whoever pays the bill that time round.
Dirty tricks fooling the people for their own profit, education is the keyNov 14 2012: Great call! You should be a pundit!Oct 26 2012: Media as a whole for long is nothing but a BILLBOARD.....
Anyone with money & or power just can place ADVERTISEMENT on that BILLBOARD.
Important is, to mass those advertisements are perceived as NEWS that's the bad news
Roy Bourque
Oct 22 2012: The problem that I see is that candidates are not saying how they are going to do what they claim they can do. They are only appealing to the concerns of people with blank promises. Added to this is the general feeling that the campaign is built on "vote for me because my opponent is a worse scoundrel than I am". I have to vote for the person that I think is going to hurt me the least, not the one that will benefit me the most, because I don't see that any of them will benefit me at all.
- +1
People need to look behind the scenes and not just suck up to what they are being fed. There doesn't appear to be any vision in where the country is headed. People are claiming that the winner of debates is not in what they said, but in how forcefully they said it. It appears that people are not really listening to the words. They are only looking at who has the most energy. That is no way to decide.
Are rich people not rich now? How does giving tax breaks to the rich allow them to create any more jobs than what they are capable of doing right now? And why does a person have to be in congress in order to create change for the better? I see pensions and candidate contributions as the main reason that people are running, not because they want to create a better America for the general populace. No one is saying what kind of jobs creation plans they are going to pursue. They are only promising more jobs, but in what?
If the common family cannot afford to take vacations or take their family out to a restaurant, then the tourist industry and restaurant businesses are going to feel the pinch. The price of oil went up considerably in the last decade, a commodity that many are dependent on. Speculators added to the price increase. How does anything that the candidates propose going to change this? I haven't heard it on either side. Until this problem is fixed, creating jobs that are liable to fail will more likely be the order of the day.
Oct 22 2012: Thanks Roy, well argued.
Jerry Whidby
Oct 17 2012: I haven't trusted the media since Dan Rather presented those fake documents to the nation right before the presidential election. Luckily there was some expert on typewriter font who recognized that it was a forgery. You can usually tell which way the "reporter" leans politically. Don't filter my information. Just give me the facts. That should be their only concern. Most of them are in such a hurry to get the scoop that they fail to fact check anything. There is no more investigative reporting by the major media. We often get the tainted truth. I wish there was a show that pointed out the lies that both left and right leaning media tell. Someone to hold their feet and reputations to the fire.
- +1
pat gilbert
Oct 16 2012: To me it is a given. I look at the papers or the media and literally laugh. But I'm laughing at us because the media is only a reflection of us as are the candidates. And this makes me very sad. Because I'm looking at citizens who are asleep or the few who are outraged about things that are superfluous. They will say that I'm just a radical tea party guy or something similar yet they don't know what they don't know. And the more of that there is the faster this country circles the drain. More often than not they are oblivious to what 16 trillion dollars in debt means, and that those things that happened in the horror stories of history will not happen here...
- +1
Oct 16 2012: Pat, Over and over you have demonstrated the significance of economics and its impact. My question is why is economics and statistics not presented at grade level approperiate classes? Why is the imposing fiscial cliff not a debate issue? And many other questions ....
Is there a political fear, on both sides, that if the population better understood both politics and economics that their cosy little nest eggs would be destroyed? If we are given the mushroom treatment of kept in the dark and fed manure we do not present a danger to their dominance of the public. I have always felt that the politicians consider the general population stupid. The problem is that most of the general population continue to be led by the nose and prove that politicians are right, the voting public is indeed unawares.
Oct 16 2012: One of Obamas heroes and major influences Reinhold Niebuhr was quoted saying "Rationality belongs to the cool observer, but because of the stupidity of the average man he follows not reason, but faith and this naïve faith requires necessary illusion and emotionally potent over simplifications which are provided by the "mythmaker" to keep the "ordinary" person on course."
The belief that the general population is stupid and must be controlled is a sentiment that is very old and still alive.
"The day labourers and tradesmen, the spinsters and dairy maids must be told what to think. The greatest part cannot know, and therefore they must believe."-John Locke
I have even heard people on Ted claiming the average citizen is just to stupid to know whats best for him/her. This is a terrible sentiment and the opposite of democracy. As Chomsky says, in totalitarian societies you can control behavior because you can hit them over the head with a club, as where in a democracy the power structures must exert control by censoring and shaping opinion.
Oct 16 2012: I like the Locke quote. and I think he would have continued that the kindest thing to do would be to educate them in logic or the scientific method?
"I have even heard people on Ted claiming the average citizen is just to stupid to know whats best for him/her. "
Should this read my impression has been that...?
What are the examples or do you prefer to hide behind innuendo?Oct 16 2012: I think we are looking at how reality is created, by definition reality is agreement. This is the basis of group think, culture, politics, and economics. The Holland tulip bulb bubble is an example of how crazy this can get.
It appears to me that the two major influences on our reality are the Free Market and the Government. No question our reality is manipulated starting back to Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, LBJ. With the Federal government influencing reality more and more. There is a tacit agreement on what should be taught in school by virtue of that is the schools reality. Lincoln's story being an example, I had no idea of his transgressions.
Oct 17 2012: Pat this is in reply to "I like the locke quote statement you made...
Hide behind innuendo? i was agreeing with what Robert stated which is that the government believes the general public to be stupid. I also was insinuating that not only does the government believe this is true they must make it so in order to retain power. After all how is it that people are supposed to decipher what it is our leaders even stand for. Most people have to work and don't have time or energy to find news outside of the major networks and newspapers.
Should you read that your impression has been that. No, believe it or not Pat we probably feel similar about the dangers of a large federal government. My guess is that we separate very greatly on social issues and I'm sure theres also a massive chasm between my vision of democratically run corporations and what you believe about how a market should operate. By the way i can't stand Obama I believe him to be potentially the worst president ever on the issue of civil liberties(probably second behind george bush).Oct 17 2012: That is surprising. I agree the only real solution is education. But a real education in logic and economics.Nov 15 2012: Everyone always seems to agree that [insert current election] is the worst in history, but I am not convinced. The last three elections seemed identical to me, though I do not live in a swing state. Supposedly there was an article in 1828 stating that "If Thomas Jefferson wins, murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced..." so the media clearly has a history of such drivel. I'm more inclined to believe that we simply notice the negative media more, because it puts us into danger-mode when we see it. As was mentioned in another discussion, it's not the negativity that's the problem; it's the lack of truth.Nov 14 2012: Well here in Israel, a party that goes against Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu has a new campaign. It says:
"Bibi will get us in trouble" and there's a mushroom cloud in the background.. Using everything that goes on with Iran and the nuclear crisis as a mean to make the small, defenceless citizen vote for them.Nov 14 2012: The reality is most of the population is too dumb and uninformed to vote, I would imagine many intelligent people ALSO are flaming ideologues who's ideas are out of touch with reality.
Real problem solving takes DECADES and serious research, we should be hiring SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS to run the country not a bunch of money grubbing business people and lawyers.
The publics main concern is it's pocket book, but it is probably the most uninformed that economics is a religion, not a science. Since everyone believes money as an institution is something akin to GODS WILL and not a human invention we're screwed since most people don't have the intelligence to perceive the REAL PROBLEMS in the world.
They live in a world of illusion and lies.Nov 12 2012: Any time you hear the word "spending" in a political add you can assume it's coming from the right wing and they are using it to manipulate you into reacting to the idea that someone is taking your money and using it for their own agenda. The right wing however is the biggest "spending" party--they bulk up the military and use it as well as have their donors profiteer from it. When democrats are in and the money is used for our own social advancement, the right nickel and dimes our own youth and calls all investment in social safety nets "spending". It's the epitome of hypocrisy.Nov 9 2012: If people had more political awareness education from schooling, then the media would have a lot less influence and be less bias. If wee all had a real in depth knowledge of what each political party actually stands for.
A lot of voters just vote becuase they like the look or the spiel made by a candidate and falls for the propaganda reinforced by the media, if a particular newspaper or broadcaster is biased towards a particular party then their reporting will reflect this, thats why certain political partys never get any airtime or press coverage, if it doesn,t fit into their political ideal it is a no goer.
the media is the most powerfull force in the world when it comes to spreading information and they know it and profit from it.
The problem is that most voters know nothing about politics or very little and just go by what they here on the media.
And for the few in the know about politics vote as per their standard of living whether they believe themselves to benifit by voting for a particular party as if they feel that they are of that particular class in society or aspiring to be in that particular class. these people are known as upstarts and this is what keeps the status quo going i.e democrates/republicans or in the uk labour /conservative.
other political partys don,t get a look at in the media as the main partys run the media.
So more political education is needed from a young age and should be taught without bias about all political ideologies, knowledge is the key to ending the cycle of more of the same but needs to be delivered in an untampered with way, so the education reaches the people, people will then really decide who runs thier country and not the media
Nov 9 2012: Thank you. Well stated. Bob.Nov 9 2012: Alistair
I agree except the best educator is the culture which is changing rapidly much to my chagrin.Nov 5 2012: there is only 3 news agencies in the usa and all are feeding from the same pocket.Nov 2 2012: I see a lot of folks here that are frustrated with political reporting in much of the media. Try this website http://votesmart.org/
from the homepage:"Biographies, voting records, issue positions, ratings, speeches, campaign finance information. All politicians [US]. Instantly." and
"At a unique research center located high in the Montana Rockies and far from the partisan influences of Washington, our staff, interns, and volunteers are working hard to strengthen the most essential component of democracy – access to information. Project Vote Smart is a non-partisan, nonprofit educational organization funded exclusively through individual contributions and philanthropic foundations."
Another organization I like is the Center for Public Integrity at http://www.publicintegrity.org/
from the homepage click on the link to the politics section and have a look at what you don't often see in the hometown paper or on the evening news.Nov 1 2012: Campaigns have always been nasty. I don't believe the media really sways a persons vote, or at least not the majority for they already have their mind made up. Main stream news outlets sensationalize it and for those who watch either fox news or the daily show, which ever side you fall on only feeds your views back to you. The internet does change the game, where anyone can be a news reporter, such as the guy who recorded romney at the fundraiser. But let's say you disregard the news outlets and watch the debates only, what do the candidates really say that's new? Is not republicans and democrats really just two sides of the same coin? We have become comfortable with the status quo and we are all the worse for it.
chen xin
Oct 26 2012: the presidential election is just a show , no different from a music concert . and also it cost too much .and money hadn't been used properly .it is a waste,
- 0
Oct 26 2012: Chen, I agree. It is hatrder for us in the US to see these things.
How would you suggest changes in the election process.
Thank you in advance.
Bob.Oct 26 2012: The presidential election should not be a victim of newspaper influence through their own reporting. What makes selections so difficult is the numerous media channels that report slightly different information in order to create more interest and higher ratings. Particularly with the presidential election, all media should be subject to the candidates approval. Though this restricts the freedom of reporters, it provides stability and security for voters to make educated decisions through facts instead of tales. The media feeds on the negative aspects of these campaigns of which should not be given any more attention than when it occurred. If the media focused on delivering facts to help voters make a decision, their reporting would be better served. Maybe they should spend their time recruiting voters through encouraging media channels which would create more involvement through education. Education that many reporters have a wealth of in the political arena.
Oct 26 2012: Well stated. The sad truth is that the media in a attempt to sell copies is now making the news and not reporting the facts.
With all of the issues that we as a country face the electorial issue has been that Romney is richer than Obama.
Most papers are liberal and all but one TV network is liberal.
I you could wave a magic wand and solve this media circus .... tell us how.
A broader question is how to restructure the elections.
All the best. Bob.
Oct 26 2012: Five Parties Rob.
Republican Blue
Liberal Red
Earth Green
Grey Power
And the fifth will be the kingmaker;
First Nation Party.
The first 2 represent all under the age of 60 while the 3rd takes anyone from anywhere and the fourth gives the elder generation a voice and the fifth will take all the apathetic voters votes in absentee, Of course it will be too alien for any American to contemplate having such a multiple party selection system but the rest of the world seems to run on it quite well, just a suggestion, i'm not familiar with your election system but we are bombarded with it at every news casting.
Comment deleted
Oct 25 2012: Joy, This is not the purpose of the TED site. However if you respond to a TED conversation I will answer if possible to the open conversation.
kin sun
Oct 22 2012: Yeah,i think papers influene me a lot in my daily life.on the one hand ,papers give access to more informations all over the world beyond our insights.on the other hand,we can hardly tell whether the information we get is ture or not,which means the reports of journalists are very important .sometimes ,we just need the truth not the truth in the reporters' mind.however,we know things that happens everyday through a variety of means of mass mediums such as blogs.papers is not the only way to get deeper into things,we can even change our views among people we know or not through internet tools.I think everyone has his own ideas about something
- 0
Oct 22 2012: I think you are correct in that we all want to believe some reports more that others because of our feelings. We also associate with like minded people and put faith in their comments.
The point here is that few people any more take the time to do their own thinking and reasearch. We have become sheeple.
Thank you for your response.
All the best. Bob.Oct 22 2012: The Power of the media has significally grown. The media doesn't tell us HOW to think about how to vote. But in a rather subtile way they give us the information on which we should THINK about.
If the media talks more about one candidate, the power of this candidate grows significally.
This is proven by a radio shos which made a April fools joke about the earth being overrun by aliens. A large group of the inhabitants of the planet earth believed this was the truth. Which led to suicides, growing sales of food and energy sources.
This is just an example of the power of the media.
A candidate who gets a lot of media attention (negative or possitive ) will be known and this makes him failiar to a lot of voters.Oct 17 2012: Good argument. As a old analyst I can tell you that specific demographics are targeted. The ad in your state is not the ad in my state. Democrats target college students, women, and latino votes. They have union and a majority of male voters in the bag and are of little concern. Since Arizona is a right to work state the emphasis here is college age and latinos and our ads reflect that. The issues are never a concern.
Last week the shift of women voters occured as they are more involved in the economics .. price of gas, milk, food, cost of living, ect... The democratic chair was very concerned that the women are looking at the issues and seemed surprised that they were not responding to their koolade ads.
Most voters are one issue orientated: More social programs .... social security ...... Roe VS Wade ..... dream act ...... instant citizenship ..... border issues ... It is the what can you do for me (Its all about me)
The problems, and the promises, are almost identical to the 2008 election. People do not only drink the koolade they are seeking it out.
The answer is to return to a Constitutional government ... take away the nest eggs the politicians have voted for themselves .... make representation a public service with consequences for "crooked" behavior ... the incumbant runs on the record they established and the challenger presents a argument of what is wrong and a plan for improvement --- both written and published. That would take the crap and emotion out of the election. No ads, no debates ... just congressional records and a plan. Power is returned to the states to self govern ... government is reduced to the original four areas of responsibility .... congress would only need to meet a couple of times as a service not a career with term limits ..... I'm on a roll here ... and almost out of space.
Thanks for the reply ... all the best. Bob.
Oct 17 2012: Bob, I agree with a lot of what you have to say mostly about only voting for very minute personal issues with no thought in mind of the country as a whole. I have to ask though, do you think it would be easier for corporations to influence a state government or a federal government? I agree the federal government does a fantastic job subverting the peoples interests, but I would have to think that you would agree massive corporations do just as good a job. Maybe you don't?
Oct 18 2012: Valid argument. Federal government and Corporations are alike in that they each have agendas. Yes the both subvert the people and their interests to meld with their goals and agendas.
Corproations make decisions based on the bottom line ... what are the tax breaks of have the headquarters in NYC vs in XYZ state ... what states would allow the use of chemical LMN that is required in our product .... what are the distribution problems .... shipment of raw materials .... available work force ... union/non-union if my state addresses all of these issues favorably the corporation has no loyality to where they are and will move. Prostitution is not limited to humans.
Would they hold the state any more hostage than they currently do the feds with lobbying for favorable laws ... and buy votes for campaign donations.
I guess it boils down to if we believe that we need to return to a Constitutional government and limit the federal intervention in areas not defined by the Constitution and return the power to the states as originally designed.
Thanks forr the reply..Bob
Oct 18 2012: You make my point Bob, why wouldn't corporations just demand certain results with threat of leaving the state? They would, corporations fly in the face and idea of democracy. There has got to be a middle ground because both are needed. I think our constitution holds some brilliant values, mostly the idea that power can never reside in the hands of the few. Corporations and government growth sit in opposition to this. This is a real problem that if not resolved may continue to snatch the power of the people into the hands of the few.
If we are going to keep the power in the peoples hands I believe corporations must be run democratically. I think this would allow for a more community centered ideal and allow citizens to play a role in the future of our society. Thoughts?
Comment deleted
Oct 17 2012: You are right on target. Last week I learned of a man with a Doctrate in Public Choice ( a mix of economic and political science) and thought that is a great idea.
I have since thought that high school honors programs should have a class that involved Poli Si, econ, and Philosophy (a little statistics would not hurt either). The teacher would be a mentor/ guide through the discussions based on current events, historical events that are associated, and the onus would be strictly on the students. The goals would be to discover the good, bad, and corrective actions and follow through with model that would define the results of their theory.
Perhaps that type of course would dispell the myths and indoctrination that is taking place because students would have to validate their thoughts.
Thanks for making me think.
All the best. Bob.Oct 17 2012: I'm very frustrated by the way campaigns for elected office in the US have devolved into some sort of absurd theater - a lot of smoke and scant substance.
I keep wondering where they find actors with the ability to switch from clear speech that projects deep conviction: "Our candidate won the admiration of tea party republicans and new-age democrats, achieved world peace, conquered AIDS, and has been nominated for sainthood!" then a quick switch to a sneering voice when they proclaim "Our opponent has a long history of injectable drug abuse, aspires to bankrupt the nation, and eats small children for breakfast!" Cheez.
Since these tactics have overcome sane discussions on how to manage the nation I suspect that there are a lot of voters out there who can't be bothered to search for non-partisan info on important issues and listen only to what they want to hear.
My view is that millions of Americans have put their lives on the line to give us the ability to vote and to keep that precious right. I owe them - and my nation, nothing less than taking time every day to pay attention to what's happening in my country and the world, consult multiple information sources outside of politics and try to respect and understand those who disagree with me. Everybody learns the lessons their own life teaches. I've never been a cowboy, business owner, astronaut, actor, or deep sea explorer. All those folks have good reasons for seeing the world differently than I do and I'd really *really* like to have a better grasp of their needs and priorities - and have the ability to help them better understand what my life taught me rather than having campaigns fillied with "truthiness" insead of substance.
Our founding fathers designed a government with checks & balances to give *everyone* some influence. I resent those who want to game the system to overcome the essential fairness built into our government with propaganda, half-truths, and emotional manipulation.
Oct 17 2012: Once again I replied in the wrong box ... duh ... hay I'm 70 and get one break a year on general stupidity.
I replied and can be seen above in what starts off "Good argument...."
Forgive me ..... Bob.Oct 17 2012: probably by giving the impression that they are accurate, objective and balanced (whether they actually are or not).Oct 17 2012: Thanks RobertOct 16 2012: The media influences us by telling us about how a particular candidate loves his wife and some romantic thing the guy has done or has been doing, and how the candidates family love their dog, and how the preferred candidate has been improving the community by selfless service from way back (maybe a few years of serving in the army) , and how the guy loves his father.
Then the pictures, which as Fritzie has rightly pointed out, makes them seem like celebrities; and not forgetting PR folks and their approach to persuasion that would seem dangerously close to manipulation.
I agree with Pat Gilbert on this one; the media and the candidates are a reflection of us as a society.Oct 16 2012: Robert you hit the right spot.
would like o answer your question with question. How often you should look for TV companies are owned by political members? It is not only in the USA, it is almost everywhere. I believe you have talked many people from different countries. Ask from tem, to whom the main Cable TV , Radio Station or even News paper belongs to?
....... Political leaders and it does not matter weather they are democrats, republicans or any other party leaders
Oct 16 2012: A prime example of a major world influence is Rupert Murdock a international media giant. So there is a potential problem of owner influence.
The answer is that we are responsible in the final analysis. All news report the event. So we know that it happened. All media then gives a slant. To accept it or not is your decision. As I have stated before I trust this person because he has earned that trust. I still do my own research and respond to the issue based on my findings. So if I know that the media is not telling me the WHOLE truth but rather their view of the truth why should I not question them and fail do my own research.
The other part of the problem is that we are given party people who could care less about us but rather have a political agenda. In the end we have to vote for the lessor of two evils.
So the answer is: It makes no difference what you see or hear. It only makes a difference if you drink the koolade without questioning whats in it.
All the best. Bob.Oct 16 2012: Of course the media tries to influence your vote. Look at what the media did to Ron Paul in 08. Fox news did not invite him to the republican debate a week before the New Hampshire primary, which by the way, is a state that is notorious for libertarian support. The media attempts to box in the public by only representing the views of middle of the road democrats and big government conservatives. Im no libertarian, if I was forced to subscribe to an ideology it would probably resemble libertarian socialism, or left anarchism, but its very obvious the media doesn't like anything that doesn't meat the current status quo. Do you ever hear from Noam Chomsky on any of the major news sources, of course you don't just like the media marginalizes Ron Paul. The media answers to their corporate owners and the companies who buy advertising. They have interests they wish to see realized and not much of it has anything to do with the interests of the common citizen. Why has nobody from the major networks asked Obama about NDAA or how about Romney and his take on civil liberties? The election process in America is run by the public relations committees the candidates hire to show the people how wonderful they are. Theres never any real substance, the media and the government work hand in hand, just as corporations and the government do. So yes they attempt to influence your vote and the influence is directed in keeping a two party system alive and well. We wonder why voter apathy exists, its meant to be that way, without it the powers that be would disintegrate. In short the media sets the agenda and limitation of what is considered extreme or acceptable. Just remember the media is a business with profit as its motive, they need to sell advertising to corporations and the people who report must answer to their boss just like any business.Oct 16 2012: So if the general Public are disillusioned by the forth state and political punditry, are they now looking to the Fifth State more than what they use to? or is the Fifth State just the daughter of the Fourth?
Just a couple of curious Q's if anyone is interested in giving their opinion on.
The Q i would like to raise Rob is "Does one have to first find out whether their local newspaper is reflecting their owners personal bias or not before they even buy it"
Sorry Rob, i can't find it, therefore it doesn't exist though it does with those i talked to today it just isn't there anymore online, like a lot of things that were once in the public eye for a short moment.
Oct 16 2012: There is no set meaning for the fifth estate: Nimmo and Combs assert that political pundits constitute a Fifth Estate. Media researcher Stephen D. Cooper argues that bloggers are the Fifth Estate. William Dutton has argued that the Fifth Estate is not simply the blogging community, nor an extension of the media, but 'networked individuals' enabled by the Internet in ways that can hold the other estates accountable. Which do you subscribe to?
For those who are not sheeple I think that we realize that media expresses a 'opinion" that loosly uses the foundation of facts. Example: I trust Pat Gilbert when he says XYZ because he has earned that trust ... However, having said that I still look up the subject and respond on my findings. ---- Since I do not trust the media why would I not do the same? That is my responsibility.
Ken I worked in analysis for years and can tell you that every poll is manipulated. The very way the question is constructed determines the result. If you paid a company a million dollars to conduct polls for your product they will tell you exactly what you want to hear. In the mall some times they stop only young people ... other times only old ... there is always a target population. Obama targets college kids and women and the data reflects that is successful .... the question should be why are these two "targets".
Just as a matter of interest what is your home country? What did you see that would lead you to believe there was manipulation?


text:
Freedom Flix
Raw Deal: Raw Milk Farmers Fight Censorship
In Oregon, it is perfectly legal for farmers to sell raw—or unpasteurized—milk...so long as they don't talk about it. If they do, they face huge fines and jail time. But a major federal lawsuit filed this morning by the Institute for Justice (IJ), the national law firm for liberty, and Christine Anderson, owner of Cast Iron Farm in McMinnville, Ore., seeks to change that.
Oregon flatly bans the advertisement of raw milk, a perfectly legal product for farmers like Christine to sell. That means Christine and other farmers are prohibited from posting flyers at local stores, advertising sales online or via email, or even having a roadside sign at the farm saying "WE SELL RAW MILK." If Christine does advertise that she sells raw milk, she faces a fine of $6,250 and civil penalties as high as $10,000—plus a year in jail.
http://www.ij.org/ORMilkRead more
Embed on your site:
Freedom Flix
The Institute for Justice is always looking for new ways to promote the message of freedom. To that end, IJ produced the following videos in-house to tell the stories of our clients and their fight for individual liberty.
None of this — the cases or these videos — would be possible without the continued generosity of our donors. We hope you enjoy them and share them with those who need a little inspiration.
Subscribe to our videos via iTunes or YouTube.


text: Alan learns that Lyndsey broke up with Larry and didn't tell him. Meanwhile, Walden sets out to prove that he's a man's man, on TWO AND A HALF MEN, Thursday, Feb 6 (9:31-10:01 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network. Pictured L-R: Conchata Ferrell as Berta and Ashton Kutcher as Walden Schmidt Photo: Michael Yarish/Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. ©2014 WBEI. All rights reserved


text:
Welcome to The Political Landscape, a weekly conversation with National Journal writers, editors and other experts on the news of the day.
In recent weeks, President Obama has been making the late-night show rounds, making stops on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. It's nothing new for Obama, who has slow jammed the news with Jimmy Fallon, revealed multiple NCAA March Madness bracket on ESPN, and made a Saturday Night Live appearance during his 2008 campaign.
Obama's facility with these types of casual, comedic appearances speak to his personality and the demographic he wants to to reach. But it also points to our evolving expectations of our presidents and politicians.
The barriers are breaking down between the public and politicians. And Obama is by no means the first president, or presidential candidate, to be a part of this trend.
For this week's show, we'll examine that trend and what it says about our culture.
We talked to former Democratic Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida, who has been on the Colbert Report twice and the Daily Show once. He is best known for playing along with Colbert in a segment by jokingly admitting to doing drugs. He'll bring us that story.
Then we'll go behind the scenes. What's it like to get these politicians on the show? How do these programs convince them it's a good idea?
We talked to two producers of the National Public Radio comedic news quiz show Wait Wait Don't Tell Me. They'll share the story of how they got Bill Clinton on the phone and then couldn't get him off.
Then finally, we'll put these experiences in context. Most people date the start of this trend to then-candidate Richard Nixon appearing on Rowan and Martin's Laugh In, a late-60s sketch comedy show. We'll trace the history from there and what it's meant for politicians.
Check out last week's episode on the foreign policy lessons on the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Check out all episodes of The Political Landscape.


text:
User Tip: If you're unsure of your vehicle type, you may skip the machine type selection box.
Select type, make, model and year above
"Customer service is priority #1 at Rocky Mountain ATV/MC. We value our customers and strive to be the best shopping experience- when you buy from us, you are buying lifetime service."
-Dan Thomas, CEO and Founder
We take pride in offering no hassle returns. In the event of a return, please call, email or chat with us to receive a solution to the problem. For apparel that doesn't fit quite right, Click here to see our Fit Guaranteed Program.
We will stand behind all products we sell with regards to manufacturing defects in workmanship and material. Most products are limited to the manufacturer's warranty. However, we will do everything in our power to take care of the problem.
Live chat: Click here
(Leave email if after hours)
Call us: 1 800 336-5437
7am-7pm Mon-Fri 8am-4pm Sat (Mountain Standard Time)
Each review submitted enters you into a $100 gift card monthly drawing, and a $500 gift card quarterly drawing!
Comments On Jul 09, 2015:Keeps sand and larger particulates from making it to the air box and clutch. Honestly I think the clutch side is more effective only because it keeps out course sand from making it to the belt/clutch.
Was this review helpful?
Comments On Nov 18, 2013:Great product easy to clean and keeps all the sand and dirt from getting to the airbox.
Was this review helpful?
Comments On Apr 26, 2013:look great,install easily,cheap and offer good protection without sacrificing performance
Was this review helpful?
Comments On Apr 05, 2013:Helps repel water and filter out dirt
Was this review helpful?
Comments On Nov 28, 2012:Easy to install, keeps all the big stuff out and helps keep things dry when in snow.
Was this review helpful?
Comments On Nov 07, 2012:These are nice just a little hard to figure out how that go on but once figured out that look to have helped alot.
Was this review helpful?
Comments On Oct 31, 2012:My air filter was needing to be cleaned after every ride due to the location of the intake and it sucking in so much dirt, this product make a complete difference.
Was this review helpful?
Comments On Jun 22, 2012:My air filter was needing to be cleaned after every ride due to the location of the intake and it sucking in so much dirt. I was thinking about getting a $450 snorkel kit not for driving in deep water but to move the location of the air intake. These simple Outerwears solved my problem. A simple flick of these Outerwears and what ever dirt is stuck to them (next to none) falls right off and I'm back riding.
Was this review helpful?


text:
HOME NBA Brooklyn Nets Gear Brooklyn Nets Kids Brooklyn Nets Kids Youth (166 items) Product ID: 852567
Main Content
The cold is always a bummer; let your young fan resist the chill in a new hooded sweatshirt! Your kid will feel nice and warm in this Nets Team Logo hoodie Sweatshirt by adidas. It features the Brooklyn Nets logo above a "Brooklyn" wordmark to show off your child's favorite b-ball team. The soft fleece lining and hood are sure to keep him protected from those cold Brooklyn winters. A little Nets spirit and fleece will keep him warm all winter long!
- 100% Cotton hood lining
- 70% Cotton/30% Polyester body
- Front pouch pocket
- Hood without drawstring
- Midweight hoodie suitable for moderate temps
- Reinforced taped collar seam
- Soft fleece lining
Nets Customers also liked:
Special event items are produced by manufacturers only after the outcome of a game or event. These are advanced sale items and will ship immediately after they are received in our warehouse.
Manufacturer direct items are shipped directly from the manufacturer. These items are not available for international or expedited shipping.
Customized items can be personalized with options such as your name, your favorite number, and/or designs. Some options may be limited by league rules.


text:
I have a DWF Kabuto that I am willing to breed and trade if anyone is interested. I am looking for other DWFs so if anyone is interested in trading PM me or look at my sig for my skype
I have a DWF Kabuto that I am willing to breed and trade if anyone is interested. I am looking for other DWFs so if anyone is interested in trading PM me or look at my sig for my skype
Last edited by mtmaster; 13th November 2012 at 3:16 AM. Reason: mistyped a word.
You have a better chance of reaching me on skype (mtmaster_2k7)
Black 2 FC:4256 1441 2663
looking for any kabuto! dwf if possible
Epic trades for you!
Black 2: 4857 4837 4412
Looking for:
Please if you want any of these and more just PM me!
All of the above are only available in black/white 2... I'm waiting for the pokemon transporter :P
In Pokemon x/y
Offering: Chespin, Fennekin, Squirtle, protean froakie
Vivillions: elegant, modern
Things I'm looking for: Mega pinsir's stone, mewtwo x's stone, mega tyranitars stone, mega manectric's stone
Can trade Kabuto (DWF or orther). PM me with offers. Not looking for anything specific; surprise me.
Looking For: Enigma Berry / Starf Berry
Trading: 5IV Modest Cyndaquil / Pokerus / PP UP / PP Max
Current Pokemon Y Team:
Looking for Kabuto/kabutops. Nature and Level don't matter.
My Black 2 FC: 3654 9430 7633
Message me with FC if you can help me out, Thanks.
Offering DW/DWF kabuto's. LF DWF torkoal, DWF slowpoke
Black 2 FC: 4213-2685-6501
All wants/offers are for X/Y Atm!
Hidden Abilities I'm Looking For: Aerodactyl , Slowpoke, Skrelp,
Hidden Abilities I'm Offering: , Froakie, , Quilladan, , Phantump
Looking for any kabuto, can offer a lot of DWFs. PM me if interested.
Edit: Trade done.
Last edited by theygoplayer; 21st January 2013 at 9:39 PM.
I have an untouched DreamWorld Kabuto for sale. PM me with offers
Looking for DWF adamant Kabuto can offer DWF from signature. PM me with info
Trainer Name: Snagon
Friend Safari: Poison Type: Kakuna, Swalot, Drapion
Pokemon X
Looking for Steel, Fairy, Ground and Rock Safaris so far.
Feel free to visit me @ the following sites:
Writer for:
About.com Heavy Metal
Dream World Females
Got a DW female Kabuto I'm willing to trade, pm me!
Pokémon Black FC: 0347-6387-9756
Pokémon White 2 FC: 1035 0553 5328
need kabuto offering offering magby, Elekid ,snivy, oshawatt, bulbasaur,torchic, chimchar, Tirtouga, mankey
Test your battles skills at "PokeGyms"
Gym record: W/7-L/1
Gym record: W/0-L/0
My gyms are currently close.
Wi-fi record: W/18-L/2
All time streak: 17 Current streak: 0
NEW Black 2 FC: 0090 3787 9986
Gym badges:
"PokeGyms' Chat box"
Shiny Kabuto/Kabutops M w/ giga drain. Want. Pm for trade. Have L100 Tao trio, shiny haxorus.
Who wants a dragon type. Got BILLIONS.
Black 2 FC 5029 3297 5486
Current shiny hunt
Here, have a bulbasaur brighten your day
Ryhdon dances in pokemon conquest. lollollollol PAAAAARTEH!!!
Looking for Kabuto or kabutops
Pokemon X and Y:
FC: 0748-2264-7801 PM me for add and I'll add you also...
National Dex COMPLETE!!!
Black 2/White 2:
Unova dex all complete!!!
National dex all complete!!!
My shinies:
still looking for kabuto or kabutops
Pokemon X and Y:
FC: 0748-2264-7801 PM me for add and I'll add you also...
National Dex COMPLETE!!!
Black 2/White 2:
Unova dex all complete!!!
National dex all complete!!!
My shinies:
Have all evolutions, so happy to trade for any of the following:
Female or UT:
Togetic/Togekiss (Modest)
Feebas/Milotic (Calm)
Torchic/Combusken/Blaziken (Adamant)
Trapinch/Vibrava/Flygon (Adamant)
Chansey/Blissey (Gentle)
Snorunt/Froslass (Modest)
Happy to hear other offers as well, so inbox me for more details.
Black 2 Team:
Currently Seeking:
Female or UT
- Togepi (Modest)
- Feebas (Calm)
- Torchic (Adamant)
- Trapinch (Adamant)
- Chansey (Gentle)
- Snorunt (Modest)
And A Variety of Pokemon - All Generations
Looking for a Kabuto. Don't care about levels. Message me if you can help me out!


text:
Nb: infants must be under the age of 2 and
children must be under the age of 12 at the time of
The Markus is conveniently located in the ever popular Nasserein area, just 5 minutes' walk from the main gondola for easy skiing access, and with a ski-bus stop just outside the chalet if you'd prefer to ride.
This attractive and stylish chalet combines traditional Tyrolean comfort in the fire-side lounge and attractive dining-room, with well appointed bedrooms and bathrooms throughout, and the added benefit of small extra lounge areas on each floor, should you want to find a quiet corner in which to relax.
Lower Ground Floor
Ground floor
First Floor
Second Floor
Please note: The owners live in an apartment on the third floor
"Free wine included worth over €100".
Iglu acts as a travel agent for disclosed principals/tour operators, further details
of which will be made available at the time of booking. Your holiday contract will
be bound by the tour operators terms and conditions.
Prices are shown for a basic room or unit, can be subject to change and are indicative
until time of booking. Please call on 020 8544 7114 for prices for other travel
and room options for this property.
Prices shown are per person per week based on maximum occupancy. Descriptions and
quality ratings are provided by the Tour Operator (or one of the Tour Operators
where similar holidays are offered by more than one supplier). We reserve the right
to make minor adjustments to the description or rating based on staff and customer
feedback. For payments by credit card, a 2.5% credit card charge (4% for AMEX) will
be added to your invoice. If you pay by a UK issued debit card, there is no charge.
All bookings are subject to a £5 per person Passenger Admin Fee charged by Iglu.com.