Announcement

**Imran Siddiqui** · October 23, 2003, 02:21

But they may be necessary at certain times in order to expand the business.

**Dauphin** · October 23, 2003, 02:25

Originally posted by JohnT

inflating the number of outstanding shares are (for the most part) poor, poor substitutes for retained earnings, y'all.

I don't see how given that there is no practical difference between retained earnings and share capital. RE debt, almost every company in the world makes use of an overdraft facility if nothing else. I've also worked on company accounts where they took out loans in order to pay dividends.

**JohnT** · October 23, 2003, 02:29

Eh, nevermind that post, Big Crunch. I just woke up (it's 2:30am here) and am quite groggy and wasn't thinking properly. You're quite correct.

**Kidlicious** · October 23, 2003, 16:14

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
If you divide up the same task over a larger number of workers, with more shifts due to shorter work weeks, you have a loss of production. Most jobs involve some non-productive individual transition time at beginning and end of shift - say coal miners who clock in at the mine head, then ride down the elevators and walk out to the current production areas. Or machinery operators who have to shut down at end of shift, secure the whatever it is so it doesn't fall on the next guy, then secure their safety gear before they clock out. Meanwhile, the next guy clocks in, puts on his safety gear, goes over some paperwork, does a safety inspection on his machine (left by the last guy some time before), and then starts being productive. Most construction jobs are the same, if you're not digging a ditch with a shovel - plumbing, piping, electrical, concrete work - there's a beginning of shift and end of shift transition.

Intellectual work such as engineering, software design, etc. not only has those issues, but additional time needed for communication, division of assignments, dealing with all the workers involved in a particular subset of your project - those things all go up in proportion to the number of people involved, so there is in fact a decline in productivity.

Oh boy.

Sorry. Let me be more clear.

Instead of employing workers at unproductive jobs just employ them in productive jobs and cut back the work week. You still have the same amount of man hours working productivily, and you still have the same output. As shortages are identified you move the work to where it is needed and increase the week apropriately.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
No economic/philosophic system "provides jobs." Communism sure doesn't. You still have some form of business enterprises which produce things, and the only difference is how owners and managers are associated with those enterprises, and the motivations of the owners and managers.

Get off of the Microeconomics. This is Macro.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
It's not letting the government "off the hook." You're assuming government has this all-intrusive role of running people's lives and determining what constitute their well-being. I'm assuming that government governs best which stays out of range.

I'm talking about responsible govt. That's what we need to solve our problems. They aren't solved by any invisible hand or anything. Admittedly capitalist govts are not responsible. Communist is.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Your argument is specious - you don't need instant or complete knowledge of others' decisions because those decisions don't result in instantaneous effects in the market. I can go look up data on wages for different types of IT professionals in different areas of the country, and know that that data is not going to sharply change next week or next month. And I can pay attention to industry articles and publication, particularly on the end user side, and get a fair idea of whether a particular new and shiny technology seems to be sticking in the marketplace. You can make intelligent judgments. And most "bad decisions" are recoverable unless you decide to knock off a liquor store and a cop pulls in 30 seconds behind you.

Oh Nonsense.

**Kidlicious** · October 23, 2003, 16:20

Originally posted by Flubber

AS soon as you start paying people the same regardless of performance, performance suffers. . .. THis is a common phenomenon -- people can be performing at rate x for 10 years . . you offer a performance bonus and sufddenly they all increase production.

As soon as you tell the best and brightest that their effort or intelligence will not be compensated , they leave. As soon as you start compensating the same for all sorts of jobs, certain jobs get more popular since some jobs are less desirable than others. If I was paid the same , I probably would rather mow lawns than work an office job ( exercise and fresh air would be nice)

although I think I would most like to be a security guard since I love to read. Oh oh and I'd want the day shift and don't dare offer a shift differential for those that work mights or weekends

If you are going to tell people that they keep repeating what they are saying the least you can do is know what they are saying. You have not even read my posts in this thread. That is appearant. You have no idea what I'm saying so you have no idea if I'm repeating myself.

**JohnT** · October 23, 2003, 16:21

Not nonsense. Life. And the fact that your compatriots in ideology don't leap to defend your assertions, while even the most debate-challenged on our side (like myself) have no problem scoring points against you ought to give you reason to pause. Even MOBIUS defends Sava, you know...

**Kidlicious** · October 23, 2003, 16:22

Originally posted by JohnT
Not nonsense. Life. And the fact that your compatriots in ideology don't leap to defend your assertions, while even the most debate-challenged on our side (like myself) have no problem scoring points against you ought to give you reason to pause. Even MOBIUS defends Sava, you know...

When are you going to start scoring points on me?

**JohnT** · October 23, 2003, 16:22

Correction... just re-noticed Ramo's 2 post support back a page or two.

**Kidlicious** · October 23, 2003, 16:28

I'm usually debating alone. They usually agree with me, so probably don't bother repeating what I'm saying though. I know they disagree with me on things too, because sometimes they say so.

**Arrian** · October 23, 2003, 16:38

I'm talking about responsible govt. That's what we need to solve our problems. They aren't solved by any invisable hand or anything. Admittedly capitalist govts are not responsible. Communist is.

That is signature material! It should be put right next to the famous Fez line (you criminal!). If I were the sort to have such signatures, that is.

You want to give immense authority to government to control people's lives, and at the same time you expect that it will be responsible with that authority! That's hilarious.

-Arrian

**Kidlicious** · October 23, 2003, 16:43

Originally posted by Arrian

That is signature material! It should be put right next to the famous Fez line (you criminal!). If I were the sort to have such signatures, that is.

You want to give immense authority to government to control people's lives, and at the same time you expect that it will be responsible with that authority! That's hilarious.

-Arrian

All govts are resonsible for their actions or inactions. It's the outcomes that count.

**Arrian** · October 23, 2003, 16:47

What are you trying to say?

-Arrian

**MichaeltheGreat** · October 23, 2003, 16:54

Originally posted by Jules
For some reason I was under the impression that very little investment is actually financed through retained earnings. I'm trying to find a statistic on that somewhere.

It depends a lot also on the scale of the company.

**Kidlicious** · October 23, 2003, 17:00

Originally posted by Arrian

What are you trying to say?

-Arrian

Govt either takes action or doesn't. The measure of the govt is the welfare of the people, not when it acts.

**Arrian** · October 23, 2003, 17:08

Um, clearly. What does that have to do with being responsible? Ah, I see. You meant it in the sense of being "accountable" and I meant it in the sense of being "proper" or "good."

The form of government that is responsible/accountable to its people is democracy, which in theory at least can implement either a capitalistic or communistic economic system (or somewhere inbetween).

I want government that is accountable TO me, but NOT a government that is responsible FOR me (cradle to grave, intrusive, most likely tyrannical).

But we already knew I don't want what you want.

-Arrian

Announcement

Is profit different from unfair tax?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment