Growth without reason

[tech/a]

Growth is a human response.
Man craves it.
He wants to have it and if he doesnt wishes to be percieved that he has attained it in all forms of life not withstanding his financial status.

Capitalisim in all its guises is human driven by the very same response in all of us.
Pretty simple really.
Man will just re invent the financial wheel---already is.

 

[chops_a_must]

Growth is a human response.
Man craves it.
He wants to have it and if he doesnt wishes to be percieved that he has attained it in all forms of life not withstanding his financial status.

Capitalisim in all its guises is human driven by the very same response in all of us.
Pretty simple really.
Man will just re invent the financial wheel---already is.

Or is capitalism just a ruse to appeal to one of the most joyous pursuits in society, progress?

I'm still yet to have explained to me why it is all not a zero sum game, on a very broad scale.

 

[theasxgorilla]

I'm still yet to have explained to me why it is all not a zero sum game, on a very broad scale.

Isn't it because of real growth, such as organic growth, that we can all reap benefits disproportionate to the efforts required to sew? There for real progress is on the balance of things a postive sum game.

 

[Reealjrd]

Dunno if anyone agrees with this but I think a lot of our problems arise from the culture of needing to increase profits every year.

Once a company reaches a certain point I cant see the logic in pushing for more profit at the expense of the integrity of the company itself.

Take Telstra, no service, less employees just to increase profit.
Voice recognition software to save the cost of employing people ???

Trams - Trains - now privatized - less service, less maintenance, more delays, less staff for security and supervision.

Utilities, gas water electricity all privatised same scenario, less service, less reliability.

People are sacrificed for profit, sacked for profit, this leads to a soulless shell of a company, that does what ? Trim more to make more profit.

Banks, you cant speak to anyone anymore just a call routing system infuriating auto service.

The whole thing is based around creating wealth for shareholders and to hell with the employees that made the company in the first place.

The spiral for more profit must be stopped at reasonable HUMAN levels, then shareholders will get steady returns, if they want growth get a tattslotto ticket or a different stock thats in a growth faze

I'm fed up with this system it sux and I hope it crashes heavily.

Friend this is all you are explaining about the market but not about trading. How you can make profits for your self. You r right that the market is all about profits for big companies but not for us. In trading you can make profits for your self.

 

[chops_a_must]

Isn't it because of real growth, such as organic growth, that we can all reap benefits disproportionate to the efforts required to sew? There for real progress is on the balance of things a postive sum game.

"Organic" growth would already be inherently there, waiting.

The actualisation of it would not, which is what you are saying there. My brain is too tired for this right now...

 

[theasxgorilla]

Capitalisim in all its guises is human driven by the very same response in all of us.
Pretty simple really.
Man will just re invent the financial wheel---already is.

I actually (surprise, surprise) disagree. Capitalism is about endeavouring to get something for nothing, under the guises of being rewarded for risk or venture. It depends upon remunerating people for less than their output is actually worth.

It won't surprise me however if capitalist profiteering becomes less viable in the next 5-10 years due to inflation (including wage inflation).

 

[theasxgorilla]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/oct/21/creditcrunch-globaleconomy

Marx guide on how capitalism will destroy itself...always worth reading a different point of view.

 

[Glen48]

One thing I could never work out is if every one is fully employed wouldn't there be good growth?
IF I sack my workers and you sack yours, mine won't have the money to buy your goods etc.
The only thing we need is a steady hand on the Tiller, capital gains tax on R E and different tax rates such as 5% on Farm Machinery and 15% on a Roller and no way it could be use as a tax deduction and that way we should encourage OZ people to go for manufacturing, farming etc.

 

[tech/a]

Capitalism is about endeavouring to get something for nothing,

Which is of course a very common human trait is it not.

Just ask any Theif,Fraudster,or Nigerian scam designer.
Elephants didnt "invent" capitalism---not that I know of.

 

[Flip]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/oct/21/creditcrunch-globaleconomy

Marx guide on how capitalism will destroy itself...always worth reading a different point of view.

another guide on marx:

http://www.freedomainradioshows.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_194_Marxist_Exploitation.mp3

 

[c-unit]

I have access to the manager as well but not everyone does, if you call the main number it's hard to get anywhere same as Telstra.

Try ordering a new Visa card like I did, hung up after 30 minutes.

Yeah you are quite correct but it saves them money. It's not dissimilar to so many companies outsourcing the phone support services. Its a sacrifice in the quality of service and as you mentioned, jobs (in this case Australian jobs) but at the end of the day they are pressured into doing whats best for the stockholders. Just the way it is and I doubt anybody will do anything to change it.

 

[MrBurns]

Yeah you are quite correct but it saves them money. It's not dissimilar to so many companies outsourcing the phone support services. Its a sacrifice in the quality of service and as you mentioned, jobs (in this case Australian jobs) but at the end of the day they are pressured into doing whats best for the stockholders. Just the way it is and I doubt anybody will do anything to change it.

Correct, part of the problem is tiers of management are created so Joes' job is to save money if he doesnt he's out, so every year staff are trimmed functions sent offshore and customers are made to wait a bit longer for the phone to answer, they take their customers right up to the limits of their patience and only relent when the customers start leaving.

If Joe doesnt save money and increase the bottom line it goes all the way up to the CEO who gets his a#se whipped at the AGM by the shareholders who want to know WHY they arent getting MORE

Bonuses are lost and on it goes.

This attitude may also contribute to road rage believe it or not as people are pushed to the limit of their endurance every day by "the system"

 

[[t..o..m]]

If Joe doesnt save money and increase the bottom line it goes all the way up to the CEO who gets his a#se whipped at the AGM by the shareholders who want to know WHY they arent getting MORE

Bonuses are lost and on it goes.

This attitude may also contribute to road rage believe it or not as people are pushed to the limit of their endurance every day by "the system"

The one contributing factor which equates all of this is, "The American Dream". The western world and all countries who have adopted the American way have taken this dream as their main goal in life. This is why we have this continuing circle of debt hanging around our heads.

The saying "Time equals money" is drilled into each and every person which makes us believe that money is the focus of our whole life. But my question is, since when does relative time have ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING to do with the accumulation of money?

 

[Mofra]

Correct, part of the problem is tiers of management are created so Joes' job is to save money if he doesnt he's out, so every year staff are trimmed functions sent offshore and customers are made to wait a bit longer for the phone to answer, they take their customers right up to the limits of their patience and only relent when the customers start leaving.

You've described the system of our big four banks up to the late 90s, when their reputation for stinginess made them enemy no 1 in the eyes of the public. Since then, they have been opening branches in regional centres, knowing they are starting points for selling new businesses & services.
Customer satisfaction indices are now build into the remuneration packages of executives.

This attitude may also contribute to road rage believe it or not as people are pushed to the limit of their endurance every day by "the system"

Incidently, computer rage has apparently overtaken road rage as our no 1 irritant, although this is from one of those UK reports from the news "odd spot" with small sample sizes so could be misleading.

 

[disarray]

Capitalism is about endeavouring to get something for nothing, under the guises of being rewarded for risk or venture.

i disagree with this as risk is not "nothing".

i want to expand and need money to do so. you have money so you invest it in me with the expectation of reaping benefits proportional to my growth. if i grow then you receive a return on your investment, but you didn't receive something for nothing, you received something for your initial investment plus a premium for the risk you took.

when you invest you are risking something, be it your savings or your debt or your future labour or whatever. i may not grow, i may shrink in which case you lose whatever you risked, and this very real possibility is what capitalism is really paying dividends for.

capitalism itself is quite a good system in that it encourages innovation and progress precisely because it pays off risk. the system works because people know (or they bloody well should know) that they are taking a risk for profit and the more extreme the risk the more extreme the profit, even to the extent of leading to advances that change the world (like early investors in spice runs or railroad or electricity).

systems are often really good on paper but fail to take into human nature, i'm of the view most people are cool but theres always a small percentage of pricks who go over the top and bring the whole thing crashing down around everyone else. these people should be crucified (metaphorically or literally, i'm not fussed).

 

[Tysonboss1]

One thing I could never work out is if every one is fully employed wouldn't there be good growth?
.

not if the staff are employed unproductively,... It is better if a company can make adjustments to how they manage their staff and get more work done with less staff, possibly by getting staff to work more efficently by using new technology and equipment or streamlining systems, or out sourcing work.

By doing this it frees up workers to be employed elsewhere in the labour market, and gives new industries a chance to grow and develop.

 

[mayk]

The ultimate effect of growth in a finite source might lead ultimately to death. I will let this video advocate my case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=related

You can find the rest of its parts in the video list of the user.

 

[theasxgorilla]

i disagree with this as risk is not "nothing".

i want to expand and need money to do so. you have money so you invest it in me with the expectation of reaping benefits proportional to my growth. if i grow then you receive a return on your investment, but you didn't receive something for nothing, you received something for your initial investment plus a premium for the risk you took.

Sounds like classic investment theory. Fine in theory. Today, in reality, with the interest rate policies the Fed has pursued during the last 15 or so years, risk has been utterly distorted.

 

[Smurf1976]

First thing I thought of when I read the topic wasn't anything about the economy. It was the environment.

There comes a point where constant growth reaches the limits. That point being not when something actually runs out, but when it becomes necessary to go ahead and trash all that remains in order to keep the game going.

That point has been reached in a few places, most notably with energy supply. If Tasmania and Victoria had continued their energy-intensive growth that ran for decades until the early 1980's then Victoria would now be burning around 400 million tonnes of brown coal per annum compared to around 60 million tonnes actual use. And Tasmania would have dammed the lot, exploited even the smallest coal reserves and have a nuclear power industry with output exceeding the entire present day power consumption (from all sources) of SA, NT, ACT, Qld and New Zealand combined.

So the game was pretty much up in Vic and Tas in the 1980's. A point heavily debated in Tasmania but far less so in Victoria. That was the time to either dam / mine the lot or call a halt to it all. The growth had become cancerous, threatening to engulf that which it was intended to benefit. Kill it or be killed.

In due course we'll see this happen with many more resources and in many more locations. Climate change, water and food production are perhaps the current greatest examples - the present situation is tolerable (just) but a doubling or tripling of consumption, something that only takes two decades at 4% annual growth, would likely spell outright disaster.

Constant growth on a finite planet. It doesn't work once everything's used up.

 

[Smurf1976]

not if the staff are employed unproductively,... It is better if a company can make adjustments to how they manage their staff and get more work done with less staff, possibly by getting staff to work more efficently by using new technology and equipment or streamlining systems, or out sourcing work.

In the vast majority of cases I've seen, outsourcing has not significantly increased overall output per hour worked once everything is accouted for. It works in theory until you account for everything - then it doesn't look so good. There are quite a few exceptions of course but it's not the "one size fits all" panacea some proclaim.