Tuesday, September 16, 2008

The One or The Other?

Two men were speaking one day and if one was to listen, you could hear the differences between them.

One sees a business as private property.
The other will see that same business as public property.
Which describes you?

One, in respect of private property, thinks you should pay a wage to the employee.
The other, in respect of public property, seeks a share in the profits for employees.
Which describes you?

One thinks you should cut expenses in order to maintain a profit.
The other thinks you should cut profit in order to maintain expenses.
Which describes you?

One thinks the price of goods or services should be based on the cost of the goods in respect of a profit.
The other thinks the price should be based on the cost to the consumer in contempt of a profit.
Which describes you?

One thinks that promises made to the worker are dependent upon conditions.
The other thinks that promises made to the worker are independent of conditions.
Which describes you?

One sees profit as an example of abilities.
The other sees profit as an example of greed.
Which describes you?

When one fails, he knows that he has failed himself as well as his community and seeks the strength to carry on.
When the other fails, he thinks that society has failed him and demands a change in society to carry on.
Which describes you?

One will feel compassion to another in need of help but knows he may fail therefore is compassionate enough not to force others to share in his failure.
The other will feel compassion to another in need of help but denies the possibility of failure therefore will not only force others to share in his failure but demand that they continue to pay even more for his mistake.
Which describes you?

One will demand reasons from the worker for not earning a living.
The other will make excuses for that worker.
Which describes you?

Are you the one or are you the other? And who might the "one" or "the other" be?


BB-Idaho said...

The labor/capital thing, huh? Reminds of the old saying.."Those that can, do: those that can't, teach: those that can't teach become administrators! I suppose one's view of profit depend on whether one views greed as one of the seven deadly sins, or a market virtue...even though we all like a profit! Probably why some of the most innovative and productive companies have profit-sharing..and those which place shareholder value first end up like AIG and
Lehman Brothers. (My personal experience with the L-Brothers is detailed here):

The Griper said...

"Probably why some of the most innovative and productive companies..."

the key word there is "some". and in a free market, failures are inevitible. inovation is one factor that quarantees failure. bad decisions is another. and to some extent so is governmental regulation. competition could be a factor also.

the big problem of profit sharing is that if you carry that principle out then the employee must also be willing to share in the losses too. and that means the acceptance of their share of the obligations of debts of that failed business.

and that is where it can be said that employees are not willing to.

but this is only based on principles not reality too.

share holders have a financial investment in that business. employees do not unless they use part of their wages to buy shares.

BB-Idaho said...

Gotta admit, Griper that quizzing on our views of business on a day that the market dropped 450, and the CEO of AIG received $37 million in compensation for leading his group to 46% drop in market value; and receiving your and my tax dollars in a $85 billion bailout might be a bit predjudicial for some of us. :)

The Griper said...

me included, my friend, me included.

i believe this would cover that situation;
"When one fails, he knows that he has failed himself as well as his community and seeks the strength to carry on.
When the other fails, he thinks that society has failed him and demands a change in society to carry on."
which would apply to the situation you describe?

BB-Idaho said...

Socialism for the rich?
For example compare and contrast the situation of Mr. Willumstad of AIG with a free market horror story I witnessed some years back.
A young forklift driver finished two shifts in a row (8-5, then 5-midnight). After this 16 hours, he was asked to work a third straight shift. His wife was delivering their firstborn, and he demurred.
He was fired outright. I wrote that out when I quit that company, and as you may suspect, the location of that plant is now gone back to natural terrain. Where is the justice in the first case?

The Griper said...

no justice.
but wouldn't men like that occur in any form of economics?

even in socialism there those who be bosses and those who be underlings.

would socialism allowed you to quit in protest?

since socialism is a monopoly where would you get a job after?

remember, in theory, neither case would have happened.

and believe me, i know how you felt. i was fired once for trying to protect someone under me from an injustice.

Average American said...

I'm not sure if you meant to compare liberals to conservatives, but you did a good job of it.

BB-Idaho said...

Griper, I agree any economic system
seems to tolerate inequity and injustice. In fact, most systems likely reward it, and therein lies my consternation. Naturally, I am most familiar with our system, hence it gets most of my (negative) attention. :)

The Griper said...

that is the beauty of it tho. we know our system thus its faults. and with that we can prepare for it. tho we can never be so prepared that nothing can hurt us but we can still try to play the odds. and make them work for us.

The Griper said...

thank you.

BB-Idaho said...

"One sees a business as private property.
The other will see that same business as public property."
...is that like..
One sees a trickle down theory.
The other sees a suck upwards, screw up and get a bailout from the taxpayer? :)

The Griper said...

he laughs, yeah that is pretty much the case now days isn't it?

and if you'll notice, it isn't the small businesses that get the bail outs, its the big businesses, huge corporations. and it appears that there may be a correlation in regards to number of employees too. but this is a guess.

Lista said...

Boy! I could put a lot of thought into this one if I wanted to take the time, but for now, I'm just going to respond to the very first of your statements and question.

"One sees a business as private property.
The other will see that same business as public property.
Which describes you?"

You forgot to mention the option that describes me, for all that we own, whether public of private actually belongs to God, not to us. Think of things in this light and it will change your whole perspective, for in reality, none of us owns anything and whatever God gives us, He might very well ask us to give away.

The Griper said...

no i haven't. but even if it did, how would that be consistent with the rest as it is now?

The Griper said...

btw, lista and bb, have you noticed the new pic i'm using?

Lista said...

Yes, I have and I've made a comment about it in the comment section of my blog. I need to come back later and read this post and also the above comments a little more carefully. Our new puppy is really requiring a lot of my energy and time but it's been fun.

BB-Idaho said...

Three comments:
1. Had not noticed the new photo.
Nice..man's best friend, white,..and with the sun behind,
Mr. ProudOwner casts a long shadow..:)
2. Enjoyed the Cherokee song. The Native American culture has a lot to offer.
3. Formulated a new economic corollary to the TrickleDown Theory: Wealth trickles down at a much slower rate than misery. I'm waiting to see whether the effects of Fannie, Freddie, BearStearns, AIG fallout bear this out. :)

BB-Idaho said...

..along the lines of Indian culture; they possess sort of a unique humor. One of my foremen was a Nez Perce, typically phlegmatic & quiet. One day, an operator came running out of her building.."rattlesnake, rattleSNAKE". I asked Sam to check it out. "I think it slithered under than fibre drum!!" They tiptoed over to the drum and Sam
tilted it back..RATTLE, RATTLE!
They came running out the door wide eyed. I observed, "Judy, I know snakes are scary...but Sam,
I didn't think YOU would be afraid of a rattlesnake," Sombre as ever, Sam replied, "I'm not....I
thought it was a mouse."

The Griper said...

a mr. spock reply? lol

The Griper said...

take your time, the post and comments will be here. lol enjoy the pup, but don't spoil it. lol

The Griper said...

"Wealth trickles down at a much slower rate than misery"

that would seem to me to bring about one of two conclusions:
1. it is the result of anticipation or expectations. which then should tell us not to listen to the predictions of experts. lol

2. if misery comes first in regards to the negatives. would that not also declare that the feeling of well being come before the upturn of an economy?

prediction seems to be the common correlation here.
would that also imply that predictions then become a self-fulfilling prophesy?
is it the result of the idea that something repeated enough times will eventually occur and make you look like a prophet?

Lista said...

I think we must have an alpha male. He's as stubborn as they come. Shasta's worse than Casper was. You have to be really strong and persistent to train a Samoyed.

I hope you're wrong about the AIG fallout.

In General,
That's enough for now. I'm too tired to really think right now.

BB-Idaho said...

My 'corollary' is a hypothesis, based mostly on the 1929 experience. As the rail/oil/steel
barons grew rich, the farmers got
to the point where they could get
another cow. They were trickle beneficiaries. 1920-29, the bubble
slowly grew. Bubbles surround vapor, and in the economic sense, the vapor was short-sell, unrealistic margins and ill-conceived bundlings..no cash, no
nothing...vapor. And the appearance of the creation of wealth. The ten year process was undone within a week: the trickledown in that case was that
lost part of their fortune: the farmer lost his farm...thus misery
'trickled down' relatively much faster. (psst..we both know I'm no economist..the trickle theory
may as well apply to the puppy training being conducted by Lista)
:) Not withstanding, the current
market/banking situation has been said to resemble '29 in many respects; hence the gov't response, rightly or wrongly.
Will of course let you know if I
need sell the cow this coming week.

The Griper said...

ahhh ok, i see your point now, BB.

the trickle down effect is faster in bad times than in good. the effect of actual misery based on conditions.

good question. but one thing. we are not a nation as we were in the time of depression. that was a time of rural living whereas we live in an urban state now.

we also have so-called safety nets in our economy that wasn't in place at the time. they had to be created back then. will that have an counter effect? in fact, isn't that what all these socialistic programs were created for?

question. if we are talking of a misery effect then i'd have to ask what is the misery number in europe as opposed to here. i ask this in light of the fact that it appears that regardless of our economy it is pretty nearly always worse there?

and if they aren't selling the cow, i'd say we don't sell ours prematurely. may be it might be time to hope the ol' bull got a little frisky too and primed his pump.

and that is coming from someone who probably has less experience in business than you.

given these times as they are, it would seem as these days might be a good time to really evaluate the two systems and see how they help weather us through.

BB-Idaho said...

While not in disagreement, we need separate WallStreet from MainStreet: Production & consumption are basic..producing wealth from moving paper is so esoteric as to be beyond my ken. :)

The Griper said...

i thought the movement of that paper on wall street was representative of change of ownership, so how do you separate the two?

is there another way other then to reverse the laws of incorporation?

i will admit tho i don't care too much about those laws. they act as a buffer of financial liability to the persons guilty of using the business for wrong doing.

Gayle said...

I almost missed this post! I sort of wish I had of... I'm confused! But it's very early and I'm leaving for church shortly.

Lista makes a good point about not really owning anything. Like the land our farm is on. We don't own it... we're just borrowing it for awhile. :)

Have a great Sunday, Griper - and I'm not really confused. I do know the difference between socialism and capitalism.

Lista said...

We are stewards of God's money and property. We think that we have the right to do with our money and possessions what ever we want to, but we really don't. In the end, God will hold us all accountable for what we did with what ever He has given us.

The Griper said...

all truths are absolute as long as you remember that there are exceptions to that truth. and exceptions do not make the truth any less truthful. they only reveal the imperfections of truths.

and in this case, we can say we can do whatever we want with our possessions with the exception of using them in a sinful manner.

that is the difference between those of us who think in absolute terms versus those who think in relative terms. those who think in relative terms are, in reality, thinking in absolute terms but do not allow for exceptions.

declaring truth as a relative term is a oxymoron. for it contradicts itself.

Gayle said...

LOL! Now I'm confused! ;)

The Griper said...

he just laughs at gayle's words. that's alright, my sweet friend. life is confusing so why should we humans be a contradiction to that? lol


Words of Wisdom of my visitors

Grab This Widget

Gas Buddy

Search for gas prices by US Zip Code


Design by Amanda @ Blogger Buster