Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (29005)	1/5/2007 10:14:54 PM
From: loantech	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78421

Great post koan. You amaze me.

To: koan who wrote (29005)	1/5/2007 10:41:45 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78421

Nobody has to work in a sweatshop. They can start their own. They are called small businesses. But you are back to square one. You are now working for the worst, most tyrannical, stupidest, most unreasonable, lowest paying bastard you have ever worked for and you will never, never get along with him/her and they will never, never admit you are right, or give you an even break. You have to work 24 hours a day under a constant camera eye and the boss either starves you, or overfeeds you, never gives you praise and withholds benefits in order to buy himself booze. He will even use physical punishment on you and sneer at your suffering. He has been known to force feed drugs on you to keep you working, will listen to your complaints but NEVER give in to them, and vacations? you might as well be talking to a thick, brick wall. Work nights -- all night? No extra pay. Stat holidays? Work harder. Labour board? They will never hear about work conditions. They ran the Gulag with more humanity. That person you will work for is yourself. I'll take sweatshops for 500, Alex. EC<:-}

To: koan who wrote (29005)	1/5/2007 10:43:53 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78421

People with IQ's below 86 have a difficult time with abstract concepts and making it in life in general. You are saying that as if you had personal experience.

To: koan who wrote (29005)	1/5/2007 10:47:05 PM
From: John McCarthy	Respond to of 78421

Ah_Hum .... I'm indisposed right now I will address this tomorrow .... p.s. bring your best game plan ... already got e.c. in on this ... even dummies can be devious ..... regards, John McCarthy

To: koan who wrote (29005)	1/5/2007 11:14:07 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78421

In serious fact what you allege is not true. The stupidest people I have ever known always did well in life. I followed the careers of many people I knew from high school on. The slowest students, often the ones who dropped out in grade eight, the genuinely dumb went on to have successful careers. In three cases people I know who were widely acknowledged as dumb, even by themselves eventually became leaders in business. Three people I knew who had to be explained everything three times, and had trouble reading, and doing basic maths became managers of department stores. (The boy who helped out the milkman on our block, never went to high school as he had to quit in grade four at the age of 15. He became a very successful manager of a large department store in a major city.) Others I know who could never get problems in school and did little reading became lawyers, accountants, doctors, etc.. Those who dropped out in grade ten went on to become managers, policement, city councillors etc.. Responsible positions. A few better students but by no means the best became professors and teachers. Those people were generally useless at doing anything practical and that was the only good paying position they could possibly handle. Can't do a damn thing? Teach others what you cannot do yourself. In fact 95% of the people in the world today work steadily at good jobs, or as good jobs as we have to give them. In fact IQ is the poorest possible predictor of success in the world. The bottom 30th percentile of intelligence achieves the top 30% of wage earning, and bonus positions in society. The highest average IQ jobs are taxi drivers and grad psyche students, both of whom you have to acknowledge do absolutely nothing for society. Go to your next high school reunion. Seek out the dummies, and the super smart. Gauge what they are doing and how much they are making. I will take bets with you that the truly dumb guys and gals are sparkling with social success and make the most money and the geniuses are all going from job to job and generally making nothing. Bookshop clerks, part time labourers, working in electronic stores stocking parts, pumping gas, taxi driving, menial jobs. And the richest? Inherited money? The happiest married? Could not get past question 2 on the math test. I know about 20 people I realize have giant brains. Far larger than my own, I blush to admit. I happen in about 15 cases to know their actual IQ's due to a glitch in the reporting in the school system. I saw their scores. They started at 140 and went up. Most you would never suspect. Only 15% of them were intellectuals. The rest were kinda simple folk who had never been exposed to the academic world. They all got fair marks from 68% say to 85%. One got routine 90%'s. It was on record she studied a maniacal ten minutes a night. A real underachiever. After 30 years I can safely state that the entire income and achievment record of the group in question would not surpass that of a crippled hamster. Except for one nagging fact. They did change the direction of the world more than any other historical groups I have read about. But alas! They never got paid. That confirms my assertion. Looking at the group who struggled mightily to get grade ten, half of whom inherited the family business and if I left them my homework in school, I would be embarassed to read it.. or hand it in, for fear of dropping back 3 full grades ... these 'retards' total income and net worth would be sufficient to buy a late model battleship. Smart don't mean shit. It is what fits into the other dumb animals social schemes that gets ahead. One of the reasons why high analytical skills does not give significant advantage is that the heuristic of the success path is so complex that it will often not yield to a systematic. An instinctive approach that does not try to solve anything often works better in the short run. Short run success builds up more capital and credit and that leverages more future success more assuredly. Less sure looking paths that are better figured out don't sell, so more often end up with no capital. The average person cannot figure out complex but smart pathways. And the average person will not interfere with people who don't appear threatening, giving the seeming slow more latitude for competition. Usually competition only becames a factor when it is too late to interfere with, but a brainy guy always seems dangerous, so the competitor finishes him off first. He is passed by the tortoise with the less obvious success plan. Smart is dumb and dumb is smart. EC<:-}

To: koan who wrote (29005)	1/6/2007 6:27:05 AM
From: Herb Duncan	Respond to of 78421

Points well made, capitalism carried to the extreme would result in a return to economic slavery where the possession of a higher IQ would be of limited value. Poverty and disadvantage has resulted in the waste of many brilliant minds.

To: koan who wrote (29005)	1/7/2007 7:16:56 PM
From: John McCarthy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78421

Capitalism One definition ... Wikipedia - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Capitalism generally refers to an economic system in which the means of production are mostly privately or corporately owned and operated for profit and in which distribution, production and pricing of goods and services are determined in a largely free market. It is usually considered to involve the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" or corporations to trade capital goods, labor and money (see finance and credit). The term also refers to several theories that developed in the context of the Industrial Revolution and the Cold War meant to explain, justify, or critique the private ownership of capital; to explain the operation of capitalistic markets; and to guide the application or elimination of government regulation of property and markets. (See economics, political economy, laissez-faire.)[1] Capitalist economic practices became institutionalized in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries, although some features of capitalist organization existed in the ancient world.[2] Capitalism has emerged as the Western world's dominant economic system since the decline of feudalism, which eroded traditional political and religious restraints on capitalist exchange. Since the Industrial Revolution, capitalism gradually spread from Europe, particularly from Britain, across political and cultural frontiers. In the 19th and 20th centuries, capitalism provided the main, but not exclusive, means of industrialization throughout much of the world.[3] The concept of capitalism has limited analytic value, given the great variety of historical cases over which it is applied, varying in time, geography, politics and culture. Some economists have specified a variety of different types of capitalism, depending on specifics of concentration of economic power and wealth, and methods of capital accumulation (Scott 2005). During the last century capitalism has been contrasted with centrally planned economies. Most developed countries are usually regarded as capitalist, but some are also often called mixed economies[4] due to government ownership and regulation of production, trade, commerce, taxation, money-supply, and physical infrastructure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I view it like this ..... Capitalism ... Producers produce to the point where marginal cost and marginal revenue intercept. Thats it. The preceding implies producers live in a world where there is a total revenue function describing their revenue and a total cost function describing their costs. I hate math because I'm stupid - but once underderstood the word margin simply means first derivative of some function. So marginal cost and marginal revenue curves are simply first derivatives of the total cost and total revenue function curves of the producer. Whats not seen from above is that capitalism will do everything it can to: (this becomes important later) (a) Drive down costs or change (lower) its total cost function thereby lower its marginal cost curve (b) And on the flip side do everything in its power to drive (up) revenues per widget thereby affecting its total revenue function i.e. maximize its marginal revenue curve In summary - move the point where they both intercept to the max optimal place ... Sidebar: Capitalism (in its purest form) exists today and is called Walmart. More succinctly Walmart really should be called ChinaMart - though this is changing to AsiaMart. We have lived the history so lets get the facts right. China was out in the cold. Once we allowed China in the game ... What happened was: Walmart looked at China's total cost function and said man - am I loving this i.e. their marginal cost curve. and all this mumbo-jumbo sounds better than SWEAT SHOPS. Walmart dragged China to America. Its not that they didn't want to go. Its simply that if you've been in a coffin for 50 years and someone finally lets you out ... your legs are a little wobbly and you need help walking. Walmart grabbed them by the throat and said follow me. That trillion dollars in China's coffers mostly is due to Walmart's helping hand with the subsequent effects of the resultant multipler effects withing China's GDP. Years ago a TV show tried to tease out of Walmart how much they were importing from China. I recall the number 33 billion. This was years ago. End sidebar. Ever widget ever produced needs 3 components. The Yada, Yada, and Yada. I forget the first two but lets focus on the 3rd Yada called labor because you mentioned it in your post. Unionism - the thing - is not about economics. Unionism is a legal thing. Either the 3rd Yada is allowed to bargin collectively with the other Yada (Capital) or its not. Once it is - it changes the total cost function and hence the marginal cost curve and hence the POINT where marginal revenues cross marginal cost. If you take the above and read this ..... Galbraith wrote: "In making economics a non-political subject, neoclassical theory destroys the relation of economics to the real world. In that world, power is decisive in what happens. And the problems of that world are increasing both in number and in the depth of their social affliction. In consequence, neoclassical and neo-Keynesian economics regulates its players to the social sidelines. They either call no plays or use the wrong ones. To change the metaphor, they manipulate levers to which no machinery is attached." johnkennethgalbraith.com Well - I am guilty. Moreover, that LINK if full of goodies by which you can crucify me with. John Kenneth Galbraith - JKG - Although unionism maybe dear to your heart - at the heart of it - JKB was a total revenue kinda guy. Its NOT that he wanted to impact the total revenue function. He wanted to call the shots on WHICH WIDGETS would be produced. Many years ago hula-hoops were hot. Millions were sold. Or - discreancy after tax income voted for hula-hoops. The nub of the problem boiled down to this - whats a better use of discretionary income - (a) Hula Hoops (b) Incremental funding for education or whatever hot cause is going on at the moment. To repeat - to make a widget or anything else takes 3 Yada's. If you decide that your widget is incremental funding for higher education - then you need the Yada called Capital to jump start it. At the end of the day the only way to get Capital is taxation. Specifically - take the hoola-hoop money out of my pocket and give it to JKG. Based on my (a) and (b) choices I think you'd be real comfortable with (b). But how about this choice? (a) Hula Hoops (b) F22 Stealth Fighter .... Do Hula Hoops look better? or this choice (a) Incremental funding for education or whatever hot cause was going on at the moment. (b) F22 Stealth Fighter .... No brainer? LOL What did we just FORGET thats true in all these scenarios? We forgot about the Total Cost function. More importantly its marginal cost curve. Lets say our choice is education in all 3 scenarios above. What is the Total Cost function? TC = Budgeted Amount What is the marginal cost curve? MC = Budgeted Amount = TC Yikes - the same thing. Going forward to achieve 100 utils of educational thingies what is the cost? Its an easy answer. If the budgeted amount is 1 million then cost will be 1 million. If the budgeted amount is 2 million then cost will be 2 million. And so on ..... More importantly, irrespective of the total budget spent to achive the 100 utils of education - do the 100 utils have to be produced? No. There is NO FEEDBACK in this kind of system. And if their not produced what happens? The Total Cost Curve is attacked as being to low. And I can just see you leading the charge on this ... LOL i.e. We up the subsequent budget to 3 million and so on. Why do we do this? Because some "CONTROLLING HAND" as opposed to "INVISIBLE HAND" has decreed that education is better than hoola hoops. And if the UTILS ain't produced we change the cost function. Maybe F22's are better than education? - - maybe its better to produce an F22? If for no other reason something comes out the other end. Lets look at the F22 by looking at the F16. Years ago an F16 cost $25 million. Today about $50 million give or take. Whats the cost of 1 brand spanking new F22? A fair number would be $440 million for 1 airplane. Lets say that slowly ... Four hundred and forty million for 1 airplane .... In 2006 we just bought 24 or 26 - its on the Web and I don't have the link. Yawzer ... $440 million a pop. Well, the F22 has stealth technology so maybe that accounts for the $440 million. And it can launch vertically. Is it worth it? It might be. I don't think so. I think whats changed is the economics. We're past the post war consolidation phase. The old oligopolies don't exist. Said another way - there is -0- PRESSURE on the marginal cost curve. Sidebar: A bunch of liberals did a wonderful piece on the rise in executive salaries at defense contractor companies as' the industry consolidated. The numbers are mind-numbing. They are outrageous. And these labor costs are probably horrendous accross the board. Whats my point - Whether its education or F22's TC=budgeted amount. Getting back to JKG - I really didn't leave him - JKG wanted to play with policy. And if neoclassic economics couldn't spit out the right condition - then he wanted intervention. This opens up the door to lots of mischief. By any standard today - the budget mayhem that Clinton polices might have engendered are miniscule to the budget mayhem of the last 8 years. Some important points about this to note: (1) Forget Bush - this is an alleged conservative republican congress that signed off on this. (2) The VP of the country has a mantra in his head the deficits don't matter. (3) These 8 years have 3 high points: * Katrina - about $300 billion * Homeland Security - I don't know do you * Iraq - lets call it a trillion a year Katrina is what - a 30 year mis-que? Kennedy got 15 billion for a bridge and a tunnel but the South couldn't finesse a lesser amount for a dike? Which lead to a $300 billion and counting fiasco. In closing JKG got his wish. MC=TC=Budgeted Amount The ONLY argument today is what to spend the money on. A Prologue put at the end: When I posted you I was after something. I miss - miss very much the banter between you and E.C. I am way to old to give a shit about all of the above junk related to economics. In my opinion SI made a mistake in insisting that posts be on topic. Its the off topic stuff that keeps the mind sharp. I want the off topic in the place where I eat .... and this is where I eat. If you missed it - in about 1 nano-second E.C. came back with a beauty ... they can build their own sweat shops .... he makes wit look easy ... Anyway - like the song says - thats the good stuff and there just ain't enough of it anymore. It was a dumb move on my part to try and instigate ... and I see that now. regards, John