Fuel Economy, Hypermiling, EcoModding News and Forum - EcoModder.com - View Single Post

theunchosen · 05-31-2009, 01:38 AM

The Free market is evolution in action. Its not physical evolution its economic evolution.

And don't show up at my doorstep armed thats a horrible mistake lol. I live in TN where its very easy to get a form for.

The most effective company is the company that eventually will win out if there are no outside influences. Obviously its true. If your business model is terrible and your competitor is better than you eventually they will run you out of business. Thats the definition of natural selection applied on a business.

The rule of commons is irrelevant to free market. If everyone uses a supply of something and it goes away, well the business for saving you the effort of getting the fish goes away. All of a sudden the business of making bread and cattle booms and people rush into it because of huge profit margins and eventually only the most efficient farms survive after the initial price hike. Then that industry has a much more efficient production than it could have had without that "cleansing" of the market of less effective producers.

I'm assuming you want to apply the law of commons to pollution and health issues or things that are intangible? Thats fine. When pollution gets bad enough someone out there will find a way to fix it and sell it for a fortune, until someone else comes in and undercuts him and back and forth and until walmart shows up again and sells whatever it takes to live life either with pollution or get rid of it.

Like I said if people want something bad enough they will pay for it and there will be someone there to sell it to them, and likely someone else to sell it to them for slightly less. Thats how free market works. If there is a market people will do it. If there is no money in it. . .well people obviously don't believe it if they won't put money behind it.

And no I didn't say wealth came from inheritance. My parents are upper-middles and haven't paid for anything since I was 15 other than insurance thats carried through their work regardless. I'm not one of the pampered helicopter kids emerging. Like I have already said I ate rice only for a long time to pay my bills(no cable, no internet, heat set to 55 and windows blocked up).

Chosing profit over someone's life is a problem. The contrapositive is an equally large problem. Ignoring cost for one persons life. I hate to be cold and heartless but at a certain point the money spent to save one person is much better spent somewhere else.

Insurance companies are out to make a profit, but they provide a neccessary service. Deciding when to cut funding. Whats the difference between insurance cutting funding and the government saying we aren't going to spend anymore? I would think the difference is more painful. One is arguing something that is obvious, their objective is to make money not save people, while the other has to make an argument that is much more painful. The government has the ability to levy taxes and create capital should it need to save someone, but if we are honest how much do we want to pay for .001% of the populace who require enormously expensive healthcare to survive? Do we really want to donate our entire standard of living to provide the billions needed to save several thousand patients so they can live a few more months?

I know I am being cold and heartless, but expecting a whole nation to give up everything in order to save a few thousand for a few months. . . Its asking quite alot. Its asking the entire nation to forego medical treatments to save money because their conditions are not urgent enough and these others are going to die in the next few months.

Thats what insurance does. Insurance decides when the cut off mark is that its no longer useful for their clients as a whole to support medical funding for a very few. When I get old and start requiring substantial medical treatment yearly I'm sure I'll want it, but if you give me the option of forcing the insurance to deny expensive claims for younger people who have alot more time before it becomes a problem and alot more time overall to lose I'll chose them.

And yes Jacob I would still swap out with Bill Gates. I've been overseas to alot of countries and very few of them have the tech available everyday on every corner in every house that we do. If he even assisted in it .01% thats a worthy exchange. And yes I am very familiar with what he did. Nature favors the clever predator not the dim-witted ones that can't imagine a future. I've also read Tim Berners-lee's book and I am familiar with what he has done. Of the two I think Gates even if all he had was the foresight to know what to buy and what to push is more important.

It all comes back to survival of the fittest business. Gates saw the future, saw that anyone could make hardware but the ability to control what could run on the hardware as more important. Do you want to hammer the scientists who just accidently discovered inventions because all they did was screw up another experiment? Painters don't mix and create the paint they use and I would gamble most of them have absolutely no clue whats in it(I use them because I argue with a fellow that paints that comes in all the time). Do we need to slight them because they just know how to work the brush and have no clue that the bonding agents in the paint lightly bond to each other while forming a very planar structure with each other that gives them the glossy finish whereas compounds that have a more jagged alignment look matte? No we employ them for their ability to do their job.

Obviously as an imaginative business men there are few in league with Gates. Should we slight US Steel because they had the foresight to realize competing in the steel business was too difficult to subdue so they chased down the ore industry and ran their competitors suppliers out of business and then directly ran their competitors out of business? They managed to create a steel industry that lasted much longer in the US because of their vertical monopoly than the conglomeration of small weak steel manufacturers would have in the face of the orient.

No we don't slight them. Alot of the rest of the world does, but we don't. We understand that providing goods to your customer at the lowest possible price creates the largest possible market which in turn allows you to reinvest and grow the business and pay your workers(in a foreign country) more than you could have without free market systems.

05-31-2009, 01:38 AM	#76 (permalink)
theunchosen Master EcoModder Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Cookeville, TN Posts: 850 Thanks: 1 Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts	The Free market is evolution in action. Its not physical evolution its economic evolution. And don't show up at my doorstep armed thats a horrible mistake lol. I live in TN where its very easy to get a form for. The most effective company is the company that eventually will win out if there are no outside influences. Obviously its true. If your business model is terrible and your competitor is better than you eventually they will run you out of business. Thats the definition of natural selection applied on a business. The rule of commons is irrelevant to free market. If everyone uses a supply of something and it goes away, well the business for saving you the effort of getting the fish goes away. All of a sudden the business of making bread and cattle booms and people rush into it because of huge profit margins and eventually only the most efficient farms survive after the initial price hike. Then that industry has a much more efficient production than it could have had without that "cleansing" of the market of less effective producers. I'm assuming you want to apply the law of commons to pollution and health issues or things that are intangible? Thats fine. When pollution gets bad enough someone out there will find a way to fix it and sell it for a fortune, until someone else comes in and undercuts him and back and forth and until walmart shows up again and sells whatever it takes to live life either with pollution or get rid of it. Like I said if people want something bad enough they will pay for it and there will be someone there to sell it to them, and likely someone else to sell it to them for slightly less. Thats how free market works. If there is a market people will do it. If there is no money in it. . .well people obviously don't believe it if they won't put money behind it. And no I didn't say wealth came from inheritance. My parents are upper-middles and haven't paid for anything since I was 15 other than insurance thats carried through their work regardless. I'm not one of the pampered helicopter kids emerging. Like I have already said I ate rice only for a long time to pay my bills(no cable, no internet, heat set to 55 and windows blocked up). Chosing profit over someone's life is a problem. The contrapositive is an equally large problem. Ignoring cost for one persons life. I hate to be cold and heartless but at a certain point the money spent to save one person is much better spent somewhere else. Insurance companies are out to make a profit, but they provide a neccessary service. Deciding when to cut funding. Whats the difference between insurance cutting funding and the government saying we aren't going to spend anymore? I would think the difference is more painful. One is arguing something that is obvious, their objective is to make money not save people, while the other has to make an argument that is much more painful. The government has the ability to levy taxes and create capital should it need to save someone, but if we are honest how much do we want to pay for .001% of the populace who require enormously expensive healthcare to survive? Do we really want to donate our entire standard of living to provide the billions needed to save several thousand patients so they can live a few more months? I know I am being cold and heartless, but expecting a whole nation to give up everything in order to save a few thousand for a few months. . . Its asking quite alot. Its asking the entire nation to forego medical treatments to save money because their conditions are not urgent enough and these others are going to die in the next few months. Thats what insurance does. Insurance decides when the cut off mark is that its no longer useful for their clients as a whole to support medical funding for a very few. When I get old and start requiring substantial medical treatment yearly I'm sure I'll want it, but if you give me the option of forcing the insurance to deny expensive claims for younger people who have alot more time before it becomes a problem and alot more time overall to lose I'll chose them. And yes Jacob I would still swap out with Bill Gates. I've been overseas to alot of countries and very few of them have the tech available everyday on every corner in every house that we do. If he even assisted in it .01% thats a worthy exchange. And yes I am very familiar with what he did. Nature favors the clever predator not the dim-witted ones that can't imagine a future. I've also read Tim Berners-lee's book and I am familiar with what he has done. Of the two I think Gates even if all he had was the foresight to know what to buy and what to push is more important. It all comes back to survival of the fittest business. Gates saw the future, saw that anyone could make hardware but the ability to control what could run on the hardware as more important. Do you want to hammer the scientists who just accidently discovered inventions because all they did was screw up another experiment? Painters don't mix and create the paint they use and I would gamble most of them have absolutely no clue whats in it(I use them because I argue with a fellow that paints that comes in all the time). Do we need to slight them because they just know how to work the brush and have no clue that the bonding agents in the paint lightly bond to each other while forming a very planar structure with each other that gives them the glossy finish whereas compounds that have a more jagged alignment look matte? No we employ them for their ability to do their job. Obviously as an imaginative business men there are few in league with Gates. Should we slight US Steel because they had the foresight to realize competing in the steel business was too difficult to subdue so they chased down the ore industry and ran their competitors suppliers out of business and then directly ran their competitors out of business? They managed to create a steel industry that lasted much longer in the US because of their vertical monopoly than the conglomeration of small weak steel manufacturers would have in the face of the orient. No we don't slight them. Alot of the rest of the world does, but we don't. We understand that providing goods to your customer at the lowest possible price creates the largest possible market which in turn allows you to reinvest and grow the business and pay your workers(in a foreign country) more than you could have without free market systems.