re-engineering an Economy

Very simple:

Don't purchase a product or service that is over priced.

Wha? Has greed become socially unacceptable or something?

The days of honesty and ethics are long gone. You don't get what you pay for any more, you pay what the market will bear.

No one cares about tomorrow or the future generation that may be affected by our present day greed.

Michael Milkin (Michael Milken - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) is responsible for the current wave of "take all the money and leave the corpse laying in the dirt" mentality of maximizing profit at all costs.

Join a co-op and trade labor.

Keep a free and open marketplace...The only way you can assure fair trade is in a competitive environment...

Yeah that's what they say... but.
In the UK we had Maggie Thatcher and her policy to not support 'lame ducks', fair enough, we lost our heavy industry and engineering.
But when the banks are in trouble... of course they get bailed out.
But don't worry the banking sector will say us all, yeah right.
And of course our current glorious leared (a millionare ex Etonian) assures us that we are all in it together... Yeah right.
Free market my ar$e! The rules are written by those at the top who are busy stuffing their pockets as the pi$$ on the little guy.
T'was ever thus.
Del

Anyhow the Q isn't about the market it's about excess proffit.
When times are hard do the guys at the top reduce the proffit, or their own wages or do they sack a percentage of the workforce knowing full well they can re-hire if things pick up?
Del

I can't remember ever disagreeing with you Del the cat, but I'll be darned if I can figure out what you mean when you say the words"excess proffits."

What the heck are "excess profits?"

I never encountered them while working in the steel industry.

I never heard the term in my MBA classes?

I can assure you that none of the business owners that I work for / with have any idea either.

I know what excess means.

I know what profit means.

I have no idea what the two together mean- There's NO SUCH THING!

Sorry to rub your fur the wrong way kitty.

Milo

Spoken like a true son of Mr. Carniege!

Mr. Carnegie limited his income to 50 thousand a year, paid 90% of that in taxes; he was also one of the most important philanthropists of his era.

The library that served our community was donated by Mr. Carnegie. That gift was repeated many places across the country. I know how important it was to me, can't begin to " dollarize" it's positive impact. Milo

I hear the Carnegie name every day (as a sponsor) as I listen to public radio during my drive time.

He never paid 90% in taxes, that is an urban myth. The top tax rate was 90% a few times in US history, but that was applies to money earned over $300,000.

Mr Carnegiey took the 50K in salary to keep his marginal tax rate low. He took more money in the form of perks THAT WERE NOT TAXABLE back then.

Appreciate the help with the details

I would have used the word "extreme" with "profit". Or just say extreme wealth.

excessive profits?

majority of the businesses in the US is small.

You do hear about large companies lsuch as GE and the like getting government money (bailout?) then make a huge profit the following year and pay no taxes.

I gotta say, some companies (and some would say more than less) treat their employees as replaceable.

It is contemptible, but usually self rewarding.

And I don't give a fig about obscene profit, and I don't give a fig about passing that out as obscene bonuses.

Until you buy enough lawmakers to game the system rather than compete in the market. Until you change enough laws that you are immune from the market. You define the market legislatively.

We threw the Enron boys in jail for that.

I give an example

Independent market-place competition. Pretty self-explanatory really, competition (generally) keeps prices sensible.

Last night on the news in the UK it was showing families in the US (in Denver), on the bread line living in a Motel paid for by charity because the guy had been made redundant and they'd lost their house. They reported that it was becoming a common story...
I expect the bankers will still be trousering their fat bonuses this year though. Don't suppose there will be many politicians without a roof over their heads either.
Is that an image of the USA you expected to be showing the world?
Del

What you see is the result of a spoiled, childish, disfunctional Congress who is more concerned with their own free health care, gym, parking, travel and all the other percs they get, while only "working" 6 months out of the year.

The "Golden Rule" applies here. He who has the gold makes the rules.

Many of them are none too happy that a black man, and a really black woman are in the White House, either. The lack of civility shown to this man and his family is inexcuseable and Americans, of both parties, should be ashamed.

Very well said.

The home construction industry in the USA is at a total standstill because of all the foreclosure homes sitting around empty now.

It will be ten more years before it comes back and it traditionally is 15-18% of the GNP of the USA and one of the few 'industries' that can't be shipped overseas...or can it.

China can probably build modular homes and ship them here cheaper than we could build new homes if we needed them which we don't.

That news report was biased and trumped up. It was made to garner support for tearing down capitalism and replacing it with a dictator and a socialistic society.

Diverse and plentiful competition is undermined by economies of scale. The bigger the corporation, the lower they can get the cost. Small companies cannot compete with their price and are put out of business, so the pool of competition continues to shrink.

The worse the economy gets, the more people are driven to seek out the lower priced item, in other words, their hardship also feeds the same vicious circle. They go back to the big chain stores to get the cheapest thing they can get by on. What else would you do when times are tough?

The Dollar Store has taken a huge amount of market share by offering a variety of items priced up to $2, that are routinely more expensive at the supermarket or department store. True there are some defects, but the quality for many items is indistinguishable. Here is a rapidly growing corporation, using exactly the model suggested by the OP, of taking less profit per item.

Muslims and 25% profit. Surely you jest, ever hear of 100 dollar/bbl oil?

Why should businesses take a hit? Why not a politician? How about a UN UNICEF director giving up the Rolls Royce? Why does a United Way director "earn" 300K a year? Did Oprah take a pay cut? Tiger Woods, Brad Pitt, George Clooney, did BHO give up 300 dollar a pound steak, why not take one less 4 million dollar vacation per year?

Michael Jackson's estate earned 170 million last year. Don't see any pay cuts there. What about college professors or teachers, seems to me their pay went up.

I think that most of the posters on this thread, just like the people I mentioned above, have never met a payroll. Never filled in for a "sick" employee, never missed a holiday, because of the "business" and if they worked a holiday received double or triple time for working said holiday. Bet you never stood in some government line waiting for some arrogant bureaucrat to approve a license, so that you can employ someone. Ever have your checking account "frozen" because some bureaucrat found you might have an error in a 20 year old tax return? In closing, I'll give you my classic, one of my trusted employee's child needed a transfusion, I had the same blood type, while I was donating a pint for child, "trusted employee" was dusting the furniture, cleaning the floors and cleaning out the cash register and freezer on the way out the door. (He "earned" more than I did that year) Until you have done two of the above, go back to your mom's basement in your PJ's and keep quiet.

Merry Christmas and a prosperous, greedy New Year to all you business people.

I've done 4 of the above and I teach college. But then again you did say most. Milo

Muslims and 25% profit. Surely you jest, ever hear of 100 dollar/bbl oil?

I referred only to the way I was told business is done within those communities.

Tiger Woods, Brad Pitt, George Clooney

These are merely front-men for the Advertising, TV and Movie industries, who earn big bucks because they bring in megaprofits to those businesses (talents and abilities are only incidental) if those profit margins were to shrink, so would the earnings of the front-men, period.

"What surprises me most about humanity is man. He sacrifices his health in order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And then he is so anxious about the future that he does not enjoy the present; the result being that he does not live in the present or the future; he lives as if he is never going to die, and then dies never having really lived." - Dalai Lama

Today a "smart" manager can increase profits by cutting employee benefits and tossing people out on the street. All it takes is the stroke of a pen because there is no legal or moral motivation NOT to. In fact, from an immoral person's view, offering benefits and good pay is equivalent to throwing away money - you get nothing in return.

It would help if we would stop trying to legislate religion out of existence. Empathy and social justice are not natural human conditions. They are states of mind that must be taught. If you doubt my belief in this, then put a group of 5 year olds next to a group of 3 year olds for a little while with limited resources and see what happens. Our kids are legally required to go to school to learn how to read and write, but there is no law that requires them to be taught morals, so they're not.

Religion offers people reason to be compassionate and teaches us that we must live as part of a whole rather than focusing soley on our base urges. Turning our backs on religion and looking at everything as numbers on a line graph yields the conclusion that the only thing that matters is that the line must always trend upward; there is no such thing as good enough.

I think there needs to be a distinction between profit and wealth. I think what you are really asking for is a more equitable distribution of wealth. I'll pick the first two definitions of "wealth" from "The Free Dictionary." That would be:

a. An abundance of valuable material possessions or resources; riches.

b. The state of being rich; affluence.

It all hinges on individual perspective. The prevailing perspective of a society or culture, is an aggregate, of individual perspectives. I would qualify this by saying that mass media, which allows us to get an idea of this perspective, can, (or does) skew the reality. TV and radio, especially, have this power. We think we know what WE (as a plurality) think because we see ourselves in these mirrors -- that and polls. But the bottom line is, all actions are individual. An act that seems collective is decided upon by individuals as a group -- maybe smaller or larger.

There is no dearth of philosophical analysis of the idea of greed, wealth and profit. I just did a quick search using "wealth," "profit," "concept," and then each major religion as the last search term. It isn't hard to find an aversion to "wealth" in any of them. And it is clear that the aversion is to wealth on an individual level. The reasons vary from one system to the next. Profit isn't condemned. But wealth becomes an individual question.

Wealth can come by small profits in a mass-production, mass-marketing world. Profit can be small per unit. In most instances, it is first meted out to a business entity, such as a corporation. It then gets apportioned to the humans comprising that entity, according to rules and salary structure within that entity. Who makes the rules, varies from entity to entity. But the distribution within larger business entities, these days, appears inequitable to most citizens who don't enjoy a state of "wealth." There was another thread here on CR4 the other day about bonuses.

Since most of us don't know what our lifespan is going to be, we do try to have a sense of how much money and/or possessions we might need for a projected lifetime. And that is based on our age, our circumstances (family size, "living costs," etc.) and the reality of these that constitutes the definition of poverty. This is how most of us decide how much money and possessions we need. Most of us don't go out of our way to seek poverty. But it still can vary depending on the level of existence we desire.

This makes for a very muddy picture when trying to define wealth. How much money and/or possessions, really is enough? An "abundance" by what absolute measure? And this is why philosophical ideals about wealth seem ineffective or ignored.

Some wealthy people decide (and who knows the specific and innermost reason) to give their wealth away. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet seem to be at the top of the list in popular media. This is relevant to your question about "motive." At what point does a person decide s/he "has enough" to start giving some or most of it away? I think when one's mortality starts setting in, it is more likely to happen. Plus, calculated needs as mentioned. I don't think that it can be isolated from one's religious or philosophical "upbringing." If one has actually "sought" these, beyond an inherited set of rules, it also may hasten the process, because this search is, in a broad sense, the questions of "What is life?" and "Is there a "purpose to it?" Some people also care about their legacy in history. I've always been a bit puzzled by that.

Philosophical ideals tend to fly out the window for several reasons. The most immediate, is competition (or fear of it) for the finite resources available. It's the survival instinct. I think your question is born, out of what appears to many of us, as an increasing number of our population having to struggle for a subsistence level of life. Only people who have chosen a monastic life would be happy in those circumstances.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of books ponder and debate your simple question and the issues connected to it. In Western culture, the famous sayings about "wealth" and "salvation" in Christianity have given rise to much of this debate.

My feeling is, all any one of us can do is adopt a definition of wealth that feels comfortable, juxtaposed to any philosophical ideals we may subscribe to. And that can be stressful, even for the poor. How do we ask anyone in poorer circumstances to be happy with less than we have? (i.e., we are always told when suffering, "It could be worse.") And can we withstand a "sacrifice" to help someone in lesser circumstances? Giving something in charity, however little, is a good idea.

Giving to charity (generosity) is a cruel and selfish act.

Charity inflicts dependency on its recipients for the sake of the benefactor's conscience.

That is the fish vs fishing debate

Or hope in Pandora's box, was hope put there to save us or was it the cruelest evil of all?

We are all too old for sophomore philosophy.

If it bothers you to step over homeless children as you walk in the street, give to charity; if it doesn't then don't

But don't argue you are sacrificing your emotional comfort to make the child better in the long run

Maybe it's a cultural thing?

It's a being at the coal face thing. Blatant karma trading.

"You" being a generic term for all, I meant nothing personal Wal

We are in a transitory movement to a World Economy, the basis of which is basically multiplying the number of potential customers by a factor of ten or more.

Visa will probably buy up Dwolla soon anyway so don't count on that lasting to far into the future...unless...

What it will take is for all of the Olde School capatilists to die off and be replaced by people who Work to Live instead of Living to Work...

If you are looking at someone living on a 10 million dollar estate, a summer residence in the Hamptons; has a stable of exotic cars and a super yacht, yes you could call this the result of excessive profit. Most "company" profit is necessary in order to keep the stock market price showing a positive dividend. Unless the stock shows a gain, investors will switch to other investments.

If you are looking at someone living on a 10 million dollar estate, a summer residence in the Hamptons; has a stable of exotic cars and a super yacht, yes you could call this the result of excessive profit.

sounds like a Kennedy. Not all this profit is derived from business, some of it is derived from politics.

The independent search after truth, unfettered by superstition or tradition; the essential oneness of the entire human race, the pivotal principle and fundamental doctrine of a faith; the basic unity of all religions; the condemnation of all forms of prejudice, whether religious, racial, class or national; the harmony which must exist between religion and science; the equality of men and women, the two wings on which the bird of human kind is able to soar; the introduction of compulsory education; the adoption of a universal auxiliary language; the abolition of the extremes of wealth and poverty; the institution of a world tribunal for the adjudication of disputes between nations; the exaltation of work, performed in the spirit of service, to the rank of worship; the glorification of justice as the ruling principle in human society, and of spiritual principles animating administrations as a bulwark for the protection of all peoples and nations; and the establishment of a permanent and universal peace as the supreme goal of all mankind -- these stand out as the essential elements of a Divine polity which needs to be proclaimed to leaders of public thought as well as to the masses at large.

"...the exaltation of work, performed in the spirit of service, to the rank of worship..."

I've always been an advocate of choosing a field of work that you like, thus making work all the more rewarding, even when it may not be the best paying job available to you.

However, elevating it to the 'rank of worship' would probably be taking it way too far. Would you then be giving up family, friends, sports, hobbies, and other interests that keep the mind and spirit growing to full potential?

In listening to Chinese students speak about their government these days, they say they are willing to give up a few freedoms for a while in order for their country to raise itself to the forefront of modern societies knowing that with education and a full stomach, most people's political thinking will move more towards the realizations of personal freedom and fulfillment of their own ambitions.

"...the exaltation of work, " A high goal is kind of the "carrot before the donkey." Doing the kind of work you excel at is icing on the cake but may ruin the sweetness of a great hobby.

"family, friends, sports, hobbies, and other interests that keep the mind and spirit growing to full potential"

Those are the best "carrot before the donkey." We work so we can enjoy those to the max.

"In listening to Chinese students speak about their government these days, they say they are willing to give up a few freedoms for a while in order for their country to raise itself to the forefront of modern societies knowing that with education and a full stomach, most people's political thinking will move more towards the realizations of personal freedom and fulfillment of their own ambitions."

The Chinese and Indians are striving to get a share of things they have been deprived of.

Education is the key to the success of our endeavors. This is a brilliant century. Eyes are now open to the beauty of the oneness of humanity, of love and of brotherhood. The darkness of suppression will disappear and the light of unity will shine. We cannot bring love and unity to pass merely by talking of it. Knowledge is not enough. Wealth, science, education are good, we know: but we must also work and study to bring to maturity the fruit of knowledge.

Long ago it was noted by a renowned teacher that in England the condition of the destitute in the country villages as well as in London impressed him greatly. In an earnest talk with the Rector of a Parish, he said: "I find England awake; there is spiritual life here. But your poor are so very poor! This should not be. On the one hand you have wealth, and great luxury; on the other hand men and women are living in the extremities of hunger and want. This great contrast of life is one of the blots on the civilization of this enlightened age.

"You must turn attention more earnestly to the betterment of the conditions of the poor. Do not be satisfied until each one with whom you are concerned is to you as a member of your family. Regard each one either as a father, or as a brother, or as a sister, or as a mother, or as a child. If you can attain to this, your difficulties will vanish, you will know what to do. The concept is as old as man….It seems that man has ignored it.

I heartily agree. We need central planning so that no one feels left out. It has worked perfectly everywhere it has been implemented. Pre-war Germany, USSR, East Germany, China, N. Korea, Venezuela. Look to that model of efficiency to our south. whose motto is, "What are the three successes of the Revolution? Education, medicine and employment. And what might be the three failures? Answer "Breakfast Lunch and Dinner". Ever notice how the inhabitants of these "workers paradises" risk life, limb and sacred honor to escape? and the only ones who admire these giants of human suffering are politicians with a (d) after their names and film personalities?

You may be able to "engineer" an economy, but it will fail in the field every time. An engineered economy is just like the Cavaliers we try and repair from time to time, no matter what you do it, or who does, it will never, ever work.

In closing why did you name it an "engineered economy"? Why not call it what it is? Do you really think an engineer can do a better job than say, an economist or the Politboro?