Unpopular Demand - Latest Comments in On #wemedia

Re: On #wemedia

alvaaclay1980 — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 20:25:51 -0000

In a way, I agree that a radical change is required now more than ever. But that change does not necessarily include a mocospace.com fundamental new model for running a business or maintaining balance sheets. Instead, it demands that a business finally be as unhindered as possible to innovate, to grow and to help people in this incredible exchange of goods and services known as capitalism.

Re: On #wemedia

Jordan Fulghum — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:29:12 -0000

Not sure why you are apologizing. America is simply a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

Re: On #wemedia

Ed — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:25:50 -0000

I'm sorry you're unhappy with our country's implementation of democracy. I hope you're not so disillusioned as to not vote to elect someone who shares your point of view.

I have another point of view and I plan to vote accordingly in this flawed democracy of ours.

I understand your point. You see harms in my preferred economic system, I see harms in yours. We're just going to disagree on that.

This blog looks like fun. I hope you don't mind too much if I disagree with on you on pretty much everything.

Re: On #wemedia

Jordan Fulghum — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:12:25 -0000

Sorry, Ed, but we are not a democratic country and WE never decided to sacrifice our Constitution.

Again, look at the long tail. If we don't allow a steel plant to go under, that creates a moral hazard for that industry. Then, they may raise prices, or create a harmful product, or not be as efficient. This hurts everyone.

When we tax and regulate success, this sends another message and lessens the incentive for providing a great product or service.

Re: On #wemedia

Ed — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 04:08:03 -0000

In a true market economy, we should expect ups and downs, sometimes drastic ones. But as a society, we need to ask ourselves whether we're willing to tolerate extreme downs for the sake of extreme ups. As a democratic country, we decided long ago that we're willing to sacrifice some of the upside if it means less of a downside. This has inspired endless controversy from people of your perspective who see deflation of the upside (by "big government" intervention) as immoral and magnification of the downside as natural and correct (because they "deserve it"). People are hurt in both cases. I just happen to think that the country suffers more when the steel plant shuts down than when the successful businessman is taxed and regulated.

Re: On #wemedia

Jordan Fulghum — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:39:31 -0000

Thanks Nick. I appreciate your comment, but I have to disagree with some of your reasoning.

The market in this country has not been allowed to work for decades. If it had, our current crisis would likely not have occurred, at least not on this scale. Saying an economic crash is caused by greed is like saying an airplane crash is caused by gravity.

In this particular case, it was the boom and bust forces of the Federal Reserve's cheap credit and low interest rates combined with stupid people and the moral hazard of government-backed banks.

A point that is more relevant is that foreign aid and charity to third world countries is often abused, too.

Re: On #wemedia

Nick Dominguez — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:25:10 -0000

Let me first state that I'm not anti-capitalism, I think the system works and this has been proven, but the problem lies in the execution. There is a reason why our economy is currently in a meltdown and that is because of greed. Capitalism's biggest weakness has always been that in most cases profit trumps people, the case of Bechtel's water wars in Bolivia is a great example.

Re: On #wemedia

calebelston — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:09:58 -0000

Fantastic analysis Jordan. It is so true that many people focus on charity as the main way to make people's lives better, however businesses do make peoples lives better in the long run, and many do in the short run too. There will always be some companies that do not serve all consituenties equally, however consumers can vote with their dollars.

Bill Gates is doing something amazing in the non-profit world by running his foundation and projects as if they were businesses, thinking about sustainability and solving problems in an extremely rigorous way. This systems thinking is what will lead to such drastic change.

Imagine an organizations goal was to provide clean drinking water to 1 billion people. Some might say, 'lets raise money to pay for the water and get it to these people' The problem with this scenario is it is not sustainable, you run out of money, or lose interest in helping and these people no longer have clean drinking water. However, if you instead work to lower the cost of providing clean drinking water, then a for profit business would provide such a service because it would be profitable to do so, ensuring competition and a sustainable way to access this water.