[FoRK] Making robotics a priority

Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca
Wed Jul 13 08:47:52 PDT 2011


Hi Greg,

This isn't about basic economics. This is about your opinion of a specific aspect: that there is a direct linkage between the profitability of a company's investors and the competitiveness of that company. I understand basic economics. I don't understand your opinion. 

At this point I won't say I disagree with you. I simply don't see that direct linkage. I would like to understand how/where/why you see it.

I don't buy sdw's explanation. He accuses me of making assumptions but his explanation requires even more, and less believable. E.g. that because a company produces more profit for its investors they will be more willing to invest it back in that company's future ventures.  I understand the theory but it takes a giant leap of faith to assume it actually works that way in the general case.

In this day of the major investors in the market being speculators and funds -- all seeking simply to maximize their short-term returns -- that may be his largest and most fragile assumption. 

Re-investment of profit requires long-term thinking. The main players in today's market aren't long-term thinkers. And, as board members, they ensure that the managers of the companies are equally short-term-return focused through hiring practices and reward systems. That is, the short-term thinking is endemic and systemic.

It is possible that a side-effect of actions taken to juice the quarterly numbers will occasionally produce an increase in competitiveness. That's rarely the goal. So is it really sustainable?

           ...ken...


--- On Tue, 7/12/11, Gregory Alan Bolcer <greg at bolcer.org> wrote:

> From: Gregory Alan Bolcer <greg at bolcer.org>
> Subject: Re: [FoRK] Making robotics a priority
> To: fork at xent.com
> Received: Tuesday, July 12, 2011, 11:22 PM
> Hi Ken,
> 
> Nope, but I can point out some good links on economics for
> you. [1]
> 
> Greg
> 
> [1] http://google.com/
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/12/2011 7:26 PM, Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo wrote:
> > --- On Mon, 7/11/11, Greg Bolcer<greg at bolcer.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I think they allow companies to
> >> increase competitiveness, so not that it's zero
> sum, but any
> >> short term detriments are far outweighed by the
> long term
> >> profitability of the company which in turn goes
> back to
> >> competitiveness.
> >>
> >
> > I don't get that, either, Greg. How is it that
> "competitiveness", in this context, is a Good Thing?
> Specifically, how is it that making the investors in a
> company richer balances or outweighs having fewer people
> working in the economy?
> >
> > And how is it that making a company more profitable
> ties back to competitiveness? I can see how a competitive
> company might, arguably, be more profitable. I don't see how
> making a company more profitable necessarily makes it more
> competitive.
> >
> > Can you help me with that?
> >
> >           
>    ...ken...
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > FoRK mailing list
> > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
> >
> 
> -- 
> greg at bolcer.org,
> http://bolcer.org, c: +1.714.928.5476
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
> 



More information about the FoRK mailing list