Hale just can’t learn.
His horse remains dead.
Obviously, this horse needs some more beating.
yes, because Hale cannot seem to make it say what he wants it to say. And all those people are agreeing with Og! How dare they! And only obvious morons agree with Hale!
This is Og’s business model. He sees all transactions as voluntary and having fixed roles as employee and employer.
of course this is as usual a massive misunderstanding of the facts. At no point have I ever suggested all transactions were voluntary and at no point did I ever suggest they had fixed roles. if hale would just listen to the words I say, instead of the voices in his head, we might get somewhere.
Thus his model looks like the Bi-nodal diagram. If one sees the world of commercial transactions as only including these, then Og is without a doubt right in everything he has argued thus far.
Let me fix that sentence for you. “Og is without a doubt right in everything he has argued thus far.” There, that’s better. Not quite accurate, though, because it isn’t me, it’s jut the way things are. I am just an observer.
But a simpler model still that boils down all commercial transactions into their simplest form is the Homogeneous model where every actor in the transaction is both boss and server in every transaction. Juan the yard man is selling his labor, but he is also BUYing money from Smith who needs yard services. Thus, there is no distinction in the vast Libertopia of voluntary transactions.
ORLY? A model that includes more things is simpler. Riiiight. What color is the sky there in bizarro world?
But even Og will admit (if you force him) that there are Non-voluntary transactions.
I don’t have to admit a fact, it is merely a fact. Your mischaracterization of me “dmitting” something is typical of the liberal mindset. I wish you would grow up. I have explained over and over again, though you have not yet listened: Voluntary transactions are commerce. Involuntary transactions are theft. You may see it some other way, but of course, you’re wrong.
He himself will tell you that he has participated in a few.
Every time I get paid, I participate in an involuntary transaction, wherin the local, state and federal government take money from me without my specific consent.
Thus, the more useful model of the heterogeneous multi-node where not every actor is either employer or employee.
here, let me fix that for you. “Thus, the more comforting model of lies I tell myself so I don’t have to ever be concerned about being accountable for my actions to the people whose money is stolen from them to pay me” that’s much better.
There are also thieves, politicians, mendicants, charities, gifts, hobbies, and labors of love. We can even expand our model to show wastage due to decay (resource sinks).
No, we cannot, because it is no more pertinent to the discussion than the temperature of Alpha Centauri. But if you have to have the why of that explained to you you are beyond reach.
The whole point of using any model is to assist you in examining the important behaviors of the process so that you can learn important elements of the process and gain insight.
No, the whole point of making models such as you have made is to pretend that the facts are false so you can adhere to the more comforting lies.
The simpler your model is, the easier it will be to gain those insights.
On this we agree. So the simplest model- you know, that Ockham’s Razor that you must hate, hate hate because it demands that you do it my way- is the best one. My model. Which is the only one that doesn’t needlessly multiply entities.
All of the above models are true and correct models for describing commercial transfers and relationships.
is this something you have on a motivational poster? because that guy is a moron.
It is perfectly reasonable for any intelligent person to select the one that works best to model the processes that are of most interest and contains the least amount of fluff.
No, it is human nature for people to select the ‘Model” that makes them feel good. Especially if it explains away facts they are uncomfortable with.
Og’s previous problem, the the point of our disagreement is his insistence on using the first model, and also insisting on forcing non-voluntary transactions into it.
That’s barely even English. I have no problem. I have facts. You are uncomfortable with those facts, so you choose to disagree. It doesn’t make you correct, because you are only entitled to your opinions, not your own facts.
Maybe Hale is comfortable paying the Danegeld. I dunno. I know I’m not.
Been trying to puzzle this through for what seems like days, now. (Well, it’s been more than one day, so seems like it must be. Days that is.) I’m not sure I’m following the logic of the arguments, but maybe I’m being too literal-minded.
Seems to me like you’re stating a moral case — the customer is the boss because markets exist for the benefit of the customer, and anyone selling in the market works for the customer. True. But, see… in several examples you and others cite chains of authority and responsibility within a business and say that, everyone BUT the person on the front line is parasitical and the employee, not of the owner(s) of the business, but of the customer.
Am I getting this right? ‘Cause if I’m wrong, OK, but if I’m right, you’re wrong. Not on principle, but because you seem to be trying to over-simplify a complex case — that of the employee of a business who has been hired to provide a service to a customer.
Without regard to intent or belief, the fact of the matter is that a buyer who wanders into JC Penney is doing business with Mr. Penney, and NOT Mrs. Pearlclutcher in the menswear department, even though said customer may never encounter Mr. Penney — or, indeed, anyone BUT Mrs. P. from entrance to exit. And Mrs. P., in her relationship with Mr. Penney, is acting, not as employee so much as seller, in which Mr. Penney is the customer and therefore the boss.
But, in fact, anything that happens within the business premises of Mr. Penney happens within a sort of a black box, in which ALL customers are doing business with Mr. Penney through his hired agents. The customer is Mr. Penney’s boss, while the sales agent is Mr. Penney’s subordinate.
As an agent of the company, the employee is required to behave as though the customer is boss, but — in reality — Mr. Penney is the employee’s boss — utterly without regard to semantic persiflage.
Or… what did I miss? I’d really like to know, because this describes my work environment exactly. If it’s supposed to be different, I’d sure like to know.
M
“Juan the yard man is selling his labor, but he is also BUYing money from Smith who needs yard services.”
This is true. It also makes no difference, and is indeed axiomatic.
If a “buy” is not paired with a “sell”, then it’s not trade, but either a gift or a taking (be it theft or some legitimate form).
Mr. Alger:
I think I might be able to clarify.
Our host was, if I understood him correctly, not describing everyone but the customer-touching employee as parasitical.
In order for the cashier or floor employee to Serve The Customer and make the money, you need the stockers and managers; they’re like the “long tail” of a military organization, that lets the sharp pointy bit with all the guns actually do their job.
As for the “moral” aspect, the term is not ideal, though I also don’t know that I can think of a better one.
As a model for how to think about doing your job, it is excellent, at least – “how is what I’m doing helping make the guy giving us the money happy/glad/satisfied/want to come back?”
Thinking like that prevents a variety of problems in a business, and at very least isn’t going to hurt its chances of getting more customers or more income from the customers.
“Boss” has two meanings, might be the key here: In the meaning of the org chart and who can order you around if he thinks it’s a good idea to do so for the company’s benefit, you’re right; Mr. Penney is the clerk’s boss, and this is undeniable.
In the meaning of “who you should be trying to please to make the company succeed”, it’s the customer, within the limits of the bounds prescribed by the Boss(1).
(Such limits being needful to manage resources and costs for profit; one must please the customer, but not by giving the business away.)
If you’re in a state where the employees care more about the whims of their management than making customers happy, your business is in big, big trouble, from mis-management.
If goals aren’t aligned to face the customer as the important factor, you’ll lose them. And no customers means no business.
Mark: let me explain- no, there is too much. Let me sum up:
Commerce is the relationship an employer has with an employee. it must be voluntary and both parties should benefit, or at the very least not be harmed by it. That is the true relationship between employer and employee. I want something, you provide it in exchange for what you consider an adequate compensation. there may be many layers of people in between employer and employee, but that doesn’t matter. The core relationship is between the person who needs the good or service, and the person who benefits financially by providing the good or service. This means the guy who places the door handle on the drivers door of my Explorer has been,. for a very brief time, employed by me. We have the relationship of employer and employee. yes, there are hundreds if not thousands of layers of bureaucracy between he and I, but the core is as follows: I need the door handle there. He puts it there. there’s also the door handle itself. I need a door handle, some supplier of ford’s makes them. We all engage in that commerce in millions of different ways every day, and nobody pays attention to it. Most people go to Dick McFeely Ford and buy a new Explorer, and feel they have engaged in commerce only once- and as far as the paperwork is concerned, that’s true. The problem that I’m trying to point out, is that the more layers between the employer and the employee, the less the employee cares about the employer. You can’t of course micromanage the building of a car, but the fact remains that all those pieces of the car, even if you don’t even know they’re there, are made for you by a person you have contracted to make them for you. It may be through ten thousand intermediaries, but even without the intermediaries, you still need the door handle on the car.
In manufacturing this is kept mostly under control because the majority of the people in the food chain know that there is a customer/employer that wants to get what he paid for. In civil service, the desire to please the customer/employer does not only not exist for the most part, but it has been replaced by the ‘You’re not the boss of me’ syndrome. Not only that but they have constructed a complex series of arguments to deny that no such relationship exists- that the government employees are entitled to what they receive, and it is our solemn duty as taxpayers to deliver the funds they desire, because look at what we do for you!!
“that the government employees are entitled to what they receive, and it is our solemn duty as taxpayers to deliver the funds they desire, because look at what we do for you!! ”
And there in lies the detail. This is the main reason I tend to always buy at the smaller enterprise.
I can’t get away with that attitude so I fail to see why I should put up with it.
Oh. Somehow I’d missed the part that the government employee was even in this mix.
Yes.
Taxpayer is both the customer and the boss. And, pace Ross Perot, the owner of the country.
Yes, the .gov employee is a parasite — even the ones on the front line “servicing” the “customer”.
That is not intended to be pejorative, although — if the shoe fits. It is merely a description of the relationship. Government does not produce any goods or services a voluntary market find desirable, or the coercion of such would be unnecessary. As such, the taking of money out of the market may be seen as parasitical. Dot-gov partisans may try to cast the relationship as symbiotic, but we know better.
With the possible and rebuttable exception of law enforcement and/or the military, the judgment may otherwise be seen to be applied. Individual cases notwithstanding. IRS Agents not excepted. Your millage may vary. (Pun intended.)
M
Helluva troll you got there Og… :-)
Nah, Hale isn’t a troll, he’s my brotha from anotha motha. He’s just become institutionalized. I really do hope he will de-institutionalize himself before he makes the leap from institutionalization to fossilization.