Archives for posts with tag: capitalism
« Older Entries

Not that complicated…

November 30, 2024 //
0

There’re no blinder people
than those who don’t want to see…

Attempting to determine who ‘made that’ is similar to trying to find out which came first.
The chicken or the egg…
As if one was possible without the other…

Yeah, it’s labor which makes each thing.
And it’s capitalism which makes things possible…

Capitalism is a setting. A way of doing business.
Labor is a process. Through which some things – ideas included – are transformed into solutions.

If you want to plant a tree, you have to dig a hole.
If there was no shovel around – no capital available – you’d have to dig the hole using your bare hands. And dig the sapling out from the forest. Still bare handed.
If you happen to live in a capitalist setting – you may borrow a shovel and a sapling, if you didn’t have them already. And start an orchard.

The interest is too high? Capital has become too concentrated/expensive?
It happens from time to time. Usually just before a major crises.

Is there anything that might be done? To mitigate this boo-bust cycle?
Make sure the market remains actually free. That no one becomes too powerful.
Too powerful for our own good.

The Sherman Antitrust Act “makes it illegal to monopolize, conspire to monopolize, or attempt to monopolize a market for products or services“.
The Clayton Act “aims to promote fair competition and prevent unfair business practices that could harm consumers.“

Actually simple… if dully implemented …

And don’t fool yourself.
Socialism is nothing but state-run capitalism. A bunch of con-men take over the government and make all the decisions. Everything of value – all capital – theoretically belongs to the people and all the meaningful shots are called exclusively by the big shots who control the government.
Fascism, the other ‘alternative’ experimented during the XX-th century, is very much similar. Property remains, theoretically, private but the major calls are also called by the big shots who control the government.


Tags , ,
Categories 1989, Bounded rationality, collective identity, evolution, freedom, In English, man as a measure for all things

Choices

November 19, 2024 //
0

A marginal benefit is the additional benefit received by a consumer, producer, or society
due to the consumption or production of an additional unit of a product.

When do you stop cleaning something? How do you determine it is clean enough?

When do you stop cleaning the living room? When there’s no more visible dirt, right?
When do you stop cleaning an operating room? You follow the procedure and you check using the appropriate methods and apparati, right?
When do you stop cleaning the operating room where your child will have their life-saving surgery? I’m afraid the surgeon will have to drive you out of the room. You’ll never declare it clean enough….

My point being that we’re rational only as far as there’s nothing personal involved in the choice we have to make.

And as soon as we’re personally invested in the whole thing, we suddenly start to rationalize.
To find rational arguments which favor the position we’ve already adopted. The decision we’ve already made.

My child deserves the best!

Which is true, of course. For as long as we really know what’s good for them…

What capitalism has to do with any of this?!?

Well, most of the ‘hoarders’ rationalize their habit by ‘blaming it’ on their children.
“I have to take care of their future”.
In their attempt to control the future, the hoarders convince themselves that amassing capital will shield them, and their children, from insecurity.

Which is partially true. If the hoarded capital is sustainable…

“I am 82 years old, I have 4 children, 11 grandchildren, 2 great-grandchildren and a room of 12 square meters.
I no longer have a home or expensive things, but I have someone who will clean my room, prepare food and change my bedding, measure my blood pressure and weigh me.
I no longer have the laughter of my grandchildren, I don’t see them growing, hugging and arguing. Some come to me every 15 days, some every three or four months, and some never.
I don’t bake cakes, I don’t dig up the garden. I still have hobbies and I like to read, but my eyes quickly hurt.
I don’t know how much longer, but I have to get used to this loneliness.”
“Author unknown”

Every time I read something like this over the internet – more and more often – I remember that it was us.
We have raised our children into what they are today.

We have amassed vast amounts of financial capital – fiat money – believing that our children will be grateful.
We had not been there when they were growing up. We had not been there when they were learning things.
And now we are the ones who don’t understand why there are no more bonds between us. Between us and our children. Why our children see the world differently from how we do it…

Is it to late?

Tags , , ,
Categories 1989, awareness, Bounded rationality, In English, man as a measure for all things, Mutual Respect, Psychology, skin in the game, teleology, Trust

Confusion

November 12, 2024 //
0

“So the free market, it appears,
is not about freedom. It’s about power.
Free market thinking is successful,
I argue, because it uses the language of freedom
to cloak the accumulation of power.”
Blair Fix

Free market works for only as long as it remains free!

Which is the problem.

Before meddling with the free-market, we need to agree first about freedom. About what we mean when we think/speak about freedom.

Freedom for all versus freedom for only those who happen to fit a certain set of criteria. To be wealthy, in this case.

Functional freedom – as in the kind of freedom which preserves, which remains sustainable over the long run – versus ‘absolute’ freedom. The kind of freedom which leads to anarchy. Which anarchy, necessarily and very shortly, becomes a rigid hierarchy. Then ends up in shambles…

Free market works for only as long as it remains functionally free. Free enough to do its thing.
To provide enough for enough of those contributing to the collective effort to make ends meet.

To understand what Blair Fix has to say, we need to identify the key words in his speech.
“It appears” and “I argue”.
In fact, he tries to convince us to see ‘the world’ as he sees it. He tries to convince us to be ‘on his side’.

He divides ‘the problem’ and then takes sides… which only contributes to the world/market losing its freedom.

As for what ‘evidence suggests’…
It suggests two things.
That yes, the ‘free market’ has, indeed, become an ideology. There are too many people who consider the market should be left to the mercy of the powerful. Who don’t understand how freedom actually works…
The second thing being an evidence. Not a suggestion.
All other markets but the free one work worse.

Tags , , , ,
Categories 1989 and the Global Financial Crises, altruism, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, effective communication, In English, man induced fragility, skin in the game

Why it matters:

September 16, 2024 //
0

Our children have to make do
with the consequences of what we’ve cooked up.

The happier amongst us live in states run as liberal democracies.
Most countries on this planet define themselves, constitutionally speaking, as being democratic.
And except for a very few, all the others behave in an apparently capitalistic manner. Some under a free(ish) market and the rest under a ‘mixed’ regime.

Since we’re speaking about the ‘current’ socioeconomic arrangement, which is in flux, we still don’t have a name for it.
We do have a name, though, for the previous one. Feudalism.
And for the one before that. Slavery.
Or, to use a modern term, all the previous regimes might be bundled together as ‘authoritarian-isms’. Regimes where authority flows from top to bottom and where feed back comes only in the form of revolution. Coup d’etat. Dynastic change… and other euphemisms.

History suggests, and those wise enough to notice implement this lesson where ever possible, that all authoritarian regimes crumble under their own weight.
While liberal democracies tend to survive for as long as they maintain their liberal nature. Their freedom!

What’s the difference between liberal and ‘illiberal’ democracies?

“It’s not who votes that counts
but who counts the votes”
Josef Stalin

Now, speaking seriously – as Stalin style ‘popular democracies’ have crumbled more than 30 years ago, following all other ’empires’ which no longer exist, there is a difference between liberal, a.k.a. functional, and make-belief democracy.
People maintaining a liberally democratic regime take their job seriously.
They speak up their minds. Hence the problems become known.
They listen what the others have to say. Hence the people are not only aware of problems as they arise but people also have the opportunity to understand the nature of those problems.
They respect each-other. Hence they treat all problems, affecting all the people, in a fair manner. Thus maintaining the natural stability of the social arrangement.

It goes without saying that in a liberal democracy everybody can vote and each vote is counted…

An illiberal democracy, on the other hand, is where things are more complicated.
The most illiberal situation is that where it doesn’t matter whether people vote or not. The results have been counted beforehand. The latest example being Venezuela 2024.
A more ‘subtle’ picture is offered by, for example, Hungary. As a matter of fact, it was Viktor Orban, the Hungarian “dictator“, the one who had coined the very notion of “illiberal democracy“. A revamped Constitutional Court, some Constitutional Amends, “emaciated checks and balances“, tight controls imposed over the media…

What about the ‘capitalist’ part of the current arrangement?
I’m afraid we waddle in confusion here.
We no longer make any distinction between ‘capitalism’ seen as ‘hoarding money as a sport’, and ‘using accumulated fiscal deposits as resources for building something new’. New and useful, of course…

‘Fiscal deposits’ – hoarded fiduciary money – have been around since coins have been minted. And IOU notes have been written. But capitalism, as Adam Smith understood it, wasn’t born yet at that time.

Under authoritarian regimes, having a lot of money does offer some leverage. But no immunity!
Consider what had happened to the Templar Monks when France’s Philip the IV-th coveted their money. Or the fate of the richest Chinese, after he had been perceived as being too cocky by the communist regime…
Whenever ‘capitalism’ takes place in liberally democratic settings, the market can be described as being ‘free’. Each economic agent – buyer or seller – decides in an autonomous manner. Takes their own advice and has to obey nobody’s orders. Has to obey the law but doesn’t have to abide to any whims.

Putting two and two together, for a society to remain functional in the longer run, the most importing thing is the ‘free market’.
The key word here being ‘free’. The meaning attached to the word and the understanding people have about the concept.
There is ‘free’ as in ‘free for all’ and free as in ‘freedom under the law’.
‘Free for all’, also known as ‘the law of the jungle’, inevitably ends up as a ‘dog eat dog’ situation while freedom under the law remains functional for as long as The People bring the law up to speed whenever needed.
The ‘market’ part is a lot simpler.
A ‘place’, an ‘open’ space, where both ideas and wares are exposed and exchanged. Amongst those who come to the market, to the agora, to solve their problems. To fulfill their needs.

As long as that ‘space’ remains free – as in ‘open’ for all – most people are able to make ends meet. The situation remains stable. For everybody to enjoy.
As soon as one ‘operator’ starts to ‘corner the market’ – using any of the already known ‘technologies’, the most popular being the old fashioned lie – the situation becomes potentially dangerous.

Whenever ‘The People’ have a sound understanding of what freedom really means, the bullies are ejected from the system. The ‘antitrust’ legislation is put to work and the budding ‘monopolies’ are dismantled before real harm was done.
If not… If von Papen hadn’t helped Hitler to rise into power and if Chamberlain hadn’t led the free world into submission…
Had we not threaded so lightly when Putin snatched Crimea back in 2014….

https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2017/03/revisiting-the-2014-annexation-of-crimea?lang=en

“he said abortion bans early in pregnancy went too far,
suggesting Republican candidates needed to be moderate enough on the issue
to “win elections”.”

The point I’m trying to make here being that what candidates say matters.
That we really need to see through their words.
Whether they are interested in solving issues – and which of them – or they simply want to accede to power.

Doesn’t matter? As long as they keep their promises?

Do you really expect a lying bully to keep up with their words? To fulfill their promises?
Are you comfortable with ‘hiring’ a lying bully to mind the future of your children?

Tags , , ,
Categories 1989, authoritarianism, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, effective communication, In English, man as a measure for all things, Mutual Respect, skin in the game

Gaming the System

July 18, 2024 //
0

“To use rules or laws to get what you want in an unfair but legal way”
From Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English

Having a name for ‘it’ means that we’re aware of it’s existence.
We’re still using it, though.
It is wise?

We’re not the first ones to use the method.
The HIV virus has somehow ‘learned’ to hide itself inside our immune system.
Not only to ‘bend the rules of life’ – all viruses do that for a living – but to bend the very rules of immunity!
But we are the first ones to use ‘it’ knowingly!

Not fully aware of the consequences but nevertheless on purpose!

How did we get here?

By ‘gaming’ the laws of nature!
Our ancestors believed flying was reserved for birds. By making good use of what we’ve learned about the ‘system’, we’ve been able to overcome many of our limitations.
We’ve also overcame our common sense…

We forget our planet is limited.
Vast but still limited.
We also tend to forget that our knowledge/understanding is also limited.
We’ve become so confident in our ability to game the system that we tend to ignore the two facts I’ve just mentioned.

Even worse, we’ve given up ‘the brotherhood of man’.
We’ve become humans by talking to each-other. By hunting together. By tilling the earth together.
Then we’ve started to fight. For the same earth we’ve been tilling together…
We’ve invented ‘capitalism’. A manner of doing business which relies mostly on trust. On the rational expectation that the partners will rather fulfill their respective parts of the deal than becoming known as fraudsters.
About the same time, we’ve also invented ‘democracy’. A social arrangement relying on mutual respect.

And we “saw that it was good“.
It lasted for a while…

Recently, capitalism has been gamed into a relentless hunt for profit.
Currently, democracy is being played with alternative facts.

We’re becoming viruses!
Some of us, anyway.


Tags , , , ,
Categories 1989, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, evolution, In English, man as a measure for all things, skin in the game, Trust

Spin

May 23, 2024 //
0

“What are electron spins:
Electrons are able to spin on an axis, like how the earth rotates on an axis, but much faster. Electrons can spin in either a clock-wise or counter-clock-wise direction. The spin on an electron is described by the spin quantum number (ms). The value of ms can be either +12 or -12. The +12 is called spin-up and denoted by a ↑, where the -12 is called spin-down and represented by ↓. Sometimes the spin of electrons will be described as angular momentum.
Each orbital of an atom can be occupied by up to two electrons. The two electrons will have opposite spins. This phenomenon was first described in the Pauli exclusion principle which states that each electron in an atom is described by a unique set of quantum numbers, including ms.”

“Political spin, in politics, the attempt to control or influence communication in order to deliver one’s preferred message.
Spin is a pejorative term often used in the context of public relations practitioners and political communicators. It is used to refer to the sophisticated selling of a specific message that is heavily biased in favour of one’s own position and that employs maximum management of the media with the intention of maintaining or exerting control over the situation, often implying deception or manipulation.“

Electrons ‘work’ in certain ways. Science has recently figured out some of those ways.
The point being that electrons keep to themselves. One spins in its direction, the other spins in the opposite direction and no more than two electrons fit in the same ‘orbital’.

People’s minds also work in ‘certain’ ways.
Not as ‘rigidly’ as the electrons but still ‘useful’ for those who know how to exploit this phenomenon.

By constantly pestering people with certain messages, you get to convince at least some of them.
You get to divide them into (political) camps.
You get them to fight among themselves instead of cooperating.
You get to lead them into battle.
And after the battle has been won, by no matter which side, you get to lead the winning party. At least for a while, but that is another subject.

And all lies, aka as ‘half truths’/alternative facts, start from something real.
Capitalism, for as long as the people remain awake, works. As advertised.
Socialism, on the other hand, doesn’t. It had failed, abysmally, whenever and wherever it had been experimented.

But there’s a caveat.

‘Capitalism’ is a rather clear-cut concept. Property belongs mainly to the individuals and individuals trust each-other enough to do business among themselves. Usually – but not always – capitalism is associated with ‘free market’ and democracy. With freedom to act – inside the confines of the law – and freedom to speak up.
I’ll say this again! For as long as the people remain awake, the market continues to be free and democracy still functions, capitalism works. Sustainably. But only for as long as the people remain awake…

‘Socialism’ is rather vague. From ‘public’ (instead of private) property associated with central planning of the entire society to softer versions which sometimes pay lip service to democracy. The central idea of ‘socialism’ being that society comes first and the individual is only a cog.
Who wants to be a cog? Those who see no alternative… Those who, once in a certain set of circumstances and exposed to a certain propaganda, succumb to the Sirens’ song.

The point being that in order to impose ‘socialism’ to a society you need to lure (enough of) the people into an ‘altered state of consciousness’. To make them believe a certain set of rules. To make them behave according to that set of rules.

The interesting part, as usual, comes at the end.
There is a ‘social arrangement’ where property remains private but where the people behave in a ‘certain’ manner. As if they have been made to believe a ‘certain’ – as in ‘forcefully unified’ – set of rules.

That social arrangement is just as fragile as ‘socialism’.
Again like socialism, it has already been experimented.
Both had failed. Abysmally. History is our witness.

The ‘other’ always failing social arrangement is usually called ‘fascism’.
In Germany, it has been known under the name of ‘NAZIonal socialismus’.

Tags , , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, authoritarianism, awareness, Bounded rationality, In English, man as a measure for all things, Trust

Progress?!?

November 30, 2023 //
0

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher,
the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner,
but from their regard to their own interest.
We address ourselves, not to their humanity
but to their self-love,
and never talk to them of our own necessities
but of their advantages.“
Adam Smith, The Wealth of NATIONS, 1776

I’m sure you already know that Adam Smith didn’t invent capitalism. As Marx invented communism and Lenin invented bolshevism.

Adam Smith had done nothing more and nothing less but described what was going on around him. How a bunch of people acting according to their ‘moral sentiment’ took care of business. How individual needs – for meat, beer and bread – were met and how the wealth of nations was built in the process.

“To some people, Gen Z may seem salary ‘obsessed’. In some cases, say experts, it may be hard for older generations to understand why young workers have such an intense focus on pay. “At Gen Z’s age, older people worked 40 hours a week, and made enough money to buy a house and have barbecues on the weekend,” says Corey Seemiller, an educator, researcher and TEDx speaker on Gen Z. “Gen Z works 50 hours a week at their jobs, and another 20 hours a week side hustling, yet still make barely enough to cover rent.””

Do you notice any need being fulfilled, in earnest, in this, new, situation?
OK, things were not that rosy in Smith’s times either. Most people had to work hard, a lot harder than today, to make ends meet. But since Smith and until some 40 years ago things went better. Year after year.
When Smith was writing his books, Regular Joe-s used to live in crowded shacks, usually rented out from their employers. Nowadays, most of those in their 50-ies and 60-ies own the house they live in. Which house has nothing in common with the afore mentioned shack.

So, is this the new kind of progress?
A looking back in anger kind of progress?
Are you even aware of the huge number of people pondering whether capitalism is not as good as advertised – by those who have already enjoyed its spoils? For the simple reason that in the current (no longer) free (enough) market so many people can no longer enjoy the kind of economic well being their grand parents took for granted…

As someone who had experienced both communism and capitalism, the situation is clear.

Tags , , , , , , ,
Categories 1989 and the Global Financial Crises, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, cooperation, Economy, evolution, In English, man as a measure for all things, Money as goal, skin in the game, Transparency

Does communism work?

April 16, 2023 //
0

Not even on paper!

If you read carefully Marx’s communist manifesto, you’ll realize that it doesn’t. Work. Not even on paper!
According to Marx, communism will come to be when enough people formerly belonging to the middle class will have become poor. As a consequence of their wealth having been siphoned away from them.
Becoming poor will make those former middle class people open to communist ideas. And will convince them to follow the already ‘enlightened communists’ into revolution.
For a while – again, according to Marx, the society will have to be led by the successful revolutionaries. In a dictatorial manner, because not all people will have risen to the communists’ level of understanding.
So. ‘Communism’ will be instated by some disgruntled people using dictatorial methods.
How auspicious is this?
Let me go even further.

Why were those people disgruntled in the first place?
Because capitalism!
Not so fast. The Adam Smith kind of capitalism worked just fine. Only after it had been warped by greed it had started to sputter. Specially after Milton Freedman had enshrined greed…
This being the moment when I need to remind you that Adam Smith’s first book on this subject was “The Theory of Moral Sentiments”…

‘Those’ people had become disgruntled after too many in that society had been convinced, at least for a while, that ‘greed was good’. And what was Marx’s proposed solution for that disgruntlement?
That all ‘means of production’ – meaning all property/wealth, to be taken away from individual people. And entrusted to ‘the people’.
Since ‘the people’ were going to be led by the “communists”, in practice the communist revolution meant that all wealth was going to be confiscated from those who happened to own it and entrusted to a very small number of people. Who happened to own the secular power in that moment. As the main consequence of the communist revolution. Apud Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto…

Let me revisit now Milton Friedman’s words.
‘Greed is good’.
According to this line of thinking, wealth becoming as concentrated as possible is a good thing. Since greed is already good, concentrated wealth is but a logical consequence…

Then Marx’s Communist Manifesto was nothing but an avant-la-lettre short-cut for an easier implementation of Milton Friedman’s greed hailing ideology!

See what I mean?

Karl Marx communism did not and cannot work.
Because it leads into a vicious circle.
It creates a monopolistic situation which cannot be avoided. Time and time again, history has proven that ‘this time is different’ is nothing but wishful thinking. Whenever too much decision power is concentrated in a too small number of hands, the situation becomes untenable. The more concentrated the decision power, the faster – and more dramatic – the eventual collapse.

How about a ‘different’ kind of communism?
The only sustainable kind of anything – ‘social arrangements’ included, had been ‘natural’. Had appeared in an evolutionary manner.
In contrast, all revolutionary developments have produced counter-revolutions. In many instances even more destructive than the revolutions themselves.
What will come after democratic capitalism? I don’t know!
But it better be better than what we have now.

And come in quietly!

Otherwise…

How about a return to bona fide democratic capitalism?
To Adam Smith’s kind of capitalism?
The one whose entrepreneurs used to put ‘moral sentiments’ above greed!

Wishful thinking?
Maybe!
But is there any other way to achieve anything? Other than to start by wishing that something?
And since Smith’s brand of capitalism did work, communism always failed and a viable alternative has yet to appear…

Tags , , , , , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, authoritarianism, awareness, Bounded rationality, collective identity, effective communication, evolution, In English, man as a measure for all things, Money as goal, Mutual Respect, Psychology, skin in the game, Trust

“If Socialism has always been poorly implemented why wasn’t Capitalism?”

March 20, 2023 //
0

Socialism implies a lot more centralization than capitalism.
The answer is, like always, included in the question.
While socialism is to be ‘implemented’ – by a ‘central figure’, capitalism is an environment. A place where the deciding agents – the entrepreneurs, ‘make it happen’.

Hence socialism – which is a ‘thing’, to be implemented, not an environment for entrepreneurs to roam ‘free’ – will eventually fail. No matter how well intended the implementor, nor how hard it tries to make it happen.

In capitalism, only the entrepreneurs might fail. When the market is no longer free – oligo or mono poly, the situation closely resembles a socialist one. Things go south. Because the decision making agents are too few and far apart – no longer able to cover all corners, just as their socialist counterparts.

Comparing socialism with capitalism is like pitting an apple against agriculture.

An apple, all apples, will eventually become rotten. No matter how hard one might try to preserve it.
Agriculture, on the other hand, will yield according to the available resources and the effort put in by those involved in it.

https://www.quora.com/If-Socialism-has-always-been-poorly-implemented-why-wasnt-Capitalism

Tags , , , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, awareness, Bounded rationality, comunicare efectiva, effective communication, evolutie, evolution, In English, man as a measure for all things, man induced fragility, Money as goal, re-definitions

Complementary, my deal Watson

March 8, 2023 //
0

Equality has become ‘the’ thing.
But things are not that simple. Not simple enough to be explained/solved in such a trivial manner.
Equality is a theoretical concept. It doesn’t exist, as such, in nature. Nor in practice.
Two ‘objects’/issues/items are declared, by us, to be equal if the differences between them are smaller than a threshold. Instated, again, by us. Mathematics – a theoretical field by excellence, being the only domain where the difference between two equal ‘objects’ is exactly zero.
On the other hand, societies where people consider themselves to be equal fare better than those where the differences between people are ‘manifest’.
Hence ‘equality’ must be important, right?
‘Societies where people consider themselves to be equal’…
The key word here is “consider”, not “equal “.
In this situation, equality is not only a concept but also a value.

The fact that a functional majority of the people living in those societies consider themselves to be equal creates a certain ‘environment’. A situation where those people actually complement each-other. A society which works as an organism. Not as a shoal of fish nor as a simple herd. A society which works a community.

A single parent can raise children. But two parents do it a lot easier. And, in most cases, better.
A single parent can adopt children. But no single parent, man or woman, is able to give birth to a child without being helped by a member of the ‘opposite sex’.
Societies where people consider men and women to be equal fare a lot better than those entertaining other beliefs. Which doesn’t negate the fact that men and women complement each-other. In a lot more situations than those in which they merely reproduce themselves.
Economies where the market is free fare a lot better than those where the economic decisions are made in a centralized manner. The communist camp – where the economies were run by the party, had crumbled under their own weight. Which strongly suggests that no matter how skilled it may be, a central planner will never be able to balance such a complicated process as a whole society/economy. Monopolistic situations, where decision making became too concentrated, invariably ended up in a pile of mess. Another proof that no decision maker, no matter how skilled/well intended, was ever capable of managing, by itself, a really complicated situation.
What is the real difference between a free market and one where decision making is concentrated in an unsustainably small number of hands? Or heads?
Economic agents are equal? Suppliers are equal among themselves, buyers are equal among themselves and suppliers are equal with buyers?
Or suppliers complement each-other in adequately supplying the market while buyers and suppliers complement each-other in maintaining the market afloat?
Which brings us back to where we have started.
Where people who complement each-other have reached the conclusion they’d better consider their complements as equals. And treat each-other as such.

Tags , , , , ,
Categories 1989 and the Global Financial Crises, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, Economy, effective communication, evolution, In English, man as a measure for all things, Mutual Respect, Psychology, skin in the game, teleology
« Older Entries