Group Up

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Xmo1, Oct 28, 2017.

  1. Xmo1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    327
    We know that people produce better when they are happy. Pause a moment for the arts and musics. :::

    There are all these headphone companies using technologies public and proprietary. It would be better if they grouped up, as in becoming a social network (the communication technology exists) to make ass kickin headphones for the masses incorporating the best known technologies. It would be financially successful because it would contribute to the common good. Additionally, the method would propagate well, and everyone could ramp up their happiness just a little.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,955
    Are you suggesting that cooperation is better than competition?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,964
    I don't understand.
    You think headphones, among innumerable other things, make people happy.
    You think that manfucturers should form one giant company (because monopolies with no competition are the best way to encourage innovation and customer satisfaction?).
    You think that some sort of social media structure would facilitate this?

    You know what capitalism is, and what a a free market, supply-and-demand economy is, right? Do you know why they work?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,327
    OK.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    For a government funded headphone association the benefits must outweigh competitive free market -even NASA works with foreign governments because that shit is off the charts expensive.

    Don't wanna think about wars'n'stuff.
     
  8. Xmo1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    327
    +
    What I've seen is that shit floats to the top. There are the 1%er's that own 95% of the resources and 85% of the stock market (public companies). Capitalism doesn't mix well with government. Capitalism in the U.S. doesn't work for the common good, it works for the 1%er's wallets. The U.S. economic system is an utter failure in that regard. But it can and should change. That change could be negotiated in social networks. Laws could be updated as a result, and a good portion of the world economic scene would pay attention.

    So I want neither continued economic destruction, nor socialism. I want people to come together and repair what is obviously a broken economic system. I'm making suggestions.
    The bottom line is take care of people first. The idea that corporations must appease shareholders is commanding that those people (corporations) should bow before the 1%. This whole idea is ludicrous, much like parade lines wearing white robes and gold hats walking through a devastated countryside blowing smoke.

    My suggestion is less wasteful, and more profitable (fiscally responsible), and is doable as a norm.
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2017
  9. Xmo1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    327
    I am suggesting (Group up) that professional social networks should have the power to change things to benefit the common good, in addition to making a profit for their corporations.
     
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,964
    Utter failire?
    300 million people are managing in that economy. Compare to several billion not faring so well elsewhere.

    Capitalism is broken, no doubt. But it is less broken than other economies.

    Why don't you come to Canada?

    What makes you think that only shareholders only come from the 1%?
     
  11. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,955
    I still don't get what you're suggesting. Are you saying that people should cooperate within an organization? Aren't they already doing that?

    Or are you saying that different organizations should cooperate to collectively make better headphones? Because competing to sell the best headphones seems to work pretty well at improving headphones.

    Unless, of course, you drive the other guy out of business and have no further reason to improve your own product.
     
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,964
    I think he's thinking of monopolies.
     
  13. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,103
    Weren't some of the most extraordinary works written by people suffering from depression, or bi-polar, or alcoholism etc?
    Innovation comes through competition, and the need to keep ahead.
    If a company has a monopoly then innovation and investment in new ideas stagnates.
    If you have 10 companies competing for market share, you end up with constant innovation as each strive for the things that will outdo the other.
    It also helps drive down market prices.
    Quality improves, prices remain competitive, consumer is happy.
    Under a monopoly the quality might not improve, the price might not be considered fair, and the consumer can do nothing about it other than feel ripped off - although that is most likely due to the lack of comparative.
     
  14. Xmo1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    327
    This is all very artificial. Today, new innovative technology changes (usually from scholastic experiments) are forwarded to companies who are most likely to deploy them successfully. It's been that way for decades. Innovation is a thought process. There are innovators and inventors. Too often, their output gets outright stolen, or ripped from their hands by people who couldn't understand the vision, and as a result deploy the work improperly. These same mugs are the ones pandering to the public, and taking a lions cut of the profit for short term success followed by failure. That's what you call competition. If it wasn't so corrupt it might work, but alas people must have that short term windfall, too often at any cost. It's stupid.

    "Quality improves, prices remain competitive, consumer is happy." That's wishful thinking. Have you noticed automobiles being made out of plastics, and getting smaller every year? Prices never go down. Depreciation always increases. The housing industry: Flimsy rabbit holes pre-made out of the cheapest possible materials. Most of them put together with staples. Notice Trump Tower isn't made of those materials. Why not? Because they care - about themselves, and they have the money (Don't ask from where, or how they got it.) to do it right.

    My thoughts, not toward Baldeee is that (noting the above replies) people are so deep into believing (holding as true) the lies, that they won't and almost can't imagine anything different. What I'm saying is that the technology is now available, the communications technology, to make a better planet. What people have learned in the last decade or two, is that multi-discipline cooperation vastly outperforms competition in the areas of innovation and proper deployment of technologies. The saying is still true "Genius is one per cent inspiration, ninety-nine per cent perspiration." If you do the right things for the right reasons you get the right outcomes. So far, our outcomes have been pretty miserable, and the only ones smiling are the Don Trumps of the world. They are not only smiling, they are laughing - at us. Isn't it time to do things right?
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2017
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,964
    The way to prove your hypothesis is to show by example. Go out and make a company that succeeds with your hypothesis.
    Unless your ideas get applied and tested, you're just talking through your hat.
     
  16. Xmo1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    327
    Thanks for your counsel. It rings true. How many engineers can work on a project without violating their contracts, or use competing technologies. How I'd like to dispose of the U.S. Patent Office! Sounds like a worthy government de-funding project if there ever was one.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2017
  17. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,454
    So you'd like no individual to benefit from their own ideas? How far are you willing to take that principle? What about individuals benefitting from their own labour? What about being able to own anything personally?
     

Share This Page