1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Progressive Philosophy

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by GeorgeB., Sep 23, 2009.

  1. willybfriendly

    willybfriendly Peon

    Messages:
    700
    Likes Received:
    17
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #41
    willybfriendly, Sep 29, 2009 IP
    SEMrush
  2. ncz_nate

    ncz_nate Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #42
    Here's an interesting academic page on corporatism. If you can adjust your eyes to the dizzying background.

    "Although Corporatism is not a familiar concept to the general public, most of the economies of the world are corporatist in nature. The categories of socialist and pure market economy are virtually empty. There are only corporatist economies of various flavors."

    Will, I'm new to the concept of cooperatives, although I regularly buy from a health food co-op that is doing much good for Pittsburgh. What's your take on this article from yesterday?
     
    ncz_nate, Sep 29, 2009 IP
  3. willybfriendly

    willybfriendly Peon

    Messages:
    700
    Likes Received:
    17
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #43
    Ah, worthy of a couple of threads of their own.

    I served as President of a nation wide (also Canadian) ag co-op for several years. I can wax on and on about the strengths and downfalls of the cooperative model - mostly good though.

    The health insurance industry would eat health co-op's alive, and would love to do so in order to prove that the current system is the only system that will meet the Country's needs. The article you referenced makes some good points (but look at the background of who wrote it).

    The thing that would kill health co-ops in my opinion is an inability to compete in the short term. The health insurance industry has DEEP pockets and plenty of margin to crush any upstart competition. Things will look like they're working for just long enough to run the co-op's out of town.

    Further, American consumers are generally pretty unfamiliar with the co-op model. Consumer co-op's are more common in Canada, and used to be really big in Great Britain - until multi-national corporations blindsided them that is. (I have an English friend who stocked co-op shelves as a kid - the co-op his dad sat on the Board of.)

    This is a brief article about what makes cooperative thrive I wrote a couple of years ago. There is a whole learning curve that the US citizens would have to go through, and I am doubtful they would be willing to turn off Glen Beck long enough to expand their minds.
     
    willybfriendly, Sep 29, 2009 IP
  4. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #44
    Interesting page, Nate. If you can get ahold of this book (might be hard - perhaps library?), a good exploration of the concept. I read it over 20 years ago, while at Berkeley, and couldn't tell you specifics, now (believe it or not, by the time I was done getting my ass kicked, I was doing about 600 pages a day of reading/critiquing of the material read/presentation the following morning of an alternative thesis, or honed defense of the work...needless to say, alot of it has happily slipped away to the Land of Nod...:D).

    Anyway, the book is called Pluralism and Corporatism, by Reginald James Harrison.
     
    northpointaiki, Sep 29, 2009 IP
  5. ncz_nate

    ncz_nate Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #45
    Maybe one of us can make one on it. We need somewhere to discuss not only this but the other health care options

    Wow, had a feeling you were someone big. Great asset to the forum.

    I agree, there's a lot we need to learn here in America, and the emotionalism isn't helping matters. There is no better time for education and debate than now.

    Thanks for the suggestion Paul, adding that to my wish list. James Harrison? He's the guy in my avatar :p This forum seriously makes me want to rethink my major and do Pol Sci instead of accounting, variety of smart/inspiring individuals we have.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2009
    ncz_nate, Sep 29, 2009 IP
  6. willybfriendly

    willybfriendly Peon

    Messages:
    700
    Likes Received:
    17
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #46
    Around the waste, maybe. No, just an average guy that got mad, got himself elected to the Board of Directors, was reluctantly thrust into the Presidency, and then worked his ass off until it wasn't any fun anymore.

    That is the beauty of co-ops. They are based on equality, and any member can put themselves into the leadership. Like all politics, you simply need to know how to count your votes - or more accurately, put your voting blocks together to get what you want.

    But, sometimes you have to be careful what you wish for ;)
     
    willybfriendly, Sep 29, 2009 IP
  7. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #47
    Change what system? RISK? That's what its called.. RISK.

    Knowing when and when not to put money at RISK is not something you can change. Its something you have to work very hard at, and its not always going to mean you win or lose. You're always going to do a little of both. Don't want risk? Don't put your money in the market. Put it in tangible appreciable assets like REAL ESTATE!!!

    That's about the only place you cannot lose money unless you do something really stupid.
     
    Mia, Sep 30, 2009 IP
  8. willybfriendly

    willybfriendly Peon

    Messages:
    700
    Likes Received:
    17
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #48
    Is it Mia or Rip Van Winkle?

    Must be the latter if they believe that there is no risk in real estate after the events of the past couple of years!

    Come on Mia, let's have a rational discussion about progressive philosophy rather than spewing condescending dogma.

    Perhaps you can speak to the condensation of wealth.
     
    willybfriendly, Sep 30, 2009 IP
  9. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #49
    Apparently you missed the qualifier there, key word being "STUPID".

    No, there is little to no risk in "tangible appreciable assets". In other words, if you buy something below market value, you will never lose.

    If you buy something that is way over - valued and or also take out equity in the "over valuation", you will lose. That's what I call doing something "stupid" and what happened to a lot of stupid people.

    Real estate appreciates. It does not go down in value.

    To qualify again. Real estate that is bought at or below FAIR MARKET VALUE and not over valued or leveraged above that FAIR MARKET VALUE will not lose VALUE!

    If you have not figured it out yet, I am an ASSET based individual. I like to buy, sell, trade and or hold onto actual TANGIBLE APPRECIABLE ASSETS, not pieces of paper or thin air.

    But, if you are going to play with thin air, realize you can lose everything you put in. Not true with actual assets.

    What do I mean by a tangible appreciable asset? I mean an actual solid piece of material you can see and touch! Not futures, not air, not a hedge or bet on the chance something worth nothing will be worth more than it is not now or ever.

    Appreciable? That's something that is capable of being measured. You cannot do that with the stock market. The measure of worth changes from day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute.

    Asset? Any item of economic value owned by an individual or corporation, especially that which could be converted to cash.

    Sure, you can convert stocks, securities, etc., to cash. But not at a consistent rate, and certainly not at an appreciable rate. Stocks don't appreciate.

    Can you make money with stocks? Sure? Is it stable? No. Risky? VERY.

    Can you make money with real estate? Of course. Is it stable? It is if you use the rate of inflation as a metric in your purchasing decisions. Risky? Not if you know what you are doing.
     
    Mia, Sep 30, 2009 IP
  10. willybfriendly

    willybfriendly Peon

    Messages:
    700
    Likes Received:
    17
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #50
    Well, something we can agree on. Tangible assets are the best, if not only, measure of wealth.

    You should however educate yourself on the folly of using inflation as a reliable metric, as well as learning about real estate cycles. Things like deflation have a way of sneaking up on those who are unprepared.
     
    willybfriendly, Sep 30, 2009 IP
  11. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #51
    While I would agree that the ups and downs of the housing market are inherently cyclical, they typically do not detract from the rate of inflation.

    The housing problem was not entirely the result of a "mortgage/lending" problem, but more so the result of over priced/inflated home prices.

    Couple that with lending money to EVERYONE regardless if they could pay it back or not, and you have the issues we've seen in the last couple years.

    There was a consistent period in time when the rate of inflation and housing prices remained constant, and had a consistent growth rate. At some point the two separated and housing went through the roof, likely artificially as the result of lenders like Fannie / Freddie under the watch of house and senate democrats and past administrations.

    Cyclical or not, I've yet to see this cycle in my time on earth, or at any other time in our nations history. This crap was brought on by FDR, Carter, Clinton, CRA, Fannie, Freddie and the Pelosi's of the world. No one else.

    So if you want to lay blame where its due, thank those on the left. Are they entirely to blame? No. Mostly? You betcha!
     
    Mia, Sep 30, 2009 IP
  12. willybfriendly

    willybfriendly Peon

    Messages:
    700
    Likes Received:
    17
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #52
    Well, kid, you are clearly not old enough then. It's only been 80 years. I suspect there are many more surprises in store for your young eyes.

    Past performance may not indicate future results...
     
    willybfriendly, Sep 30, 2009 IP
  13. earlpearl

    earlpearl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    150
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #53
    I like conversations about real estate. I have some experience there.

    Here is an article describing diverse sales activity in commercial real estate around the nation http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/realestate/commercial/16value.html

    The current market is devastating real estate values. It hasn't been just residential. Commercial is taking a terrible hit.

    Now if you want to look at something, which I view as depressing, read through the article in this thread

    That is a disaster.

    I really believe in demand and supply when it comes to real estate. If a local population is growing there will be increases in demand. It will drive up both residential and commercial values over the long term. If its shrinking...as has been happening in Detroit proper values will plummet.

    That is why I like the first big graph in this piece...http://www.fairfaxcountyeda.org/site...ns/ye08rer.pdf.

    Its long term, 28 years. The graph is a great representation of demand and supply. Supply equals the total amt of office space. Demand is represented by the vacancy rate. When the vacancy rate is high, demand falls way short of supply. When the vacancy rate is decreasing or low, demand is pushing supply.

    I worked in that market as a commercial RE broker. I pretty much was active for 2 decades. When the market collapsed in the early 90's.....let me tell you rents were low and buildings lost tons of value. In fact, when the commercial RE depression hit in 1989 all sales stopped. My memory is that the first building of size in the entire metro DC market that was sold after that crash was bought at $0.25 on the dollar before the crash hit. It was a property in that county. Talk about loss of value.

    This latest recession has adjusted some of my thinking about RE values, though ultimately I still believe in demand and supply.

    I own some RE, a couple of houses and some commercial. Except for one small piece of a partnership, I've held everything for over 15 years. Its in the DC region. How fortunate. Its basically the best overall RE market in the US in terms of long term stability/residential and commercial. The region is strong because of consistent population growth over a very long time.

    In any case, while I favor RE (and I tend to like REIT's also--although that is far trickier and out of my close control) if the demand for space diminishes, if the population shifts....get out of that RE if you know what is good for you.

    At least that is my $0.02
     
    earlpearl, Sep 30, 2009 IP