Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
An exploitative monopoly is a vanishingly remote possibility in a free market. It is absurdly difficult to corner a market in a true free trade situation. It requires the collusion of a corrupt government to enable it.
First, keep in mind this is a nearly four year old thread. My views are a little less critical of capitalism now than they were in the past.
With that said, I still insist that there are certainly flaws in capitalism. And I still insist that the primary flaw in capitalism is land.
Look at it like this, in the most extreme and unlikely example, if a single entity owned every single square foot of all the land in the entire world, then there would be no ability for anyone to compete, ever. That entity would become the "de-facto" government.
In a slightly less extreme example, if someone owned all the land around an important geographical location which was for whatever reason an absolute necessity for trade. That person could get incredibly wealthy without providing any service whatsoever.
The concerns about land come from Adam Smith's position on "natural monopolies". And any time someone could theoretically own all the land around another piece of land, you have the potential of "locking someone in".
I agree with your belief that businesses could profit more by keeping the land open to trade, because they would destroy the value of the properties they bought. This view though relies on two things. First, that businesses will always seek their maximum profit and never have a "vendetta". And secondly, that businesses would never be involved in more than one type of business.
Basically, if Wal-mart owned all the roads around their competition, they could still stand to lose some temporary value in some of their land holdings to put their competition out of business, in the hopes that their holdings will again appreciate in value in the future.
With that said, I am incredibly opposed to all government ownership of "roads". But I do concede one thing. There must be government imposed "road easements", which create a seamless and redundant network of public access. The easements I'm referring to don't need to be "roads" in the sense that we imagine roads. Basically, they could theoretically just be open grass/dirt(though its unlikely that they would stay that way for long).
Many are quick to say that transportation and infrastructure spending in general are sink holes because they don't pay for themselves, but that's only because they don't seem to ever want to factor in the positive externalities, in this case facilitating trade and transportation of goods and services and more efficient movement of labor.
Some excerpts from The Wealth of Nations:
Hi Hoarfrost,
I particularly enjoy you've included 'externalities' in your reply to this thread, thanks & respect. There seems to be a tendency for some to ignore 'externalities' to simplify complex problems. It's not a critical or creative thinking approach to solving problems.
Quote:
For Stiglitz, there is no such thing as an invisible hand.[32] According to Stiglitz:[33]
Whenever there are "externalities" – where the actions of an individual have impacts on others for which they do not pay or for which they are not compensated – markets will not work well. But recent research has shown that these externalities are pervasive, whenever there is imperfect information or imperfect risk markets – that is always.
The real debate today is about finding the right balance between the market and government. Both are needed. They can each complement each other. This balance will differ from time to time and place to place.
Personally, I think Mr. Stiglitz tends to be on the right track with these kindsof concepts. Generally speaking, I feel some Libertarian folks tend to favor axiomatic solutions to complex problems rather than a critical/creative approach. The latter approach seems more suitable if the objective is to provide solutions, in real time, to real world, present day problems.
Personally, I think Mr. Stiglitz tends to be on the right track with these kindsof concepts. Generally speaking, I feel some Libertarian folks tend to favor axiomatic solutions to complex problems rather than a critical/creative approach. The latter approach seems more suitable if the objective is to provide solutions, in real time, to real world, present day problems.
Look, Adam Smith recognized all the externalities in regards to transportation. The problem with Adam Smith's perspective, is that he was really talking "macroeconomic" and not so much "microeconomic".
While it is true that Adam Smith thought certain roads should be maintained by the government, he limited those roads only to "high roads". Which would be the equivalent of the "main roads" in a city.
His argument is that, if the government controls all transportation, it will to tend to build roads where they are unnecessary or not economically viable. That they will build roads of a quality higher than what is necessary, or will make the roads "ornamental"(IE pretty) when such an expense isn't warranted. And that as a result of this great expense, the government will tend to pay for the roads out of "general funds" instead of user fees. Which will create an even greater misappropriation of resources and thus send costs not only on the road user, but all of society, much higher.
Which comes to the question, if government ownership of roads is less efficient, then why does government basically own all of the roads? Wouldn't the most efficient system be the most successful?
Well the cause of government road ownership is the same mechanism that causes governments to spend millions building sports stadiums and manufacturing plants to bring companies/sports teams to their cities. It is the "cater to the rich so they'll move their businesses and their money to your city" policy.
Cities/states regularly give subsidies or tax-incentives to companies in an effort to bring those companies to their cities. For instance, New York City recently gave a $20 million tax break to the "Tonight Show" to bring it back to New York City.
Businesses will do business wherever it is most profitable to do business. And cities will do almost anything to attract big-business to their cities(supposedly in the name of providing jobs). Thus the reason why public roads break the "Adam Smith efficiency rule" and are still so prevalent, is that the roads run on the "race to the bottom" principle.
Basically, big cities continually cater to big corporations to steal business away from other cities, especially smaller cities. They call these tax breaks and subsidies "investments". They might spend $100 million building a stadium, but they claim the increased tax revenue will eventually pay off this investment. But tax revenue from whom?
And this isn't only done by cities, this same economic policy works between countries as well. China attracts businesses by devaluing its currency to give it a competitive advantage. Fair trade advocates have often complained about this "Currency manipulation" without much effect. The same goes for arguments between Boeing and Airbus. Where the European Union has complained about unfair subsidies going to Boeing to keep it artificially competitive with Airbus.
The problem of course, is that all this government spending and all these subsidies have to be paid by someone. The argument for them is that, they will be paid for by the increased tax revenues of greater economic activity. The problem of course, is that there is no evidence that a city spending billions to build a sports team a stadium actually increases overall economic activity, it simply redirects it. In the same way that a General Motors building a manufacturing plant in one city instead of another simply for tax benefits or other benefits, doesn't create any sort of overall economic benefit. In fact, there is more evidence that these activities actually reduce economic activity overall because it actually lowers economic activity if a factory isn't built in the most efficient location.
If businesses want governments to build roads so that they don't have to pay for them, the government who offers to build the roads, will be where the businesses will locate. For instance, a lot of cities have banned Wal-mart from building in them. So Wal-mart just builds as close as they can in the next town over. Pulling all that sales money, and the taxes collected from it, into that town instead. This effectively forces towns to allow Wal-Mart in them, or lose access to that revenue.
Which comes to the real problem. All these subsidies still have to be paid by someone. If it isn't the businesses paying them directly, then they can only come from "the people". Thus the more important questions. Who is paying for all these subsidies? And who really benefits?
I can tell you who the primary beneficiary is, and who it always is, businesses. Especially large corporations who regularly get very preferential treatment and subsidies(to attract them or keep them), while the small businessman gets nothing.
It is economic manipulation and the "race to the bottom" economic theory, and it has absolutely nothing to do with "real" economics or Adam Smith.
To add more to my critique of our transportation system. I remember back in 2008 I was quite the "Treehugger", and I would hear environmentalists talking a lot about how the fuel tax hadn't been raised since 1993, and how semi trucks don't pay anywhere near their fair share of the cost of the roads.
Then, I heard someone on the radio talking about wanting to raise the fuel tax by quite a bit(above $4 a gallon its lower than the regular sales tax). And someone replied "It is a waste of time to raise the fuel tax, because the truckers don't really pay the tax, the consumers do. If you raise the cost of trucking, you'll just raise the cost of the goods that they ship."
Which in some ways is a perfectly reasonable argument. In a sense it is saying it doesn't really matter if the consumer pays higher prices or higher taxes, they are still paying the same amount.
What this leaves out is really two things. As Adam Smith said, if trucks don't pay the proportionate amount to their cost of the driving over a road, it encourages larger and heavier trucks that tear up the roads in a greatly disproportionate amount. Further increasing the cost of road maintenance, and giving an unfair advantage to "large carriers".
And secondly, it leaves out the fact that not all goods are moved by truck. In fact, if trucking wasn't given so many unfair advantages through these huge road subsidies, far less commerce would be carried by trucks.
The point is, our entire transportation system is completely artificial. If you pulled government intervention in transportation, our entire system would change to the point of no longer even being recognizable.
My only question then is, what would that change look like? And who would benefit?
After thinking about this issue over a very long period of time. It is my position, that if you got government out of transportation, we would use railroads far more, the cost of transportation would go down, the cost of living would go down, inequality would go down, and environmentally and economically we would be much better off. Because we would be using significantly less fuel. Possibly making us again a net exporter of energy(or at least energy independent).
Something that all environmentalists know. "Free" highways and interstates cause sprawl, and thus greater fuel consumption.
Look, Adam Smith recognized all the externalities in regards to transportation. The problem with Adam Smith's perspective, is that he was really talking "macroeconomic" and not so much "microeconomic".
While it is true that Adam Smith thought certain roads should be maintained by the government, he limited those roads only to "high roads". Which would be the equivalent of the "main roads" in a city.
His argument is that, if the government controls all transportation, it will to tend to build roads where they are unnecessary or not economically viable. That they will build roads of a quality higher than what is necessary, or will make the roads "ornamental"(IE pretty) when such an expense isn't warranted. And that as a result of this great expense, the government will tend to pay for the roads out of "general funds" instead of user fees. Which will create an even greater misappropriation of resources and thus send costs not only on the road user, but all of society, much higher.
Which comes to the question, if government ownership of roads is less efficient, then why does government basically own all of the roads? Wouldn't the most efficient system be the most successful?
Well the cause of government road ownership is the same mechanism that causes governments to spend millions building sports stadiums and manufacturing plants to bring companies/sports teams to their cities. It is the "cater to the rich so they'll move their businesses and their money to your city" policy.
Cities/states regularly give subsidies or tax-incentives to companies in an effort to bring those companies to their cities. For instance, New York City recently gave a $20 million tax break to the "Tonight Show" to bring it back to New York City.
Businesses will do business wherever it is most profitable to do business. And cities will do almost anything to attract big-business to their cities(supposedly in the name of providing jobs). Thus the reason why public roads break the "Adam Smith efficiency rule" and are still so prevalent, is that the roads run on the "race to the bottom" principle.
Basically, big cities continually cater to big corporations to steal business away from other cities, especially smaller cities. They call these tax breaks and subsidies "investments". They might spend $100 million building a stadium, but they claim the increased tax revenue will eventually pay off this investment. But tax revenue from whom?
And this isn't only done by cities, this same economic policy works between countries as well. China attracts businesses by devaluing its currency to give it a competitive advantage. Fair trade advocates have often complained about this "Currency manipulation" without much effect. The same goes for arguments between Boeing and Airbus. Where the European Union has complained about unfair subsidies going to Boeing to keep it artificially competitive with Airbus.
The problem of course, is that all this government spending and all these subsidies have to be paid by someone. The argument for them is that, they will be paid for by the increased tax revenues of greater economic activity. The problem of course, is that there is no evidence that a city spending billions to build a sports team a stadium actually increases overall economic activity, it simply redirects it. In the same way that a General Motors building a manufacturing plant in one city instead of another simply for tax benefits or other benefits, doesn't create any sort of overall economic benefit. In fact, there is more evidence that these activities actually reduce economic activity overall because it actually lowers economic activity if a factory isn't built in the most efficient location.
If businesses want governments to build roads so that they don't have to pay for them, the government who offers to build the roads, will be where the businesses will locate. For instance, a lot of cities have banned Wal-mart from building in them. So Wal-mart just builds as close as they can in the next town over. Pulling all that sales money, and the taxes collected from it, into that town instead. This effectively forces towns to allow Wal-Mart in them, or lose access to that revenue.
Which comes to the real problem. All these subsidies still have to be paid by someone. If it isn't the businesses paying them directly, then they can only come from "the people". Thus the more important questions. Who is paying for all these subsidies? And who really benefits?
I can tell you who the primary beneficiary is, and who it always is, businesses. Especially large corporations who regularly get very preferential treatment and subsidies(to attract them or keep them), while the small businessman gets nothing.
It is economic manipulation and the "race to the bottom" economic theory, and it has absolutely nothing to do with "real" economics or Adam Smith.
I agree with much of your analysis here. My point re: Adam Smith was that he recognized 'externalities' come into play when considering complex problems. Mr. Smith was also presenting an analysis of his present day realities. He used the 'invisible hand of the market' as a metaphor to describe what he perceived as the self-regulating behavior of the 'market.'
Stating the obvious, there are many things to be learned from history. Although personally I tend to gravitate towards the idea put forth by that old genius Mark Twain, 'History does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes.' All we have is this moment, then the next, then the next ... & so on.
There are some who consider 'corporations to be people.' Mr. Smith may have felt similarly re: 'market.' Personally I consider corporations & the 'market' as 'legal fictions.' Their 'behaviors' can be considered, analyzed, et cetera although to consider them self-regulating? What does that mean? What are the implications? Personally, it seems to be more of a mechanical regulation than a biological one.
Alexis de Tocqueville, another social, economic & else wise observer described the particular & maybe peculiar for that time, American 'genius' as something akin to 'self-interest properly understood.'
Although that's a far cry from considering non-physical entities, no natural life spans, etc. to be self-regulating. Personally, I think that's more of a faith-based belief system.
I agree with much of your analysis here. My point re: Adam Smith was that he recognized 'externalities' come into play when considering complex problems. Mr. Smith was also presenting an analysis of his present day realities. He used the 'invisible hand of the market' as a metaphor to describe what he perceived as the self-regulating behavior of the 'market.'
Stating the obvious, there are many things to be learned from history. Although personally I tend to gravitate towards the idea put forth by that old genius Mark Twain, 'History does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes.' All we have is this moment, then the next, then the next ... & so on.
There are some who consider 'corporations to be people.' Mr. Smith may have felt similarly re: 'market.' Personally I consider corporations & the 'market' as 'legal fictions.' Their 'behaviors' can be considered, analyzed, et cetera although to consider them self-regulating? What does that mean? What are the implications? Personally, it seems to be more of a mechanical regulation than a biological one.
Look, the invisible hand simply refers to our understanding of "human nature". Or more specifically that if you had two different items of similar quality, in almost all cases you will buy the cheaper one. In an actual free market, the lower priced item is almost always the item which was produced most efficiently.
The invisible hand is really just "the price system". In that the price of goods is usually directly related to the amount of labor/skill it took to create something, and/or the relative availability of that item. If someone expects to earn $10 an hour, and an item took him ten hours to produce, then he will expect a profit of $100. Someone who could make the same item in nine hours, could charge $10 less and put the less efficient producer out of business.
If there is too much corn, the price of corn will go down relative to other types of crops. As a result, a farmer might change the kinds of crops he grows.
Basically, the invisible hand directs resources(IE labor and capital) where they are most efficient or most desired. There is nothing wrong with the theory on its face. The real problem here is how government subsidies can reduce or raise the price of a crop or manufactured good. If you artificially make corn more profitable, more farmers will grow corn. If you make corn artificially cheap, people will buy more of it.
Adam Smith acknowledged this to be a political reality, even in his time governments were constantly intervening in the market(IE mercantilism). In those days it wasn't subsidies, it was tariffs, but tariffs and subsidies have the same general effect and purpose, to give advantages. What Adam Smith said about subsidies and tariffs is simply "don't do it". Adam Smith also advocated for basically a gold standard, and wasn't concerned whatsoever about trade deficits even with a hard currency.
In making his case, he used "Wine" as his example. He said, you can feasibly grow grapes in Scotland by building "hothouses". But wine made from hothouses would be thirty times more expensive than the wine from France. By putting up tariffs or subsidies to make wine-making of Scotland artificially profitable, you are effectively wasting human labor thirty-fold.
He went on to make my case that the real beneficiaries of tariffs/subsidies are always the merchants and manufacturers, and not the common man.
What Adam Smith is really saying is, if you have free trade with a hard currency, the common man will be bettered, not simply here, but everywhere. If you put up tariffs or subsidies to make one business or another artificially competitive, you will waste human labor, and thus drive up the costs of the common man.
In that sense, tariffs and subsidies never improve the condition of the ordinary man. All it can do is enrich one group by even more greatly impoverishing another.
Basically, New York City might steal away the Tonight Show from Los Angeles by handing out $20 million in subsidies. But, all they are actually doing is taking money away from both the people of New York City and the people of Los Angeles without providing any overall benefit to society. The only people who really benefit from that arrangement, are the executives at NBC, and the investors of their parent company.
This is even more egregious if you imagine they were stealing the company from a small town instead of Los Angeles.
Imagine a small town in Iowa being the headquarters of a major company. The small town didn't have the kind of money that New York City has to give out perks, so the company moves to New York City to enjoy the subsidies, tax exemptions, or whatever else. As a result, the people who previously worked for that company in Iowa are now jobless, or they just follow the company to New York City. The company is more profitable now, but most of that profit goes to a relatively small number of executives and investors(why else would they have gone to New York City?). While the average employee might see an increase in pay, he actually sees a reduction in his standard-of-living because of the significantly higher prices in New York City. But he still can't go back to Iowa because there are no jobs there, they were poached by the big city through effectively what are bribes.
In the end, subsidies always enrich the wealthy. Roads are a form of government subsidy and have exactly the same effect as every other subsidy.
Subsidies have nothing to do with economics, at least not in regards to macroeconomics and efficiency. Subsidies are just protectionism/corporatism/fascism. It is about one nation or city trying to artificially make their businesses more competitive in comparison to the businesses of another nation or city.
It is the reason why China was charged with "currency manipulation". They are subsidizing their industry by keeping the exchange rate of their entire currency artificially low. They aren't improving the human condition, they are just poaching middle-class jobs and making international corporations really rich.
Look, the invisible hand simply refers to our understanding of "human nature". Or more specifically that if you had two different items of similar quality, in almost all cases you will buy the cheaper one. In an actual free market, the lower priced item is almost always the item which was produced most efficiently.
The invisible hand is really just "the price system". In that the price of goods is usually directly related to the amount of labor/skill it took to create something, and/or the relative availability of that item. If someone expects to earn $10 an hour, and an item took him ten hours to produce, then he will expect a profit of $100. Someone who could make the same item in nine hours, could charge $10 less and put the less efficient producer out of business.
If there is too much corn, the price of corn will go down relative to other types of crops. As a result, a farmer might change the kinds of crops he grows.
Basically, the invisible hand directs resources(IE labor and capital) where they are most efficient or most desired. There is nothing wrong with the theory on its face. The real problem here is how government subsidies can reduce or raise the price of a crop or manufactured good. If you artificially make corn more profitable, more farmers will grow corn. If you make corn artificially cheap, people will buy more of it.
Adam Smith acknowledged this to be a political reality, even in his time governments were constantly intervening in the market(IE mercantilism). In those days it wasn't subsidies, it was tariffs, but tariffs and subsidies have the same general effect and purpose, to give advantages. What Adam Smith said about subsidies and tariffs is simply "don't do it". Adam Smith also advocated for basically a gold standard, and wasn't concerned whatsoever about trade deficits even with a hard currency.
In making his case, he used "Wine" as his example. He said, you can feasibly grow grapes in Scotland by building "hothouses". But wine made from hothouses would be thirty times more expensive than the wine from France. By putting up tariffs or subsidies to make wine-making of Scotland artificially profitable, you are effectively wasting human labor thirty-fold.
He went on to make my case that the real beneficiaries of tariffs/subsidies are always the merchants and manufacturers, and not the common man.
What Adam Smith is really saying is, if you have free trade with a hard currency, the common man will be bettered, not simply here, but everywhere. If you put up tariffs or subsidies to make one business or another artificially competitive, you will waste human labor, and thus drive up the costs of the common man.
In that sense, tariffs and subsidies never improve the condition of the ordinary man. All it can do is enrich one group by even more greatly impoverishing another.
Basically, New York City might steal away the Tonight Show from Los Angeles by handing out $20 million in subsidies. But, all they are actually doing is taking money away from both the people of New York City and the people of Los Angeles without providing any overall benefit to society. The only people who really benefit from that arrangement, are the executives at NBC, and the investors of their parent company.
This is even more egregious if you imagine they were stealing the company from a small town instead of Los Angeles.
Imagine a small town in Iowa being the headquarters of a major company. The small town didn't have the kind of money that New York City has to give out perks, so the company moves to New York City to enjoy the subsidies, tax exemptions, or whatever else. As a result, the people who previously worked for that company in Iowa are now jobless, or they just follow the company to New York City. The company is more profitable now, but most of that profit goes to a relatively small number of executives and investors(why else would they have gone to New York City?). While the average employee might see an increase in pay, he actually sees a reduction in his standard-of-living because of the significantly higher prices in New York City. But he still can't go back to Iowa because there are no jobs there, they were poached by the big city through effectively what are bribes.
In the end, subsidies always enrich the wealthy. Roads are a form of government subsidy and have exactly the same effect as every other subsidy.
Subsidies have nothing to do with economics, at least not in regards to macroeconomics and efficiency. Subsidies are just protectionism/corporatism/fascism. It is about one nation or city trying to artificially make their businesses more competitive in comparison to the businesses of another nation or city.
It is the reason why China was charged with "currency manipulation". They are subsidizing their industry by keeping the exchange rate of their entire currency artificially low. They aren't improving the human condition, they are just poaching middle-class jobs and making international corporations really rich.
Regardless, the question is, what can be done about it? For all my certainties, this is a problem I don't even have a solution for.
Hi Redshadwz,
I agree with much of what you wrote here also. Although, as you say there at the end, what can be done about any of these things? A critical/creative thinking approach suggests viewing problems by asking questions, 'brain storming,' considering contextual nuances, puzzling out externalities, coming up with pragmatic or plausible choices, experimenting with pragmatic or plausible implementation, testing, measuring results, considering natural consequences, going back to the drawing board, refining, re-imagining, back out for testing ... & so on.
'Seeing' problems through the critical/creative thinking 'lenses,' one might view it as a tool of inquiry & might notice that it describes a process(es). No one thing takes the place of a process. Suppose asking questions like these:
• Identify the problems. — “What’re the real questions we’re facing here?”
• Define the context. — “What are the facts & circumstances that frame these problems?”
• Enumerate choices. — “What are our most plausible three or four options?”
• Analyze options. — “What is our best course of action, all things considered?”
• List reasons explicitly. — “Let’s be clear: Why we are making this particular choice?”
• Self-correct. — “Okay, let’s look at it again. What did we miss?”
From Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts by Peter A. Facione
& of course measurement is not the same thing as understanding.
I mentioned Alexis de Tocqueville because, personally, I think he, like Mr. Smith, was 'on to something.' He intuited the relatively new American Country's various successes might be due to a kindof 'self-interest properly understood.'
Stating the obvious, that was then & this is now.
I've been called a 'pragmatic anarchist' (along with a few less desirable names) & I'll take responsibility for 'owning it.' Personally, I think the earlier American designers were also pragmatic anarchists in their own way.
How would you go about analyzing the 'self-interest properly understood' conundrum?
Fr'instance, take the first: Identify the problems. — “What’re the real questions we’re facing here?”
How would one go about properly understanding 'self-interest'?
How would one go about properly understanding 'self-interest'?
The most simple way is a combination of provable empirical data, and just plain "human reason".
As for the question about transportation and subsidies. The only way to solve the problem of economic manipulation through government subsidies, is to make all targeted subsidies unconstitutional. Or possibly just to have the Supreme Court interpret the commerce clause to make sure that the "regulation of trade between the states" actually means to "make trade regular between the states". Which means to prevent artificial economic advantages through economic manipulation.
The problem here is that, such an act would almost certainly require a constitutional amendment. Which on its own is impossible. But if you consider the fact that the US government uses subsidies to make American exports more competitive internationally, and the fact that the primary beneficiaries of the current system are "big-business, big-government, and big-cities". Then the likelihood of such a change is effectively "zero".
So I'll just come here and complain about it, and nothing will change. Nothing can be done, at least short of revolution.
The most simple way is a combination of provable empirical data, and just plain "human reason".
As for the question about transportation and subsidies. The only way to solve the problem of economic manipulation through government subsidies, is to make all targeted subsidies unconstitutional. Or possibly just to have the Supreme Court interpret the commerce clause to make sure that the "regulation of trade between the states" actually means to "make trade regular between the states". Which means to prevent artificial economic advantages through economic manipulation.
The problem here is that, such an act would almost certainly require a constitutional amendment. Which on its own is impossible. But if you consider the fact that the US government uses subsidies to make American exports more competitive internationally, and the fact that the primary beneficiaries of the current system are "big-business, big-government, and big-cities". Then the likelihood of such a change is effectively "zero".
So I'll just come here and complain about it, and nothing will change. Nothing can be done, at least short of revolution.
Thanks & respect for your response. I agree an upheaval of sorts is most likely required at this point.
I tend to think most folks make decisions on the loss aversion heuristic, that it, decisions are often made on the basis of what might be lost rather than on the basis of what might be gained. Granted, this often works out just fine. Unfortunately it sometimes leads to a procrastination of sorts. Although I tend to think all this is quite natural, I also think it becomes more likely for folks to accept the status quo, even as it slowly deteriorates, than to call for critical/creative thought possibly leading to an upheaval. I think it would make sense to focus on solving problems & determining underlying or root causes.
I'm new here at this forum & attempting to become acquainted with the way folks here think, taking a pulse, so to speak. I appreciate your thoughts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Externalities
