text:
Browsing Ph.D. Afhandlinger (SMG) by Title
Previous Page
Now showing items 3-7 of 7
The Implications for Whole Farm Risk ManagementFriis Pedersen, Michael (Frederiksberg, 2013)[More information][Less information]
Abstract: This thesis analyzes the institutional framework around risk management in Danish agriculture, with the two main sectors, the hog and the dairy sector in mind, and it suggests a new more active role for the cooperatives in these sectors, with regard to the reallocation of price risk among members. The thesis consists of a general introduction, three linked but independent and self-contained papers and a conclusion. The first paper introduces a measure of credit capacity using Data Envelopment Analysis. This is a novel application of a well-known methodology from production economics on financial issues. The paper was motivated by the fact that most literature on risk management explains the rationale for risk management activities such as hedging, with increased ability to obtain finance via debt. However, no hedging had been performed on the output side for Danish pig or dairy farms, while access to debt capital seemed abundant. It seemed that farmers may have been thinking "Why hedge, if you can borrow?" The perception of the abundant availability of liquidity in the form of credit reserves may have been an explanation for the absence of other risk management activities in the sectors and why a measure and empirical analysis of the development in credit capacity was needed. However, existing measures of access to credit had focused on the dichotomous question of whether firms are financially constrained or not, while the relative unconstrainedness of firms (farms) would have explained the absence of risk management. An analysis of some 92,000 farm accounts from 1996 to 2009 found that access to credit roughly doubled during the period. This may have been an important explaining factor for the (absent) development of risk management institutions. URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10398/8817
Files in this item: 1Michael Friis Pedersen.pdf (1.612Mb)
[More information][Less information]
Abstract: This dissertation explores the internal antecedents of the phenomenon labeled management innovation. Management innovation refers to the implementation of new management practices, processes, techniques or structures that alter the way the work of management is performed. In other words, management innovation refers to changes in what managers do and how they do it. URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10398/8295
Files in this item: 1Mie_Harder.pdf (1.496Mb)
A Context-Specific StudyStucchi, Tamara (Frederiksberg, 2013)[More information][Less information]
Abstract: This Ph.D. dissertation investigates some International Business (IB) issues, which emerge from a specific context of research. The study takes inspiration from one of the most currently debated phenomena in IB literature, i.e. the internationalization of Emerging Market (EM) firms. The recent global emergence of these firms is substantial and particularly interesting under several points of view, especially because the IB literature has traditionally been dominated by western-centric theories, whose applicability to the case of EM firms might be questionable. The present Ph.D. thesis recommends an approach to the study of the internationalization of EM firms that can contribute to the advancement of IB literature in general. This is illustrated by the four research articles of the thesis, where a single-country EM context is used to draw general implications useful for researchers, practitioners and policy makers. More in details, the first paper "Emerging market firms' acquisitions in advanced markets: Matching strategy with resource-, institution- and industry-based antecedents" studies the antecedents that can affect the motivations for the acquisitions that EM firms undertake in advanced markets. The second article, entitled "Time to internationalization and evolving institutions: An event history analysis of Indian firms", analyzes domestic firms' earlier versus later internationalization, during a period of radical institutional changes. The third paper, "The role of Overseas National Ownership in Outward FDI: A study of the Indian diaspora", studies how the presence of overseas national shareholders can influence homeland firms' outward FDI. Finally, the last article is entitled "Business groups' internationalization: The role of the domestic geographical scope" and analyzes one possible explanation for business groups' internationalization, from an organizational learning perspective. The Ph.D. thesis is empirically based on a very comprehensive sample of Indian firms. The data are collected from different sources, i.e. the Prowess database, the Zephyr database, the Indian Census and the World Competitiveness Yearbook. The potential value of this singlecountry context perspective is highlighted throughout the Ph.D. thesis, and clearly emerges while I address the different issues of the four research articles. URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10398/8699
Files in this item: 1Tamara_Stucchi.pdf (1.150Mb)
Essays on Autonomous Strategic ActionLinder, Stefan Matthias (Frederiksberg, 2011)[More information][Less information]
Abstract: Kun abstrakt er tilgængelig online for denne PhD afhandling. CBS Bibliotek har en trykt udgave der kan findes via CBS bibliotekskatalog. Only abstract of this Ph.D. thesis is available online. The CBS Library has a printed edition this edition can be found through the CBS Library Catalogue. URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10398/8356
Files in this item: 1Stefan_Linder_PhD_abstract.pdf (31.84Kb)
Møller Larsen, Marcus (Frederiksberg, 2013)[More information][Less information]
Abstract: Offshoring can be defined as the relocation of organizational tasks and services to foreign locations. Increasingly, firms experience that unforeseen costs and difficulties of managing offshoring undercut anticipated benefits; that unexpected challenges of offshoring jeopardize and eventually undermine initial objectives. Guided by the research question—what are the organizational consequences of offshoring?—the purpose of this thesis is to investigate why some firms fail when offshoring and other do not. The thesis consists of four research papers using various datasets and methodologies that investigate offshoring in an organizational context. The first paper investigates how the complexity of offshoring leads to 'hidden costs' of implementing offshoring activities. The second paper looks at how these hidden reconfiguration costs influence the process performance of the offshored activity and how this relationship is moderated by the modularity of that activity. The third paper investigates the effect of the organizational reconfiguration of offshoring on firms' strategies. The final paper studies different strategies of adaptation in offshoring. Taken together, this thesis argues that whether firms relocate activities with the purpose of accessing resources or as a response to political pressures, the process of offshoring presents firms with the challenge of coordinating and integrating offshoring activities in a global organization. The complexities and uncertainties of an organization consisting of a number of offshored activities (in contrast to an organization with only co-located activities) require firms to invest additional resources in coordination mechanisms so that an efficient reintegration can be achieved. URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10398/8669
Files in this item: 1Marcus_M _Larsen.pdf (1.714Mb)
Previous Page
Now showing items 3-7 of 7


text:
Nov 20, 2009
Rock and a Hard Place
I had an interesting conversation with an editor yesterday. The issue of how to satisfy the largest group of NXT users and minimize the number who are unable to use a book is a real hot topic. Hopefully you've all seen the image Laurens put together showing the overlap of the 1.0 and 2.0 retail kits - not a lot of parts to build with, is it? If the Education kit is thrown into the mix, the overlap of parts will be even smaller.
I didn't get a lot of feedback regarding the use of the LEGO Education Resource Set in future books, but the ones I did get were not very supportive of the idea (except for those who already owned the Resource Set for various reasons)... but buying the Resource Set simply to be able to build a new set of robots in a book does not appear to be what people want.
So, where does that leave us? Well, we can return to the Upgrade Kit that sellers like Bill are offering - they may include non-NXT-standard colors, and the Color sensor, software, and mat are not included... but the Upgrade Kit is $70.00 - only $10 less than the Resource Set... so my first guess is that if someone is unwilling to buy the Resource Set they're probably not likely to want to buy an Upgrade Kit either... at least at the current prices. I know nothing about the pricing of individual parts, markup, etc... but I can't fault Bill for trying to make a small profit (if any) on his Upgrade Kit - it takes time and energy to gather parts, bundle them, and ship - and if he's willing to do this, then I hope he's able to recoup his costs plus a little extra.
Another option is to continue to write books for the latest version that can be purchased in the stores and online - 2.0. But that leaves a LOT of 1.0 owners out in the cold and unable to use the newer books that will be coming out. I don't like that option, but designing multiple versions of robots using each of the kits AS WELL AS including those BIs in a new book is time consuming, eats up pages in a book, and reduces the number of robot designs that can be included in a book. Yes, I could write a 400-500 page book, but it won't cost $16.99 from Amazon.com - more likely it will approach the $30 range (or higher). And most of the publishers I've worked with prefer to keep the books at a specific price point that they know, historically, contributes to book sales.
My new book "The King's Treasure" uses the 2.0 retail kit. Most (or all) of the robots in that book can be easily redesigned using the 1.0 kit, but it will require some thought on the 1.0 owner's part... I struggled with this, but my publisher wanted the book to use the 2.0 kit and LEGO, while not putting any pressure on me to do so, expressed interest in my writing a 2.0 book. I'll definitely be curious to see the robots that 1.0 owners come up with to solve the 5 challenges I've created.
So, right now... I'm in planning mode. I have a request to do a new LEGO book but nothing is firm yet. Do I do a combo book - with 1.0 and 2.0 instructions? Do I focus on just 2.0? It has been suggested to me to do a book for the Ed version plus Resource Set - that might REALLY open some options for more complex robots...
I've got some thinking to do, but I always welcome input from the community.
18 comments:
- Julie1364 said...
One possible answer make the book for version 2.0, but provide a downloadable pdf version of 1.0 equivalent robots. Of course that's going to make more work for you and I'm not sure if the price of the book would cover the extra work.
- Nov 20, 2009, 2:15:00 AM
- Micah E. said...
Perhaps a supplement CD, including building instructions and programing modifications needed to build each robot in the book, but with the alternate kit.
You can pretty easily assume that your readers are going to have access to computers, it doesn't eat up pages, and it makes 2.0 books accessible to 1.0 users. Also, I imagine, significantly cheaper for both readers and publishers.
Only downside I can see is that a lot more effort has to go into the book on the authors' side... but that's pretty much a non-unique disadvantage anyway.
- Nov 20, 2009, 2:21:00 AM
- Armagon said...
Rock and a hard place is right. I do like the downloadable supplement idea.
One really nice thing about the Mayan Adventure novels is that they contain a series of challenges, each with a solution provided. The book's usefulness is not diminished much if you don't have the kit required to build the one solution offered to each problem. (Indeed, in some situations it is a bonus, as the builder can refer to existing instructions but must come up with his own solution.)
Lastly, and it is hard to say if it would succeed or flop, but, given permission, the community might be willing to make up instructions for variations on models in existing (and possibly future) books that can be built with different sets than the original.
- Nov 20, 2009, 3:44:00 AM
- Jim Kelly said...
One thing I tried (and still haven't given up on yet...) is the Mars Base Command where I don't provide building instructions for a robot but I do provide building instructions for the challenge elements.
The problem is that sales of the first Mars Base Command module haven't been all that great.
- Nov 20, 2009, 4:06:00 AM
- Armagon said...
Hmm... I've only been minimally aware of Mars Base Command. It doesn't come up on Amazon when I search for NXT.
This also strikes me as something problematic about using the Resource Kit -- it doesn't show up at Lego.com, and many people don't know they can obtain it from legoeducation.com.
Lego must seem some advantage in segregating the market, but it is unclear to me.
- Nov 20, 2009, 4:57:00 AM
- Armagon said...
Here is a thought for a compromise -- mostly it depends on how good the overlap is.
Write books that can be built with an NXT 2.0, an NXT 1.0 + Resource Kit, or an NXT Education Base Set + Resource Kit.
This way, any NXT 2.0 owner can use them, anyone with an NXT 1.0 who bought the upgrade kit or the resource kit could use them, any educational users with the combination of educational kits could use them.
- Nov 20, 2009, 6:27:00 AM
- Jetro said...
Does anyone remember how many books there were for RCX robots? I think at the current count there's probably a multiple of those available for NXT 1. I won 4 NXTs and not a single NXT 2 set, but I would find it more than reasonable if writers decided that there are enough NXT 1 options available and to move on to NXT 2
BTW, I like the idea of NXT2 and NXT1+resource kit
- Nov 20, 2009, 9:04:00 AM
- Jetro said...
That should of course be "I own 4 NXTs..."
- Nov 20, 2009, 9:12:00 AM
- Armagon said...
One more thought: it doesn't have to be all or nothing. I don't see that it would be a crime to have a robot in a book that required parts from the 1.0 kit and another that required parts from the 2.0 book. Say one needs the zamor sphere launcher or treads and another one needs a turntable. These are parts which can not be replaced without degraded functionality.
In the table of contents, list which kits can build the robot as-is, and, in the introduction for each robots, list a bill of materials and which parts a given kit is short on for building the robot (or provide a link to alternate steps to build it with a given kit using different parts).
@Jetro -- Darn, I wanted to know how you won four NXTs. Sweat and hard work, huh?
- Nov 20, 2009, 9:37:00 AM
- L3G0-Bots Lady (;-p) LEG0Bot-Gee a.k.a. V.Greene said...
The NXT 1.0 & NXT 2.0 & Educational kit difference is a predicament, but there is NO ONE solution that will satisfy all of us. Offering 2-3 versions of a book to satisfy all the different kits may be nice, but I would think that is a bit much – I would rather see authors focus on coming up with new, innovative projects rather than changing a few elements & programming of the same idea to satisfy the various versions. Besides, I think most NXT robotics fans, are creative enough to take an idea from one version & figure out how to apply it to another version.
As a NXT fan (and I would think most "true" NXT robotics fans), would feel offering an Upgrade kit would be helpful or like myself would just scrape together my coins & buy the new kit; hey new kits are exciting, the thought of new elements & new features. Plus, like eating Pistachios or chips, you can't stop at just one; you crave to build a new robots to add to your collection.
- Nov 20, 2009, 10:09:00 AM
- LEGOmom said...
In your new book, the 2nd one after Mayan Adventure (sorry blanking on the title), we could build the robots with NXT1.0+Education Resource set? What would be missing? The tracks, the thinner wheels, zamor shooter, new color sensor? Hhmm correct me if I'm wrong but I think the wheels in the NXT2.0 kit is in the Education resource set?
- Nov 20, 2009, 1:27:00 PM
- Jim Kelly said...
If you're talking about "King's Treasure" than the differences are as follows:
1. One robot uses the Color sensor but a 1.0 user could change the challenge to use grayscale easily enough.
2. One robot uses the tracks but the robot could easily be modified to use wheels... the tank tracks were just fun to build with.
3. The mismatched quantities of parts between 1.0 and 2.0 was the biggest issue, and 1.0 owners should be able to easily overcome this problem by some redesign.
- Nov 20, 2009, 11:19:00 PM
- Jetro said...
Here's a spin-off from all the questions about overlap between sets... would it be possible to post the parts that are missing between sets so people can easily set up BL wanted lists to look for the items?
- Nov 20, 2009, 11:34:00 PM
- LEGOmom said...
Good to know Jim. So my take is that given the sensor and tracks, a person w/ a 1.0Kit PLUS Education Resource kit, would have no problem building your designs in King's Treasure.
- Nov 21, 2009, 2:43:00 AM
- Jim Kelly said...
I think so, LEGOMom.
My goal wasn't to make super-complicated robots, but to make interesting challenges to overcome.
The first robot in the book is really a redesign of the Explorobot from Mayan Adventure with a few minor changes to the challenge.
All other robots and challenges are unique and, I hope, fun to the reader to try and solve. Two of the five are, IMO, quite challenging but not impossible.
I'm 99.9% certain I could create 5 robots with 1.0 to do all five of the new challenges.
- Nov 21, 2009, 2:47:00 AM
- AndyD said...
I have been following the discussion on authors, writing for NXT 1.0, or NXT 2.0. I can see the need to write books for the NXT 2.0 kit (that is what is now available), but there are many folks out there with just a NXT 1.0. I have both, but I am sure that many don't.
I can see your dilemma, so (with more work on your part), instead of writing an encyclopedia size book to cover NXT 1.0 and NXT 2.0 how about writing the book for NXT 2.0 and maybe have someone make some similar models that can be built with just a NXT 1.0 and offer these instructions on an Internet resource (maybe for $$) so folks can use the NXT 2.0 book with their NXT 1.0 kit and have equivalent models. I imagine many folks would be willing to purchase the PDF's instead of a new NXT or an overlap kit, or an education resource kit as a few dollars extra for each book would be much less than a while new kit.
I'm sure I am not the first to suggest this, but maybe if enough folks like the idea maybe the authors of NXT books can find this as an opportunity.
- Nov 24, 2009, 2:49:00 AM
- David said...
My question turns the table a bit. I just purchased two NXT 2.0 kits for my son and I to receive as Christmas gifts. I plan on ordering your new Kings Treasure book, but I am also interested in getting your older Mayan book. Would we be able to accomplish the tasks designed for NXT 1.0 in your Mayan book, if we only have the NXT 2.0 kit?
- Nov 25, 2009, 1:29:00 PM
- Jim Kelly said...
I may be wrong, but I believe that the challenges in Mayan Adventure are totally doable with a 2.0 kit... the only exception is one robot requires the Sound Sensor but I think you could modify that robot to use the Color sensor to detect a flashlight or laser pen directed at the sensor... but there may be other options.
One possible bit of good news is that Apress has asked me to consider updating the Mayan Adventure book for use with the 2.0 kit... it wouldn't be a total rewrite, but the robots and programming chapters would be new. The story would be the same.
I'll keep my readers informed - nothing is for certain and Apress can certainly change its mind at any time.
- Nov 25, 2009, 11:36:00 PM

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Entries with no category
Hi to all you wrestling fans been a while since my first blog almost a year in fact. It was around this time last year that id voice my thoughts on how wrestling would return to the glory days of the mid to late 90's. A year on and we're still waiting
i apologize up front if this blog comes across a bit disjointed the point of this is to purely add my opinion to the thousands of others
© 2011 eWrestlingNews, All Rights Reserved.


text:
Originally written on Football Nation | Last updated 7/7/13
Rex Ryan and Jason Garrett haven't even had the chance to besmirch their 2013 campaigns. Yet already, NFL Network, ESPN, and even us, admittedly, have speculated to their ensconce upon the so-called "hot seat".They're not alone. Jim Schwartz, Mike Munchak, Dennis Allen, and Ron Rivera are also engaged in their own Nik Wallenda-esque tightroping. Difference is, these coaches must remain sufficiently vertical for a four-month time frame in order to survive.While it's common to point your finger, Tony Montana-esque, and growl, "There! There's the bad coach!", fewer people offer up likely replacements outside of, "Maybe this is the year Jon Gruden and/or Bill Cowher comes back!"As Cowher's making the most of his home life, and Gruden's busy dropping "THIS GUY" platitudes on Monday nights, it's time to look at some more attainable options for headset-wearers come 2014.Here's twelve more likely ones.
Comments are closed.
What do you think?To leave a comment, you can:
NFL News
Delivered to your inbox
You'll also receive Yardbarker's daily Top 10, featuring the best sports stories from around the web. Customize your newsletter to get articles on your favorite sports and teams. And the best part? It's free!
Follow us on Twitter
|Best of Yardbarker
|NFL News
|MLB News
Today's Best Stuff
For Bloggers
Join the Yardbarker Network for more promotion, traffic, and money.
Company Info
What is Yardbarker?
Yardbarker is the largest network of sports blogs and pro athlete blogs on the web. This site is the hub of the Yardbarker Network, where our editors and algorithms curate the best sports content from our network and beyond.
|© 2015 Yardbarker, Inc. All rights reserved. Use of this website (including any and all parts and components) constitutes your acceptance of these Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. (What's New?)


text:
Design Toscano is proud of its fun Meerkat sculpture and now we have one that brings the fun inside your home as well as in the yard. Our Meerkat Clan Sculptural Glass-Topped side table is absolutely the best piece to bring the Meerkat joy indoors. This table has our favorite well sculpted Meerkat clan, two standing and one lying down, under a tree on which a 18 ½" beveled glass top rests. A great place for cocktails and snacks and hopefully the Kats won't grab any.
A tortoise statue is usually a sedate item as tortoises and turtles tend to do everything at a pretty slow pace. However, we do have a statue where the turtles decided to have a little fun. This is our Three's a Crowd Stacked Turtle Statue. It appears that the big man of this turtle family has gained some baggage with two smaller turtles riding on his back in a turtle stack. These guys are so lifelike you will expect them to move at any moment and the wonderful hand painted design on their shells will definitely cause comment.
Our outdoor elephant statues are second to none and designers are creating new and playful ideas for these pachyderms. A great one is The Hear-No, See-No, Speak-No Evil Elephants another stack of outdoor animals from Design Toscano. These are the lucky elephants with their trunks up, piled upon one another covering their eyes or ears or mouth.
Love deals? Then now is the time to shop Design Toscano because we are having our Memorial Day Sale! 20% off Everything until 5/31/11!


text:
- Jah Sun
- Los Angeles, CA
- United States
CEO, Water Charity
This conversation is closed.
What alternatives are there to the current economic system? Should global capitalism fail, what would be the best model to replace it?
There are a ton of people who are dissatisfied with how our current system operates. Quite a few people are coming to the conclusion that this system is endemically flawed.
The Occupy movement is merely the most obvious and vocal outgrowth of a sentiment that many feel very strongly... namely that our Capitalist model of resource and labor management is unfair, environmentally unsound, inefficient, and unsustainable.
The fact that the people who profit the most in our system are often people who do little or no actual work is fairly self-evident. The hardest work, like toilet cleaning, often garners the most minimal of recompense, while investing in abstract economic instruments like the S&P Index can net one millions of dollars in a 10 second phone call placed from a poolside lounge chair in a 5-star resort.
Given that any system, no matter how well designed, can be improved... this debate is an attempt to spark a rational conversation on what we could do to make the exchange of goods and services more just, more effective, and more healthy for the biosphere.
There are scant few models out there that even propose any clear alternative. Most of the writing on the subject amounts to either pure critique of the current system, or pie-in-the-sky Utopian idealism with no clear path to get from here to there.
So, brilliant TED lovers... anyone got any good ideas?
We can discuss the pros and cons of such extant alternative models as The Venus Project, the "Basic Income" (ala B.I.E.N.), some of the ideas presented in Pinchbeck's latest Evolver essay compendium "What Comes After Money?" or any other relevant topic that tickles your fancy. Feel free to defend global capitalism if that is how you feel.
Let's keep it civil and worthy of this esteemed venue. Logic, clarity, rationality, and respect are paramount.
It is worth pointing out that what is better or best, in this case, will be considered in light of all people and the biosphere we share.
Closing Statement from Jah Sun
It has been quite an interesting exploration.
Inspiring , frustrating, informative... but most of all, it has brought certain things into sharp focus.
The basic question of "what alternatives to the global economic system are there?" has been only cursorily addressed, because the answer is that there really AREN'T any that are ready for prime time. We've seen plenty of good fixes, adjustments & modifications... some quite striking & comprehensive... but nobody has been able to put forth a clear model of what we could actually do INSTEAD of the current status quo, should this model fail.
And, fail it could... make no mistake about that.
Also, I don't think the focus should be on what is best for US Citizens (or any single nation state or group of nations). The problem is already trans-national. National solutions to trans-national problems tend to prove disastrous. Unilateral actions & heavy handed moves in one nation's interest should become a thing of the past as people wake up & realize that we all share this one Earth, that national boundaries are imaginary lines drawn by people who often never even visited the place in question, and that humanity is going to have to work together if we want to solve the major issues of our time.
As far as short term fixes go, fractional reserve banking & debt based currency need to go. Lara posted this link: http://issuu.com/margritkennedy/docs/bue_eng_interest to an e-book which does a good job showing how this monetary system is crippling us.
The data that Richard Wilkinson put forth in his TED talk (linked in the intro) argues for us to recognize that economic inequality hurts everyone... even the ones at the top. The most equal societies are clearly the healthiest & most successful.
I think the Basic Income Guarantee is a good place to start in addressing the remorseless & uncivilized blight of abject poverty.
It is clear that we need to redress our priorities as a society.
Another conversation will follow.
Lara Iriarte
Nov 28 2011: Krisztian - I'm going to try to explain this simple concept one last time.
- +4
Each time a loan is taken out there is an increased demand for money in circulation to repay the interest on the loan. Before the loan was taken out this interest was not due, after the loan is taken out the interest is then due. Thus there is must be an increase in the supply of money now required to repay interest.
This means that someone else somewhere else in the system must take out another loan if this demand for money to repay interest is to be met.
Thus more debt = more interest = more demand for money = more debt.
Interest is repaid at a % rate this is why our economic system requires growth at a % rate. The amount of money in supply and our economic activity must grow at a % rate.
As our economy grows at a % rate the amount of resources we use also grows at a % rate. Take a look at Al Bartlett's talk on exponential growth which I have linked to earlier. The amount of oil we are using has been growing at an exponential rate.
Our population also has been growing at an exponential rate. Our demand for food and water is growing at an exponential rate, because of population growth.
Earth is finite and our resources are finite. Even renewable resources have a limit to how much we can use at any one time, they require time for renewal. There is a limit to growth.
This is not an opinion, it is a mathematical fact. You can disagree with maths all you like, it doesn't make the math wrong.
Nov 28 2011: basically you reiterated your earlier claims. but i've addressed these points already.
you got it backwards. if everyone were taking a loan from the bank, it would require increasing the amount of money. but this is like saying if everyone took double amount of chocolate, the chocolate stocks would have to be doubled. in fact, it just means that it is not possible for everyone to double chocolate consumption right away. similarly, interest makes it impossible to finance everything with loans, or at least some of them will default. that is unless something increases the money supply. so as you can see, debt is not the cause of the increase. as i have illustrated, interest existed back then, when money was gold and silver. and those things don't increase as we desire.
and second, i also explained how technology can reduce the ecological footprint of an individual. exponential growth in gdp or in any other measure of wellbeing does not imply exponential growth of any material parameters. for example it does not have to increase fossil usage if we manage develop solar, wind, nuclear or any other kind of energy source. granted, one day exponential function outgrows even the sun's energy production. but i don't think that we need to worry about it now. i'm much more worried about children not getting enough food in some parts of the world.
this time i'm going to ignore your rude remarks. but it is not wise to take such an arrogant position. especially if you don't do better than tell fall back to something i refuted already.
Nov 29 2011: Hey Krisztian, I applaud you ignoring rude remarks... but being the last to reply to a comment does not mean to refute an argument ;-)
Thomas Jones
Nov 29 2011: Krisztián, Disagreeing in not the same thing as refuting. And the fact you believe in a particular economic model does not confer infallibility upon it (this does seem to be the foundation of much of your argument - If you believe it; it is true. If others do not; they are wrong.)
- +2
Your model seems rather simplistic: essentiality remove all regulation and let the market sort out the wheat from the chaff.
Your model might work - if everyone was "like you."
I honestly cannot think of a model that would work globally and trying to come up with a system that works universally ignores the fact that we, as a group, do not lend ourselves to conformity - it does not matter if we are talking about religion, politics, or economics.
So your idea your model will work ignores one of the fundamental principles of any functional model - it must work in conditions as they exist. That is, a model - yours or anyone else's - would have to not only be "logical" to Mr Pintér, it would also have to be logical to Mr Sun, Mr Zhang, and Mr Gebbedi.
It isn't.
No model can achieve universal acceptance - not in the foreseeable future - so a heterogeneous approach seems to be the only viable option.
That you assume your model is "true" whether others understand it or not, smacks of a dogmatic, almost religious adherence to a utopian worldview that is, qualitatively, not much different than a Muslim saying, "Islam is true, whether you agree with me or not, and the world will be a better place when we are all good Muslims" (or anarcho-capitalists, vegans or whatever.)
That you have such "faith in the markets" is not something that most economists would even agree on (and I assume they are more knowledgable than you.)
For example, Charles Wheelan makes a point invoking Friedman when he says, "Even Milton Friedman, a nobel laureate in economics and the most articulate spokesman for free markets, would concede that unfettered markets can lead to deeply flawed outcomes."
Nov 29 2011: it is not my idea. i'm not that smart to come up with such concepts. the idea of free market capitalism, and how does it work, is a complete field of study. it is more than a hundred years old, and it is discussed and explained by dozens of geniuses. it is in no means a faith or an empty claim. it is a system of arguments that can be understood and evaluated.
i don't want anyone to believe me. i want people to follow my reasoning. and if they want to understand this point of view in greater detail, they can look it up. as a starter, i recommend henry hazlitt's book, economy in one lesson.
Thomas Jones
Nov 29 2011: Hi Krisztián,
- +1
Yes, Hazlitt's book is a good one. I have read it. Another good one is "Naked Economics / Undressing The Dismal Science" by Charles Wheelan (whom I quoted earlier.)
You say you are not smart enough to come up with these ideas ... that may be true. But here's what I've noticed about "geniuses" - they are not as smart as we think they are. So while you may be enamoured of the thinking of a few really bright guys, there are a bunch of other, equally bright guys, who disagree with you and with them.
If you are not smart enough to come up with these ideas you are also not smart enough to evaluate them. I would recommend that you give "the other side" just as must latitude as you give your "favourites."
And in keeping with your wish: I do not agree with you when you say you do not want people to agree with you.
It seems that is very much what you do want. You really, really like the internal coherence of the free market capitalistic model (as presented by "dozens of geniuses.")
You do not like any of the other models that other "geniuses" have come up with.
And you want us to agree with you. When we do not you get, to quote another, "bellicose."
As I said, those "geniuses" might not have been as smart as we think they were (they probably weren't.) For one thing, their models only work if the rest of us "obey the rules" of the model.
For the models to "work," it is expected that reality (that would be us and what we do) have to bend to conform to a model of reality.
It will not work.
So assume, for a minute, your favourite - "anarcho-capitalism" - is off the menu (and it is) - what do you think might work as a second choice?
As I have said, I do not know what will work. But I assume, whatever we come up with, it will evolve through a process of trial and error.
Now, if you do not think there is a viable alternative to anarcho-capitalism, you have made your point and likely have nothing more to contribute.
Nov 29 2011: this is getting nowhere. my last advice: stop counting how many people believes this or that. stop pretending that because people have differing opinions, all opinions are equally valid. i pointed out numerous times that good theories can be separated from wrong theories with reasoning and testing. you don't have a right to be correct. whether you are correct or not is a factual question. it is unknown in the beginning, and can be found out by logical reasoning. i put forward a lot of logical reasoning. but alas, i rarely get replies addressing those. many times the reply is just a reiteration of the opposing opinion. it is not interesting. conversation and voting are two different things. and now you tell me that since i have casted my vote, i need to shut up already. i'm not here to vote, or listen to other people's votes.
Thomas Jones
Nov 30 2011: Krisztián,
- +1
Your view seems a little skewed. You seem to think your opinion constitutes reasoning and proof whereas other people's opinions are simply opinions.
By your own admission there is no evidence that, for example, anarcho-capitalism will work because it has never been practiced. So any assertion you make regarding it (or even regarding capitalism) is simply an opinion.
That you choose to read into what others say such negative intent probably explains why you do get so bellicose at times. I did not tell you to shut up - I said if your position is that the only viable alternative is anarcho-capitalism then you likely have nothing more to contribute to this discussion. If that is your point - you have made it. We have the option of agreeing with you, or not, (most of us don't) so unless you have more to add that's about it.
I think we get it: You assert anarcho-capitalism works or would work; it is the only viable economic system. We need to get governments out of the picture, let the market sort things out, and all will be well in the world. And any other system will yield sub-optimal utility.
The whole "vote" thing rests on the assumption that what you say is quite simply "right" - not a matter of opinion.
You apparently operate out of a "right/wrong" paradigm. This is not the most conducive stance to take for fruitful conversation.
So if you think you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, again, you have made your point.
You are not going to "convince us" by becoming belligerent.
I'm pretty sure we all know we are not going to convince you that there might be some flaws in your worldview.
However, if you think there might be something to this whole collaboration idea, and want to contribute, it is a public forum and the invitation has been extended to think of a model to replace capitalism.
You might be smarter than you think ... you might actually be able to think of something better than Adam Smith or Frederic Bastiat did.
Lara Iriarte
Nov 25 2011: I think I have a simple elegant solution to the global debt crisis and the gap between rich and poor. They have the same cause.
- +4
The cause is structural, and it requires a structural solution.
Most people think that money lent by banks is depositors money and the bank's profits are in the difference between the loan interest rates it receives and the savings interest rate it pays out. This is not so.
Banks operate on a fractional reserve system. They loan out 9 times more than they have. This means that when you go to the bank to take out a loan 90% of that money is new money. It is created by private banks as interest bearing debt.
If new money is created in the system it requires interest to be paid to the bank on it. The borrower must work to earn this interest. This means that there is a demand for more money in the system. The only way our system creates new money is as interest bearing debt. Thus more debt = more interest to be repaid = more debt needs to be created. It is a vicious circle.
When the population is saturated with debt, just like a sponge soaked with water it cannot take on anymore, then we have defaults and bankruptcies. The system crashes. This is why we have a debt crisis.
If all the debt owed were paid off tomorrow (never mind that this is mathematically impossible) there would not be enough money in circulation for the needs of business.
Interest is the cause of the wealth gap. Those who have more get more, those who must borrow get less.
We need to change to an interest free money system with demurrage. We need to allow only the peoples banks, publicly owned government banks, the ability to create new money for productive purposes, not as debt.
Demurrage is a fee for holding onto money. This brings money back to the means not the end, encourages circulation, encourages economic activity, controls inflation and reinstates the incentive to loan.
This eBook outlines the solution.
Nov 25 2011: Excellent comment Lara!
I have tried earlier on in this thread to explain and provoke some discussion of fractional reserve banking and debt-based currency, but your post and excellent link have really done a bang up job of it.
As I said previously, if people understood this system, there is no way they would stand for it. It makes ponzi schemes look quaint and socially productive.
Clearly any rational society would not operate this way.
So, people... let's give this concept some serious discussion now. I feel that of all the alternatives and modifications to the current global economic system we have discussed, this ranks at or near the top, because it is doable in relatively short order, and doesn't presuppose a drastic change in the way people live. We may get around to building a resource based economy, but we could eliminate debt based money and fractional reserve banking nearly overnight.
Huzzah Lara! Thanks for participating and keenly elevating the discourse on this conversation.
Nov 27 2011: I do not see how this proposition takes care off unequal opportunities. It may in 1000 years as did it take in creating banking system.
Nov 27 2011: I don't think anyone imagines that doing away with fractional reserve and the basic debt behind money would be a complete solution in and of itself.
What it would do is defuse the notion that we have to grow the economy at all costs in order to keep from collapsing under mountains of illusory debt... as we see in many countries at this very moment.
The innate irrationality of the monetary system is a key factor in causing global capitalism to be so rapacious, and contributes equally to the rat-race, hamster wheel existence of those without capital.
Even more than the move from gold backed money to fiat currency, this element has caused a devaluing of basic monetary value. In some countries this factor alone has caused devaluations of 1,000,000 to 1... as well as the complete abandonment of various currencies that were worth less than the paper they were printed on.
This idea may not correct the playing field or address other serious concerns, but it does defang some troubling aspects of the current global economy.
There is no reason we couldn't go on to adopt other measures as well. Have you had a chance to check out Mordechay's 3 part proposal?Nov 26 2011: i still haven't seen a single argument why inequality is a problem. everyone just takes it for granted, and does not try to prove that large income differences cause harm how?
also, i don't think there is a gap between the rich and the poor. i believe there is a continuum from below one dollar per day up to tens of thousands with no gap anywhere.
i agree though that lot of the largest incomes today are stolen public money, and this should of course be stopped..
Nov 26 2011: Global capitalism will indeed fail if it drives a wedge between the haves and the have-nots. It will fail if it cannot figure out how to distribute the wealth in a way that satisfies the masses and their basic wants and needs. Not equal disribution - fair and balanced distribution
The purpose of regulating capitalism is to prevent those things from happening. Without regulation capitalism is just another form of dictatorship.
Nov 26 2011: define your terms. what is fair distribution? what is balanced distribution? how do you define the haves and the havenots? 10000 dollar per year is have not or have? what is a basic need? air conditioning is a basic need? a car? a cellphone?Nov 27 2011: Hi Krisztian,
Here is my argument: Poverty and income inequality are intrinsically linked. If you think laissez-faire capitalism can sustain increasing income inequality while at the same time reducing poverty I would love to hear your ideas. If poverty could be reduced regardless of inequality, i could care less about how much money the top earners make.
But so far I've never found data that supports these two as separate (Rahman Khan has researched the topic extensively over decades) So yes if income inequality is intrinsically linked to poverty, then i think income inequality is a problem.
You seem to like to play with ambiguities. When people talk about a gap between the rich and the poor, i doubt they mean that the income distribution curve has gaps. It is easy to take the top 10% earners and the lowest 10% earners and use those slices to compare the difference. This is closer to what i mean when i use the term income gap.
Lastly, I could not agree more. A lot of public money is stolen and this is something that should be stopped. A lot of public money is also re-distributed back to top earners (i.e. TARP) and that is something that should be stopped too.
Nov 28 2011: that is not really and argument, rather, a claim that needs backup. the data is clear: the life standard of the bottom percentages in any advanced society goes up. it went up very fast during the industrial revolution. the very age that produced the rockefellers. the logic behind it is also clear. salaries are confined from both sides. the maximum is set by profitability (productivity of a certain worker). the minimum is set by competition between employers. as technology advances, both goes up. the productivity of a worker goes up because capital accumulation (machines, tools, know-how). the competition goes up because there is more money to pay.
i believe you are using ambiguities. if you mean difference, say difference. gap means ... well gap. some deeper, more profound difference. something that separates the two groups. the term is used to separate the "rich" from the "poor". but people rarely think about we are all rich in the eyes of a rice farmer in nepal, or in the eyes of an average guy in 1800. any line drawn to separate income groups into we and them is simply false.Nov 29 2011: Krisztian, you said:
"i still haven't seen a single argument why inequality is a problem. everyone just takes it for granted, and does not try to prove that large income differences cause harm how?
also, i don't think there is a gap between the rich and the poor. i believe there is a continuum from below one dollar per day up to tens of thousands with no gap anywhere."
before I comment I really do want to ask something? do you really not see a problem? If you really do not I will gladly like to point it out to you being that I have first hand experience with seeing such a problem (as perhaps everyone else) but I do not want to comment on that unless you are being serious about such a statement because most of the time I discuss with you, I have mentioned such an issue.
Nov 29 2011: it is not a good policy to question the seriousness of your opponents. i understand why it is easier to call me a troll, but sorry, i'm serious.
and yes, i have heard many arguments, but they were false. i don't count false arguments.Nov 26 2011: Lara - Good points!
Kirsztian - "i don't think there is a gap between the rich and the poor. i believe there is a continuum from below one dollar per day up to tens of thousands with no gap anywhere."
This statement is meaningless. It's also profoundly erroneous.
You go on to say, "i agree though that lot of the largest incomes today are stolen public money, and this should of course be stopped.."
Give us some ideas as to how we might stop this from happening, whether or not greed has anything to do with it, and whether putting regulations on the "free market" would help.
Nov 26 2011: jim, meaningless and erroneous is self contradiction. but you didn't really show any of these. can you please show me the gap? can you please define the position of the gap in income terms?
Nov 26 2011: Meaningless because it contributes nothing to this conversation and erroneous because it's not true.
Now before firing back at me with questions of your own, answer the question I asked:
Give us some ideas as to how we might stop this from happening, whether or not greed has anything to do with it, and whether putting regulations on the "free market" would help.Nov 26 2011: it is funny that you people keep asking me that. i explain that two times a day. the best way to stop people stealing public money is not to give the state that money in the first place.
Jim Moonan
Nov 26 2011: That answer is useless. It really has I worth in this conversation. Think harder.Nov 26 2011: wut?
- +1
Jim Moonan
Nov 26 2011: That answer ("the best way to stop people stealing public money is not to give the state that money in the first place.") is useless. It really adds no value to this conversation. Think harder.Nov 27 2011: jim, either you account is stolen, or it is some joke i don't get. which one?
- +3
Nov 27 2011: Neither.
Your answer (don't give the state money in the first place) is useless. I won't even give you the pleasure of explaining why it's useless because if you want to argue that it is a viable solution then you're out of the conversation. Anarchy is not an option.
You've asked earlier in the conversation, "I still haven't heard a single argument why inequality is a problem".
The answer is being demonstrated around the globe for a variety of reasons. Whether it be Syria or Yemen or Libya or Egypt or USA or Europe. When the masses realize that their lives are being dramatically, adversely affected by those in power they then begin the process of change to bring things more into balance/fairness/equality - call it whatever you'd like. Don't waste time trying to define it for the sake of argument. Inequality breeds discontent. The answer is not anarchy. The answer is democratic change. That is in essence what is happening in so many ways around the world.
And people say Obama was wrong when he ran on a platform of "hope and change". The fact is, since his election I see nothing but hope (it's dim and far away but it's there) and change. Change is in the air.Nov 27 2011: now, that's a useless reply. "because it is true" is not an argument. quite usual, though, because we, humans, don't like doubt. it is emotionally more luring not to have another option. if we simply don't have to think about something, since it is "not an option", it makes our lives easier. not better though, because we might exclude viable options. however, in fact i was not talk about anarchy. i am an anarchist, though they were reject me as capitalist. but this time i was talking about state interventions in the economy. if we would have had a free market economy with no bailouts and no special laws to protect friends, all this financial mess would not have happened. ending other state functions like law enforcement is another question.
i didn't understand a word from that rant about inequality. do you mean that it is wrong because people don't like it? and people don't like it because it is wrong?
it is rather funny that you believe democracy is the solution for a problem that originated in the oldest democracies, the USA and europe. it seems to me that democracy could not prevent it from happening. and now, people being disappointed in democracy, they declare it as "not true" democracy, and demand "true" democracy. yes, good luck with it. you can tweak it all day long, central planning or "fixing" the economy will lead to further demise of our civilization. the more "good" people come together to decide for us and pave the road to welfare, the faster the decline will be. the more regulations you put forward, the bigger the purses of some men will become. and at the end, our lives will be controlled and we will be shepherded by our wise leaders into total destruction.
Jim Moonan
Nov 27 2011: Virtually all of your response ignores what the masses are reacting to and instead makes a twisted and simplistic case for....... for.......... what????? Your scenario of what will happen if we attempt to address the problems of greed, inequality and unbridaled capitalism is almost biblical in proportion and smacks of financial Armageddon. It's anarchy. That makes it irrelevant.Nov 27 2011: Re: The whole "what is wrong with income inequality" debate...
- +1
It would be useful if everyone took a few minutes to watch Richard Wilkinson's talk "How income inequality harms society" here: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html The link is also in the intro.
Rather than try and explain the points he makes, it is easier to just give him a listen. He makes a number of very pertinent arguments with a decent statistical back-up. There are plenty of other issues, some have been raised here, some not, which also speak to this issue... but the stats speak for themselves. Societies with more equal wealth distribution do better on basically EVERY benchmark regardless of the actual amounts involved.
Comments or thoughts on this subject?
Nov 27 2011: i have comments, and i have posted in the discussion section below that talk. it was longer, so i include only two parts here:
"if we know a causal relationship, it is superior to statistical analysis. if they do have the actual link, why do we need to watch a 17 minute talk about the correlation?? show us the link!"
"the body of the talk does not support the conclusion. if inequality has a negative effect, does it mean we need to reduce it? if we can show correlation between wearing a mini skirt and rape, it is wise to discourage women wearing mini skirts? if displaying wealth causes increase shoplifting, should we penalize displaying wealth?"
full comment here: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html?c=344129Nov 28 2011: Thanks Jah - I haven't watched Wilkinson's talk, so I'll do that and re-join the conversation.Dec 1 2011: Hey there Lara,
Finally managed to read through that e-book you put up. It reminded me basically of the "Freigeld" (free money in German) concept. I believe it was a part of the Freiwirtschaft concept from Silvio Gesell.
I think such monetary policies have been attempted to greater or lesser effect on limited, local scale in various communities. I think we should continue to explore these ideas on a small scale until they are perfected, and then see what would happen if we took it to a national level. There are plenty of countries with such poor performing currencies, so perhaps one of them might feel they have nothing to lose in trying something new.
I don't really have any criticisms, and agree basically with all of what you have said on this conversation. The jury (for me at least) has been in on the whole debt-based money scheme for a loooong time now. People who defend it astound me. It is basically indefensible as far as I am concerned. Fractional reserve has to go, and money must be returned to its original function of simplifying the exchange of goods and services.
Thanks for participating.
Eric Rhoades
Nov 8 2011: First off, as many comments here allude to, we need to differentiate between capitalism and free markets, since capitalism, big time capitalism is associated with who owns the capital, or means or production. It is possible to maintain free markets without big time capitalism. A farmers market is a free market, but it isn't big time capitalism.
- +4
That being said it isn't necessary to destroy capitalism as it will fall of its own weight. The reason that wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few is that there is a glut of labor in the world, labor has no bargaining position when it is in surplus, and so no ability to demand a greater share of corporate profits, thus wealth concentrates at the top. The reason that there is a labor glut isn't because of globalization it is because of the productivity levels which are achievable by modern production techniques, opening new markets masks this problem by creating new demand, and so growth, but the amount of jobs created for the amount of growth created continues to lag.
So the big problem with modern capitalism is that in its pursuit of profits it has relied on methods which continually reduce labor inputs, this means fewer jobs at lower wages, and we are reaching the point where the wages paid aren't sufficient to fuel demand for the products it is possible to produce.
The answer to this is to de-centralize production. This may already have to occur as increased fuel costs make the shipping of goods more expensive. By de-centralizing production one can increase the need for labor and so reduce the surplus of labor, having a beneficial impact on wages. There may also be associated inflation, but we shouldn't be scared by this since by both reducing transportation costs and spreading profits we do have room to increase wages without increasing prices.
There also needs to be a greater focus on community initiatives outside the normal work paradigm, to increase quality of life, and maintain meaning in peoples lives.
Nov 9 2011: Your argument makes sense in theory Eric. Do you think markets should not be regulated?
Eric Rhoades
Nov 9 2011: Joanne,
- +1
I think free markets do some things extraordinarily well, the typical economic virtues, indicate shortages, set prices, allocate resources, etc. But they can perform these jobs too well, accomplishing their goals at the expense of environmental concerns, the ethical treatment of labor, or other areas that cause cost without monetary gain. So yes I do believe they should be regulated. Free markets are a very usefull beast that need to kept on a short leash.
There are also things that every society needs which free markets will not do at all, this is especially true of things which offer little or no profit motive, let's take supplying municipal water as an example. Even if there is a potential profit motive in supplying municipal water the profit potential is likely to be so small that the 'good' money, the best resources labor or otherwise, are likely to move to more profitable areas of the economy, and this certainly isn't the kind of process one wishes to encourage when dealing with things that have a major impact on the wellfare of a society.
It is very easy to see these issues in a very black and white manner, but free markets benefit from sound regulation, and the government benefits from adopting some aspects how free markets work.
Nov 9 2011: Thanks Eric. I do agree the terms 'socialism', 'capitalism', 'free market' are over-used and sometimes misinterpreted. Civilisation itself has been a highly complex experiment with many failures over the human timeline. We are in a position today where we can look to the past and evaluate with the wisdom of hindsight, which systems work well and which do not. I agree that the best path is one that strikes a balance between the forces of enterprise and the general needs of societies. I myself speak against, not capitalism per se, but against too much deregulation and the wide poverty gap that produces. I agree with your comment regarding the 'short leash' . Capitalism as like a bullock. A big and powerful animal if left unrestrained, but highly useful with a ring through its nose. I enjoyed reading your clear analysis. Thanks.Nov 9 2011: ah, so we are now inventing new terms? big time capitalism, not bad.
in fact, freedom and capitalism are the same thing. you cannot get rid of capitalism but by limiting freedom.
and what you call big time capitalism, and use capitalism as a short version, is actually called corporatism and interventionism.
Eric Rhoades
Nov 9 2011: You are very correct as regards the issue of freedom, in planned economies it is still very common to have active black markets, which are essentially free markets. If one wants to construct an economic model which people will follow easily one should use their most natural impulses, and free markets represent one of those impulses.
- +1
Nov 9 2011: yes we do have black markets. Look at what capacity they operate, underwhat conditions and moderate to limit them or eradicate them depending on the damage they do to the collective. A drug trade for example is a black market economy. So is the illegal immigrant labour force. One is viewed with slightly more hostility/police suppression than the other because of who benefits from it. My point is these are only variables in a system which is beneficial or not beneficial to the people using it, depending on the regulations it has been designed with. We must, in my opinion, measure the success of the system by the success of each individual within it. I guess Kristian might disagree with me there. That is the crux of why we are having this talk and the reason why it always comes down to the same knarly point. 'Why should I' says the capitalist 'Because you are part of the human community' replies the socialist.Nov 9 2011: Uhmm...
Freedom & Capitalism are the same thing?
In what Universe?
I suppose that Yanamamo Indians in the Amazon are in slavery, or some kind of bar-less prison? Indigenous people the world over didn't even have a concept of private property or land ownership, and yet were far freer than we are today in our pseudo-free markets.
Capitalism, in case you forgot, is the same system that gave us company towns, union busters, mercenary armies enforcing US drug laws on people who never voted for them... and sweatshops.
Perhaps you have a different definition of freedom.
Even if you did, your statement still makes no sense in purely in logical terms. It is a direct violation of at least 10 logical fallacies. It is something that might pass in a Keynesian or Austrian model economics workshop... but in a Logic 101 class it would garner you a fail.
It is totally conceivable (regardless of being rather unlikely) to get rid of Capitalism while increasing Freedom. You might have to stretch your mind a bit.
Nov 9 2011: i'm pretty sure that you can't judge capitalism based on history. why? because we never had pure capitalism. and if we have a mixed system, the question naturally arises: capitalism or something else is responsible for the troubles.
what is capitalism? capitalism is a system with the means of production in private hands. obviously, private ownership implies free use of those means, otherwise what is the purpose of owning things?
it is very clear from the definition that government is not part of capitalism. government limits the use of property, thus limits capitalism. bear in mind, i didn't say here that it is good or bad. i just said that government is a limit to capitalism. government is a non-capitalist element in a given system.
with that in mind, can you give me, say, three of those ten logical fallacies i have made?Nov 9 2011: In terms of indigenous peoples, or small tribes, you really need to look at their interactions with the tribes which they border as opposed to the dynamics of the tribe itself. The dynamics of small close groups does not translate to interaction of larger groups, otherwise one could build an economic systme on how ones family interacts. At some point the trust people invest in each other changes, and so the rules by which they exchange.Nov 16 2011: Jah Sun wrote "Freedom & Capitalism are the same thing?
In what Universe?"
Excellent point! Capitalists who talk so elegantly of freedom never consider "freedom for whom?" One of the essential problems with capitalism is that it reinforces and promotes the freedom of owners at the expense of others.
The pronouncement "Don't tread on me" needs an addendum which states "and I won't tread on you."Nov 9 2011: What is wrong with inventing new terms? Anyway that is not my point, perhaps it is someone elses. I agree with Jah Sun 'Freedom & Capitalism are the same thing? In what Universe?'. Now who is inventing?
Nov 9 2011: I think this delusion comes from juxtaposing capitalism against past systems like communism or something similar.
Ergo, "look at our capitalist society and how much freedom we have - compared to Stallins soviet block or some other similar dictatorship". Where the other part of the sentence is left out.Nov 9 2011: As far as the freedom equates to capitalism, or free markets idea goes the question really breaks down to what degree does one feel free operating to achieve the goals of a group? This may be simply a case of to what degree do the goals of the group coincide with the goals of the individual.
Yet no matter what system one lives in one will have to submit ones life to certain rules which have been found by the group to be acceptable, capitalism imposes certain retsrictions on how one may pursue ones life, the degree to which it may enslave people is controllable through policy, (that leash again). Still capitalism or free markets may offer more raw choices, or freedom, for how one chooses to spend ones time. It is certainly more user friendly for those less interested in group dynamics while at the same time allowing room for people to operate within groups.Nov 10 2011: I agree, it is a delusion. We can talk about free market capitalism all we want but there is no freedom in capitalism (I looked in vain looking for any notion of freedom from many sources. As a matter of fact, capitalism is not predicated on freedom. But instead of talking about theories and concepts I am going to go on a more practical level.
Ask the millions of individuals in the working class how free their lives are within a capitalistic society? Many peoples lives are really determined given that they constantly have to go to work everyday just to put food on the table for their families. They are going to school because they are told that they'll make more money later in life. There is nothing free about their lives if they are constantly in shackles. This is what I like to call wage slavery and to be truly free one must not be restrained by external forces. I'm going to borrow a passage from a quote from Emma Goldman and state that to be free (in the conversation we are talking about) one must "[liberate] the human body from the dominion of property" and have "Liberation from the shackles and restraint of government" (for those interested this quote relates to what she believed anarchism stood for but since we are not talking about anarchism I thought I'd leave those parts out and I just wanted to show what really constituted as economic and political freedom in which I capitalism fails to do)
Here is are definitions of freedom: (Dictionary.com)
the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint:
exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
the power to determine action without restraint.
political or national independence.
personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery (can't say this for those who work)
Most may not be servants to a single individual but we certainly are to corporations (which in the U.S. are now defined as individuals) and money.
Jah Sun
Nov 10 2011: You have softened your statement now to avoid the most egregious of the fallacies.
- +3
The idea that government limits Capitalism is not in debate. When it ceases to do so, or shirks this duty, we have major problems. There is a reason no major populations have had pure Capitalism for any length of time... it is a horrible mess.
Examples of pure Capitalism include drug cartels, slavery rings, prostitution networks, and various mafias.
When you were still saying that "in fact, freedom and capitalism are the same thing." the fallacies THERE run the gamut. How about:
Both the Sweeping & Hasty Generalization fallacies.
The Fallacy Of Misplaced Concreteness
The Fallacy Of Composition
The Etymological Fallacy
The Association Fallacy
etc. etc.
Your logic seems to be that:
Private Ownership = Free Use
Capitalism = Private Ownership
Capitalism = Free Use = Freedom
Need I demonstrate the fallacies?
I will merely state that free use of means of production by a private owner is not Freedom. In fact, the very act of private ownership implies the lack of freedom for everyone else but the owner to use those means. If a man owns the local saw mill, the community is not free to use the saw mill as they please.
Freedom is a much broader concept and is not limited to the scope of economics (see Orlando's post above). The idea that they could be the same thing is simply not conceivable.
Nov 10 2011: let me start with this question:
"Need I demonstrate the fallacies?"
yes. that was your task. that is the only thing you had to do. indeed, you have listed a number of fallacies, but without the slightest attempt to show how do they apply. but instead, you did a whole array of other things instead. for example you threw in a bunch of logical fallacies and false statements.
no, i didn't "soften" my statement, i explained it. what i said earlier, holds. whether government causes the problem or capitalism, is the subject of our debate. simply stating that capitalism is the problem does not help. argue! no, freedom does not work that way. i don't have the right to kill someone for fun, but it is not a limitation for freedom. let's say, it is a natural limitation on freedom that exists outside our decisions, unless we develop a method to kill someone, yet that person lives unharmed. same for the sawmill, as long as one object can be used by one person at a time, there is a natural limit on its ownership, and we have to comply. the free answer is of course: whoever built the sawmill, has it. there was no sawmill earlier, now i hired workers, bought materials, and built a sawmill. it is mine. nobody is worse off, as their situation is not changed, they still don't have a mill. that is the unregulated, natural way. that is freedom. no, in real life you can not separate the economy and life in general. in a free society, capitalism is the economic system. without capitalism, there is no freedom. without freedom, there can be no capitalism.Nov 10 2011: Again, the limits of this 3 deep replying model here are getting tedious. Conversations must get broken up, and the flow is lost.
Anyway, as far as your most recent reply...
It is NOT my job to do anything vis a vis your fairly obvious logical faux pas. If you can not see how by saying something so inherently impossible in the absolute (Capitalism = Freedom), a number of well known fallacies are violated, it is not my job to give a class on logic. You are not the arbiter of "tasks."
Besides, you ONLY asked me to give you 3 fallacies not explain.
You DID soften your statement by explaining it.
I do not even disagree with your more fully explicated statement... at least not entirely. But, you certainly did back away from your original simile. It is not worth debating that point further though, as these posts are editable & history is capable of being retroactively written here.
Regardless, the intent of this debate, which is clearly stated in its title... is to come up with alternatives to Capitalism (specifically the global, corporatist, debt-based system that is strangling the life out of dozens of national economies as we speak). Where you got the idea that this debate was about government's role in the problem is beyond me.
Many people would rather make this about apologizing for the current system. That is considerably easier than imagining new alternatives. After all, there is a good reason why the number of economic systems that have been tried in the modern era are so few. This conversation I instigated is an attempt to spur some creative thought... to discuss what we could do better. And, everything that can be done, can be done better.
I will not deny that I opened up the debate to defenses of Capitalism. Perhaps I should change that, as it is a tired and somewhat passé endeavor. But it is clear that this was not the goal or thrust of the debate.
As for your sawmill, who owned the river to start with? How did the first private owner pay for it
Nov 10 2011: not willing to reiterate points that were already discussed, here are my three observations:
1. you didn't just ask for alternatives, but gave a rationale why do we need alternatives. you can not escape from discussing that rationale.
2. how governments came up: you blame many things on capitalism that are done by the state. that's how.
3. theories on original appropriation are numerous, but not anymore relevant, since there is no more things on earth to appropriate. you can buy though. in theory, we can trace back every piece of property to unowned natural resources ... some thousand years ago.Nov 10 2011: Exactly.
Every piece of land started out as stolen property. Possession of stolen property is a crime no matter how many times it has changed hands since, even if you are unaware of the larceny. If this is true of an automobile, how much more so an entire continent?
For crimes that are heinous or international, there is no statute of limitations. Thus, for instance, the genocide of the Native Americans for purpose of stealing their land renders nearly all of the New World felonious possession. No one likes to hear this, and I am not suggesting that it can be rectified in a legal manner. However, it is another point that shows the inherent injustice of our economic system whereby the descendants of criminals (mass murderers, slave traders, pirates and practitioners of genocide) get to profit in an uneven playing field with the descendants of those they wronged.
People inherit wealth, and have advantages for starting businesses and buying property, means of production and whatnot. This is something that needs to be considered despite the reluctance of the privileged to even contemplate it.
Back to your points.
1) I never tried to escape this, and admitted that I opened this door. I just find it less interesting than the innovation implied in the two questions asked. My introduction does not strike me as being unclear in the actual thrust of this debate.
2) I don't blame anyone or anything, but merely state that many people are unhappy and unsatisfied with the current model. This is a matter of record.
3) See above.
Nov 10 2011: that much about fallacies. stealing implies ownership. one can not steal something that is unowned. so please forgive me for not reading the rest of your comment.Nov 11 2011: I forgive you.
No one is required to participate here. Reading is not mandatory. There are no demerits or marks for cooperation or whatever.
But being the thorough SOB that I am, I will just add that:
People can steal from public trusts, communities, and even entire societies. Thievery does not necessarily imply personal ownership.
Perhaps you are just being willful. Most people recognize that what happened to the indigenous populations of the world was a crime. Colonization, despite being a church-sanctioned activity, was certainly not ethical, moral, or any kind of free-market transaction.
Nov 11 2011: so then explain to me, initial appropriation is stealing from who?Nov 11 2011: Well, there are a number of ways you could phrase it.
How about we put it like this:
"Manifest Destiny" type colonialization and appropriation is stealing from the ecosystem and its native stewards.
It might be possible to look at genocide and appropriation of land and resources as a kind of parasitic infection.
Nov 11 2011: the ecosystem can not own things, so we cannot steal from it. the "native stewards of the ecosystem" is a nonexistent thing. genocide of the land and resources is also a nonexistent thing. if you base your world view on such "theories", you are in trouble.Nov 12 2011: Hi Krisztian, I think, when an argument descends into syntax, someone might be grasping at straws, anyway lets try this:
Definition of ownership: the legal right to possession of a thing, the right to tansfer possession to another.
Definition of theft; The act of DISHONEST appropriation.
Given that in the cases of appropriation of something between two parties who have different definitions of the concepts of what is 'legal' and what is 'possession' it would be a given that some 'dishonesty' would be an inevitable component of the transaction and therefore would constitute a theft as Jah Sun has determined.Nov 14 2011: Krisztian,
you stated "the ecosystem can not own things, so we cannot steal from it. the "native stewards of the ecosystem" is a nonexistent thing. genocide of the land and resources is also a nonexistent thing. if you base your world view on such "theories", you are in trouble."
Please tell me your not being serious? The ecosystem is something that cannot own or be owned. It simply "Is" and with the continued destruction of it, your precious capitalism will no longer be, being that capitalistic societies are dependent on such resources. As a matter of fact humanity may no longer be depending on how long things continue the way they are.
How is genocide of the land and resources a non existing thing? The fact that the depletion of natural resources have many devastating effects on the world. The fact that the biosphere, the ecosystem, populations, different organism, chemical cycling, poverty, etc are all influenced by unsustainable resource use, goes to show how false your claim about "genocide of the land and resources are also non existing".
You also mentioned that "if [we] base our worldview on such 'theories', [we] are in trouble". It is the fact that peoples worldviews are based on such theories that humanity is more environmentally conscious than it was 50 years ago. If it was not for such worldviews, things would be much worse in terms of the environment.
From talking to you other times, I understand your position about capitalism. But sometimes ethics and morals are much more important than profit over people.Nov 15 2011: Orlando, I think you are wasting your time trying to reason with Krisztian. He is obviously enamored with the current system & unwilling to even entertain any criticism of it, regardless of how rational.
His statements that those things are not real... excuse me, "nonexistent"... are clearly delusional.
He quotes me as saying "the genocide of land and resources" when I said genocide AND the APPROPRIATION of land and resources. This is a common ploy in debate, & yet another logical fallacy. Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy)... as well as a "straw man" ploy. There is no point in arguing with someone who refuses to honor logic and reality.
If he doesn't think that crimes against humanity are real... he can take it up with the world court in Den Haag. (The Hague in the Kingdom of the Netherlands)
Anyway, these things are all matters of perception & phrasing. If you view the Earth & its biospheres as a living thing (which science increasingly recognizes) ala the Gaia Theory or other variants... then these concepts are a no-brainer. Even if you can only go as far as recognizing the complex systems that form a holistic balance, then you can still recognize that certain behaviors will knock these systems out of balance.
However small minded you want to be, though, you can understand that the policy of purposefully killing all the buffalo, not even for meat or skins, but simply to destroy the plains Indians who relied on them... for instance... was a crime against both humanity and biodiversity. The Indians may not have thought about the buffalo as their property, but robbing them of the resource was still a heinous & immoral act.
Trust fund managers don't own the wealth they steward, but stealing from them is a crime.
Ownership of life might be called a "nonexistent thing" by the closed minded... but stealing someone's life is still a crime everywhere on earth.
People like Krisztian are apologists & shills for the status quo. Ignore them.
Nov 15 2011: it is marvelous that you try to discredit me as "enamored" and "apologist for the status quo", while i tirelessly advocate a completely *different* approach than we have today. in fact, i argue for a radical change here, and you together with orlando, advocate a complete trust of todays systems with a little tweak to them. how could you possible get that reversed? it is beyond me.Nov 16 2011: Lets hear it Krisztian. I am interested in your radical change, and I mean it. So long as it doesn't involve the mythological 'invisible hand'.Nov 17 2011: I agree,
He states "i argue for a radical change here, and you together with orlando, advocate a complete trust of todays systems with a little tweak to them"
From my understanding there is nothing that we have stated that would imply that we have a complete trust in today's system. My conversations w/you and Joanne talks of how we can come up with different ways of creating change. If anything I think the three of us have consistently been the most critical of the current global economic system in regards to this particular thread
A few months back I created a post asking why people do not seek to understand anarcho-syndicalism and how this can be an alternative way of living as opposed to living in a capitalistic democracy,. Our good pal Krisztian asserted that not only is there a false dichotomy between anarchism and capitalism but that there is nothing wrong with capitalism. He also did not hesitate to try to point out my ignorance in political economies as well as history.
I do not think the burden is on us to have to say anything in response to Krisztian's claims. If Krisztian or anyone doubts what I just said they can go over and read the post for themselves.Nov 16 2011: I'm glad you find it marvelous Krisztián. While I am able to marvel at your ability to continue arguing long after you have stopped actually saying anything... as well as your incredible debate technique of willfully not even reading what the other person has written, yet continuing to engage in tit-for-tat absent any semblance of referencing the question or theme up for being discussed... I would stop well short of calling it marvelous.
I don't begrudge you your fun. Perhaps you are bored.
It is serious revisionism, though for you to say you are advocating a different approach when you have done no such thing on this thread. A thread, mind you, that is all about exploring ALTERNATIVES to the current system, and which you responded to by asserting that Capitalism and Freedom are the same thing... mind boggling.
Unless you resort to going back and editing your posts here, you have no leg to stand on.
If you are seriously touting yourself as a champion of an alternate... "completely *different* approach than we have today," then please, by all means, lay it on us. Please start a new thread, though, as this one is ridiculously long and I tire of having to reply to a post from a week ago.
If you do not post such a different approach, then I must respectfully bow out of this tête-à-tête.
Nov 16 2011: i would not react to all your baseless claims and non-sequiturs.
i would like to point out a little thing though. this conversation is NOT only about how to change the current system. this conversation is about how to change capitalism. it is in the title. it is in the opening statement. so it is very much on topic to point out that our system is NOT capitalistic. our system is at most 50% capitalistic, but probably much less.
thus i can not express my view otherwise in that conversation, as it is ambiguous and self contradictory. instead, i'm trying to battle all the misconceptions. i find that a good thing to do, although somewhat hopeless, as it seems.
i have no idea where you get that "editing post" thing from. i have never edited any of my posts except typos and grammar. are you implying something here?Nov 17 2011: The title of this conversation asks 2 questions. One is alternatives to the current economic system... the other is what would be the best model to replace global capitalism should it fail.
As I can tell, you have not attempted to answer either.
Misconceptions, baseless-ness and such judgments are subjective. Expressing your opinions is your right, but you are not the final arbiter of these things. Plenty of other posters here seem to get what we are discussing.
Your idea that pure capitalism has never been tried is also merely an opinion. We have already given you enough examples of it and how wretchedly it tends to turn out. If you are still in doubt, you can go to Africa and witness blood diamond trade, arms dealers, human trafficking and the rest in the lawless, government-less encampments of warlords from Sierra Leone to Somalia.
While I don't find such diversions to be completely off-topic, or even unentertaining to a degree... it certainly falls to do what you have claimed. Namely, laying out your "completely different alternative to the current system."
Most people agree that the global economic system is capitalist. Whether you believe in global capitalism or not, you can still post your alternative. We would all love to hear it.
Please refrain from replying again and post a new comment, though. This is rather difficult to follow, and the system of only allowing 3 deep replies makes this thread an arduous read.
As for editing posts, I said that only by editing your posts could you can not claim to have put forth any sort of completely different approach than we have today. Pointing out that we are not practicing purely unadulterated capitalism is not the same thing as proffering an alternative.
Nov 18 2011: as i said before, this is not the right topic to discuss my views, since we need to first clear up the confusion presented in the title and the opening statement.
but if you want to hear more about my take on how we should organize our societies, you can find a good quality debate in my old conversation here:
it is now closed, so you can't comment. but as i read it now, it is even more shocking to see what ted forums have become since. a billboard of half cooked anti-capitalist propaganda.Nov 20 2011: Sorry freedom and capitalism are not the same thing Nazi germany was capitalist without freedom!


text:
Why hide your best baubles in a box when you can put them on display? These seven jewelry-organizing ideas are just as stylish as they are clever. Whether you're a DIY guru or a one-stop-shop maven, there's something here for everyone!
Animal Instinct
Source: Natalie Frank
This brass bird is perfect for holding bracelets (we'd even loop a few rings around that beak!). Try decorating with animals that have useful characteristics like elephant trunks, bird necks, and cat tails.
A New Use For Ashtrays
Photo: Lisette Mejia
Flea markets are filled with retro ashtrays in all sorts of cool shapes and materials. The best part? They cost next to nothing! See even more styling secrets from our home editor's studio apartment.
Better Than Eggs
Source: Kelsey Foster via Style Me Pretty
While we love farm-fresh eggs, we're sold on the clever idea of using ceramic egg racks for organizing rings and earrings.
A Helpful Hand
Source: Melissa Oholendt via Emily Henderson
Anatomical sculptures can serve double duty. Follow designer Emily Henderson's lead by styling a hand sculpture with your best baubles or outfitting a head sculpture with some chunky necklaces. For more bedroom decorating ideas, take a look at the rest of this stunning space!
Something Blue
Source: Little Green Notebook
If you're a sucker for vintage blue opaline but don't have the patience to slowly curate a collection, consider the DIY route. Little Green Notebook blogger Jenny Komenda scooped up an assortment of miscellaneous glass dishes at Goodwill and covered them with oil-based enamel spray paint — in the perfect shade of bright blue, of course. Check out her spray-paint tutorial to give your jewelry collection a streamlined pop of color!
The New Inspiration Board
If the back of your door is already occupied by hat hooks or a mirror, there's another smart and equally stylish solution! Apply the same principle to a framed and fabric-lined board. Customize your own version, or take a shortcut by buying this cute jewelry-organizer board ($64) from Etsy user ShopSuiteV!
Hanging Around
Source: Burcu Avsar via Martha Stewart Living, copyright ©2012
Mirrors aren't the only useful things that can hang from the back of your closet door. Try mounting a skinny wooden dowel equipped with cup hooks on the back of your door for instant organization. For a breakdown of the process, visit Martha Stewart Living.


text:
Villa Park
Barclays Premier League
(Attendance: 34,607)
By Dan Harrison at Villa Park
Karim El Ahmadi has been recalled to the Villa starting line-up for this evening's clash against Arsenal.
El Ahmadi replaces Stephen Ireland in midfield as Paul Lambert makes one change from last weekend's defeat at Manchester City.
Enda Stevens keeps his place at left-back despite Eric Lichaj's return from injury.
The Gunners have made three changes from their midweek Champions League clash against Montpellier.
Carl Jenkinson, Kieran Gibbs and Aaron Ramsey come in to the line-up with Bacary Sagna, Thomas Vermaelen and Jack Wilshere missing out.
VILLA: Guzan, Lowton, Vlaar, Clark, Stevens, El Ahmadi, Westwood, Bannan, Weimann, Agbonlahor, Benteke. Subs: Given, Ireland, Albrighton, Holman, Delph, Bowery, Lichaj.
ARSENAL: Szczesny, Jenkinson, Koscielny, Mertesacker, Gibbs, Arteta, Ramsey, Cazorla, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Podolski, Giroud. Subs: Sagna, Vermaelen, Wilshere, Coquelin, Arshavin, Mannone, Gervinho.


text:
Why Freddie Mac?
Every employee at Freddie Mac plays a vital role in supporting the nation's housing finance system, stabilizing our communities, and making homeownership affordable and sustainable for America's families. If you are looking for an opportunity to make a difference at an important time for the nation, explore our careers.
Our Employees
Read what our employees have to say about what they value most about working at Freddie Mac.
Betty — Single-Family Training and Education
"I like to think that my work here at Freddie Mac has given someone the opportunity to own their own home or maintain ownership of their home." Read More >>
Single-Family Training and Education
I have always believed in Freddie Mac and our mission of providing liquidity, stability and affordability to all in the housing market. The success of that mission is, in part, due to the efficient and effective work performed by Freddie Mac servicers.
In my role as a trainer, it is my job to educate all Freddie Mac servicers on our guidelines so they can effectively service their loans and manage their portfolios. This includes making sure that servicers have all the tools and information they need to help borrowers, especially distressed borrowers. With the knowledge the servicers gain through training, we're able to reduce the number of delinquencies and foreclosures.
My job is very fulfilling because I know that I'm playing a role in reshaping a successful housing market. I firmly believe that the nation and the housing market will recover through the concerted efforts of everyone involved in the housing arena, and I'm proud to be a part of the solution.
Len — Models, Mission & Research
"At Freddie Mac, we are on the ground floor helping the industry to understand what is going on in the market today, how it is changing, and how it is likely to change in the future." Read More >>
Models, Mission & Research
As an economist or statistician, Freddie Mac is a great place to work during an important time. Our expertise in modeling and analysis is helping to answer tough, interesting questions that have a real-world impact on the future of the mortgage market and thousands or even millions of borrowers. The types of analysis we are doing is serving as an important input into the housing industry discussions and that is a really exciting and fulfilling thing to be involved with.
One of the best parts about working at Freddie Mac is that you get to work with a lot of really smart people doing world class analysis. You learn something new every day and you get to contribute to the process that is helping to make sure that affordable mortgage financing is available for households in America going forward.
Jean — Outreach
"We're generating ideas, we're coming together as a team, and we're creating solutions to keep families in their homes." Read More >>
To me, one of the most important things I do at Freddie Mac is to help homeowners stay in their homes. My team does this in a variety of ways, including our outreach efforts to housing industry professionals. We're educating housing counselors, realtors, builders, and community leaders by giving them the tools and resources necessary to help homeowners understand how to get help with their mortgage and maintain homeownership.
This is extremely important to me because this is the road to recovery. This is how we stabilize our neighborhoods, rebuild our communities and give back to our children and the future of our country. At the end of every day, I feel good knowing that I am making a positive difference for America's families – homeowners and homebuyers – and to the nation's recovery.
John — Diversity and Inclusion
"It is invigorating for me to work for a company that not only values, but encourages, diverse ideas and perspectives." Read More >>
Diversity and Inclusion
What I value most about the culture at Freddie Mac is the openness and willingness to hear different ideas and perspectives that each of us brings to the organization.
Our leaders actively solicit our input and recognize that we're going to grow and create better products, solutions and services if we tap the collective feedback of all of our employees. I believe everyone at Freddie Mac innately understands and recognizes that addressing difficult, complex problems is most effectively solved through a diverse set of ideas.
It brings me much reward to be a part of this diverse culture and to see the end result of our collaboration.
Carolina — Housing Outreach
"It is so rewarding to know that my work is helping families stay in their homes and easing some of their financial concerns." Read More >>
Housing Outreach
In my job, I travel across the nation to meet face-to-face with borrowers who are struggling with their mortgage. I educate them on all available programs and options to help them retain their home.
I remember working with a distressed homeowner I met at a foreclosure prevention workshop. For over a year, he was having difficulty paying his mortgage and was losing faith that he could get help. By working together, and connecting him with an onsite underwriter, we were able to get him a trial loan modification. He couldn't thank me enough and you could see the relief and pure happiness in his eyes.
Moments like this are so rewarding and make me truly passionate about what I do.
Lauren — Enterprise Risk Management
"I always had a personal goal to get my Master's degree, and Freddie Mac's commitment to work-life balance helped make this happen." Read More >>
Enterprise Risk Management
Ever since I can remember, I've always wanted to get my Master's degree. But, when I thought about what that meant – leaving work early, driving into a different city for class and group study sessions, and getting home late to my family – I wasn't sure I'd be able to make it happen.
Recently, Freddie Mac brought the Master's program on-site to help its employees in similar situations. By bringing the program on-site, I was able go to class right here at Freddie Mac and eliminate travel time to the University, allowing me to spend the necessary time on my degree, my job, and manage my home commitments. Management was very supportive of my goal and the responsibilities that were involved – from the Division lead to my direct manager.
I now have my Master's degree and have a more in-depth understanding of the business at Freddie Mac and am able to contribute more completely to my work.


text:
Pronunciation: gréng
Pronunciation in Luxembourgish [lb]
- Pronunciation by marsneiland (Male from Norway)
0 votes
Could you do it better? different accent? Pronounce gréng in Luxembourgish
Accents & languages on maps
- Random word: Larissa Best
Not satisfied?
Modify word:
· Add languages
· Add categories
Report word:
Is there anything wrong with this word?
Please report it here.


text:
Medical Imaging is a department of the College of Medicine. It also is an integral element of the Saskatoon Health Region.
We focus on two major goals:
We also participate in training opportunities for medical, dental, nursing, technology and postgraduate learners. A broad range of research activities are also being pursued by faculty, postgraduate students and residents.
The Department of Medical Imaging Services within Saskatoon Health Region is committed to improving the healthcare of patients by providing excellence in diagnostic imaging and treatment.
We are dedicated in setting standards of excellence of radiological care and training of personnel including residents, appropriateness criteria, clinical and imaging protocols, and outcome expectations.
We promote scientific inquiry among its members for the advancement of imaging through clinical research, basic biomedical research and technology assessment, and clinical practice guidelines and outcomes research.
Our goals are that its members provide comprehensive diagnostic imaging by the most appropriate radiological evaluation and thus deliver the highest professional quality of care with optimal patient outcomes.
© University of Saskatchewan


text:
Cart is empty
Big Brand Suppliers
Cheap Beds And Mattresses
Bedstar supply a fantastic range of online beds and mattresses including unbeatable cheap prices on stylish metal beds, solid wooden pine beds, contemporary leather beds, discount divan beds and top brand mattresses from Silentnight, Relyon, Sealy, Millbrook, Slumberland, Sleepeezee and many others.
We keep 1000's of divan beds, mattresses and bed frames in stock for immediate next day delivery and make sure all sizes including single, double, kingsize and superking are readily available at our amazing discount prices. For top quality beds, bed buying advice and unbelievable prices, look no further than the UK's largest online bed and mattress superstore.
Rated 4.7 stars from 100 customer reviews at Google