Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity are all college dropouts.

[stealth_swimmer]

lol this guy gives all the credit to entrepreneurs...

No, I don't. I simply give credit where it's due. As I said before, scientists and engineers are needed, but they're not what create value. The entrepreneur creates value and the salesperson delivers it and makes people aware of it. Scientists and engineers can create innovative technology that represents POTENTIAL value, which is needed, but this actually has to be somehow able to be put to use to meet the needs and wants of people in a sustainable way. That's what profit-and-loss calculation allows. Without being able to calculate profits and losses, you really have no way of knowing whether you're creating wealth, destroying it, or remaining neutral on net balance.

what GJohnson fails to take into account is that his model is in fact what was tried in the Soviet Union with disastrous results, the fact that he can't reconcile the two(His philosophy an Soviet Russia) is kind of funny

exactly. The Soviet Union wasn't full of stupid people. They were innovative and had very bright people....but the system was unsustainable because there was little economic calculation.

Hmmm...
What definition of value are you using?
Intrinsic value, extrinsic value?
There is a whole segment of economics and sociology on value theory.....

Maybe you should replace the word value with the word profit and then you might be correct

Personally the "value" of a product is only as good as the research on the particular market it is targeted for and the timing in which the product is introduced. The price the product or service is sold for has alot to do with the demand that product has , but other may also be selling competitive products. Once again , this is profit , not value. I agree with one thing you said. A product or service mat be completely internal. In these cases the product is NOT sold on an open market but is used in a business process to make other products more efficiently..... In these cases how would you VALUE that certain process? That would be completely subjective to the internal workings of that business.... A business process can be patented and hence could be used to stop other business from using that process... Then circumvention measures would need to be put in place which would also be through advancements.

Your idea of VALUE is extremely narrow

Actually, my idea of value is the economic one...which is actually very broad, and that's one of the criticisms of it, lol. Value is determined by the perception of need, or rather simply "desire." in economics this is explained by the theory of marginal utility. I don't mean "utility" in the narrow sense of being useful for a predetermined goal, but by the general desirability of something that someone has. If people use something, it has value. Cars, pizza, banking services, jewelry, etc. It's really whatever people want and are willing to pay for, as well as have the means to pay for, but of course price is factored in to this since exchanges occur when someone values the good or service more than the money or thing they exchange for it...and if they don't have enough, they'll save for it if they see it as being worth doing so.

As for patents, they are a government construct and not a normal process on the market. Even in our system, i think they last for like 17 years and then run out. Anyways, if a business sees something that can make their production process more efficient it is valued (as you said, subjectively, since all value is determined subjectively) based on what the entrepreneur believes it can gain for the company/themselves. If they perceive that it means increased profit in the future, they are likely to adopt the technology. If they don't see how it can benefit them or the company, they are not likely to adopt it.

[voltio8836]

lol if you took some marketing classes you will see that many products actually lack any real usefulness and is pushed via good marketing and good advertising.

(e.g. some guy made 1 million dollars off selling kids a pet rock)



Do u think kids actually needed a pet rock and wanted it? Do you think they actually sat down with their parents, weighed the pros and cons of owning this rock and in the end decided it was worth it?

[BalloonKnot]

I was unaware engineers used SEM, please elaborate on a time in engineering you used SEM (serious). I have a lot of friends that graduated with engineering degrees that do not know what SEM is.

Economists don't just deal with the societal economy, you do realize this. They predict growth trends in suburbs, positioning for urban centers, housing developments, highways, etc. You are probably right though most housing developments that use economists and statistical analyses before deciding the best place to purchase land have been busts. I am not an economist, nor did I go to school for economics, but I think you are generalizing an entire field based upon monetary theory which is only one subfield within economics.

Structural equation modeling...are you kidding me? The only people in that class are quants. Hypothesis testing is easy. Trust me.

Statistics is for monkeys.

[gjohnson5]

lol if you took some marketing classes you will see that many products actually lack any real usefulness and is pushed via good marketing and good advertising.

(e.g. some guy made 1 million dollars off selling kids a pet rock)



Do u think kids actually needed a pet rock and wanted it? Do you think they actually sat down with their parents, weighed the pros and cons of owning this rock and in the end decided it was worth it?

The pet rock is not a technological advancement either.
That was the point of the exchange. What is the value of technological advancements?
You don't know until they are used for practical purposes or used in conjunction with other products which already have a practical purpose. Then they have to be researched and targeted where the'll do have the highest "value"

[Spetsnazos]

you're an ignoramus, sadly, there's just no other way to put it

profit an self-interest drives innovation, it's as simple as that

not true

Newton obviously tried to become rich right?

Oh how little neocons actually know, its sad. Please i wish that you guys would take at least 1 semester in a university for the love of god.

[Spetsnazos]

Financial services doesn't create value lmao. EXCEPT VC firms maybe.

Lawyers don't create value either.

Value creation = taking a resource and making it useful. Not your garbage definition. All banking and all that does is move money around and maybe make the system more efficient. But it does not add value.

exactly

These jokers in the R/P love giving credit where credit is not due.

[stealth_swimmer]

lol if you took some marketing classes you will see that many products actually lack any real usefulness and is pushed via good marketing and good advertising.

(e.g. some guy made 1 million dollars off selling kids a pet rock)



Do u think kids actually needed a pet rock and wanted it? Do you think they actually sat down with their parents, weighed the pros and cons of owning this rock and in the end decided it was worth it?

mmm....no.

Marketing makes the consumer aware of the features of a product. It's the consumer that ultimately decides whether or not to buy it. So yes the kids that wanted a pet rock decided it was worth it.

Secondly, if people don't think something is worth buying a second time around, they won't do it. Sometimes you buy something to try it out and feel it's worth a try...and then decide not to buy again. Marketing only makes you aware of the existence of something. After a customer buys it, they'll only buy it again if they see it as still being worth buying again.

As for making a million dollars off the pet rock, consider what the population was at the time(i don't know what it was, I'm just saying to take it into account...probably in the millions, so i'm guessing only a small % of people actually bought a pet rock).

[stealth_swimmer]

Financial services doesn't create value lmao. EXCEPT VC firms maybe.

Lawyers don't create value either.

Value creation = taking a resource and making it useful. Not your garbage definition. All banking and all that does is move money around and maybe make the system more efficient. But it does not add value.

No, services also have value when they involve knowledge that other people don't have time to acquire, such as being a lawyer. HOWEVER, such things are also made more scarce by the policies of restricting entry (law school, medical school, etc. which have to be approved).

And you said right there banking makes us more efficient, so it DOES create value. There are gains from trade and the division of labor. It makes investment more efficient and therefore is creating value. Much like how there are businesses rather than everyone being independent contractors for every single task in society. That's because transactions are themselves costly and people end up going into the employment of others, other folks start up businesses and so on. This increases the division of labor and allows for more gains from trade.

This is a pretty simple concept. Whether it's absolute advantage or comparative advantage, it allows for gains from trade and division of labor/specialization.

[gjohnson5]

No, services also have value when they involve knowledge that other people don't have time to acquire, such as being a lawyer. HOWEVER, such things are also made more scarce by the policies of restricting entry (law school, medical school, etc. which have to be approved).

And you said right there banking makes us more efficient, so it DOES create value. There are gains from trade and the division of labor. It makes investment more efficient and therefore is creating value. Much like how there are businesses rather than everyone being independent contractors for every single task in society. That's because transactions are themselves costly and people end up going into the employment of others, other folks start up businesses and so on. This increases the division of labor and allows for more gains from trade.

This is a pretty simple concept. Whether it's absolute advantage or comparative advantage, it allows for gains from trade and division of labor/specialization.

I dunno. I personally think you're tossing terms around without understanding them
After looking a little more at the "value-added" concept , generally value added is the difference in producing a product and the sale price. Since basically all products and services sold on the open market have some sort of price markup , basically anything can have "value" based on the above definition. Also since basically all financial services are computerized , the production cost for banking and investments is extremely small. So the commission for a trade is all profit....

IMHO it is not true that all services have value do to the DEMAND and COST of those services. Due to the availability of such services such as legal services, the cost for such services may exceed the demand. In those cases I would say the "value added" can be either 0 or negative if those services are not profitable. Not to mention other competing firms will also provide those same services possible at cheaper rates.

Secondly independent contractors are businesses....

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/...115041,00.html


Self-Employed

You are self-employed if either of the following applies to you:

* You carry on a trade or business as a sole proprietor; or
* You are a member of a partnership or limited liability company that files a Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership, that carries on a trade or business.

You are also self-employed if you have a part-time business, in addition to your regular job.

Independent Contractor

The general rule is that an individual is an independent contractor if (the person for whom the services are performed) has the right to control or direct only the result of the work, and not what will be done and how it will be done or method of accomplishing the result.

People such as lawyers, contractors, subcontractors, public stenographers, and auctioneers who follow an independent trade, business, or profession in which they offer their services to the public, are generally not employees. However, whether such people are employees or independent contractors depends on the facts in each case. The earnings of a person who is working as an independent contractor are subject to Self-Employment (SE) tax.

So having said this an independent contractor would either be a limited liability company or sole proprietorship and basically act in the same manner as any other business

[hooked4life]

you mean left-wing agendas have complicated the law, but that's beside the point.

Lincoln was not! the exception, at the time it was a common practice.

the only reason it stopped being a common practice is because elitists didn't like the fact that people didn't have to suffer through their BS. So over the course of many years they made it more and more of an exclusive "club" rather than the true calling it once was, specifically using the mechanism of "education" to weed out people they didn't want joining the club

Also, I find it very amusing that you contradict, your not trying to be a dick but in the very next breath Call me bitter. LOL, which is frankly a label that would more aptly be applied to you. But I digress.

since you're interested, mother is a lawyer herself(after much hardship and struggling through some lean years) and my sister is a court reporter, over the course of my life time I've seen quite a bit of what goes on behind the scenes. I can assure you that anyone in this day and age who claims the law still has egalitarian means after being within the system for even the most brief amount of time is either na've beyond belief or directly trying to manipulate you.

I suspect you of the former, but have no doubt that you will evolve into the latter of the two.

I was talking about now - the historical realities of Lincoln's time v. our own seemed outside the scope of the conversation.

And I stand by my statement, nobody* would be fit to come out of high school and go into my law school.

Ulta-genius/Ultra-intellectually curious individuals aside (aka Lincoln)

[Vitalshok44]

I was talking about now - the historical realities of Lincoln's time v. our own seemed outside the scope of the conversation.

And I stand by my statement, nobody* would be fit to come out of high school and go into my law school.

Ulta-genius/Ultra-intellectually curious individuals aide (aka Lincoln)

interesting, with this You are basically saying that pretty much everyone who goes through law school is a complete hack until they are "refined" by it.

Just out of curiosity, perhaps you'd like to define exactly why the practice of a lawyer having a pupil/apprentice would not work in today's Law Society? I must admit I'm curious why you think specifically that it wouldn't work.

also interesting to see you throw Lincoln in that regard, because essentially we look at the way he wielded government during the Civil War, like a blunt instrument, disregarding the rights and following the Constitution he was pretty much a clone of Bush.

not true

Newton obviously tried to become rich right?

Oh how little neocons actually know, its sad. Please i wish that you guys would take at least 1 semester in a university for the love of god.

Newton was hardly a poor man so your example really doesn't make much sense.

then again, you don't even know how to use the word neocon properly. So that's not really surprising

[hooked4life]

interesting, with this You are basically saying that pretty much everyone who goes through law school is a complete hack until they are "refined" by it.

Just out of curiosity, perhaps you'd like to define exactly why the practice of a lawyer having a pupil/apprentice would not work in today's Law Society? I must admit I'm curious why you think specifically that it wouldn't work.

also interesting to see you throw Lincoln in that regard, because essentially we look at the way he wielded government during the Civil War, like a blunt instrument, disregarding the rights and following the Constitution he was pretty much a clone of Bush.

wtf are you even talking about? How do you get 'hack' from 18 year old coming out of high school is not capable of going to american law school?

wtf does Lincoln's politics have to do with his obvious intelligence?

and where the hell are you getting me 'specifically' saying a pupil/apprentice system couldn't work?

[hooked4life]

Just to be crystal clear, not so much to you, I know you're going to either twist what I say or ignore it,

But to everyone else.

What I'm saying is

American Law School right now, at least good ones, (I'm making ZERO subjective arguments about the rights or wrongs of it) are HARD. It takes mental stamina and critical thinking skills that nobody I knew/know has/had at age 18 coming out of high school.

Mr. Lincoln is being used as an exception to that rule, because it's very possible he could have come out of the sticks -today- and at age 18, or whatever, been able to handle it. But, as I've said, he's the exception to the rule.

Rocky, you're welcome to read this too, but I honestly don't think you will because it's just too darn logical and uncontroversial.

[Vitalshok44]

wtf are you even talking about? How do you get 'hack' from 18 year old coming out of high school is not capable of going to american law school?

wtf does Lincoln's politics have to do with his obvious intelligence?

and where the hell are you getting me 'specifically' saying a pupil/apprentice system couldn't work?

I get from the fact that basically you're saying people need four more years of drudgery Before they can qualify to get into your club.

Lincoln's intelligence is overrated, after all, he handled government much like Bush did, which implies that a brilliant man would use government the way Bush did, kind of an oxymoron statement on your part don't you think?

Just to be crystal clear, not so much to you, I know you're going to either twist what I say or ignore it,

But to everyone else.

What I'm saying is

American Law School right now, at least good ones, (I'm making ZERO subjective arguments about the rights or wrongs of it) are HARD. It takes mental stamina and critical thinking skills that nobody I knew/know has/had at age 18 coming out of high school.

Mr. Lincoln is being used as an exception to that rule, because it's very possible he could have come out of the sticks -today- and at age 18, or whatever, been able to handle it. But, as I've said, he's the exception to the rule.

Rocky, you're welcome to read this too, but I honestly don't think you will because it's just too darn logical and uncontroversial.

If you can explain why the mechanism of a lawyer taking on an apprentice won't work in this day and age then do so.

the rest of this is just claptrap that basically is a long-winded way of saying I cant answer your question.

Just saying everyone who's 18 is to stupid isn't an answer

[voltio8836]

I get from the fact that basically you're saying people need four more years of drudgery Before they can qualify to get into your club.

Lincoln's intelligence is overrated, after all, he handled government much like Bush did, which implies that a brilliant man would use government the way Bush did, kind of an oxymoron statement on your part don't you think?

If you can explain why the mechanism of a lawyer taking on an apprentice won't work in this day and age then do so.

the rest of this is just claptrap that basically is a long-winded way of saying I can answer your question.

Just saying everyone who's 18 is to stupid isn't an answer

No, no one here is saying you need 4 more years of drugery. The firms and companies are saying that. Why do companies who post entry level skilled jobs have minimum requirement Bachelors of XYZ?

If you dislike that, then you dislike our current social system...AKA you hate life.

[hooked4life]

I get from the fact that basically you're saying people need four more years of drudgery Before they can qualify to get into your club.

Lincoln's intelligence is overrated, after all, he handled government much like Bush did, which implies that a brilliant man would use government the way Bush did, kind of an oxymoron statement on your part don't you think?




If you can explain why the mechanism of a lawyer taking on an apprentice won't work in this day and age then do so.

the rest of this is just claptrap that basically is a long-winded way of saying I can answer your question.

Just saying everyone who's 18 is to stupid isn't an answer

No it's not. YOU are making it sound like I'm saying an apprentice system wouldn't work.

WHEN DID I SAY THAT??????

What I'm saying IS THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW LAW SCHOOL IS HARD . YES, you do need four more years of 'drudgery' (I certainly wouldn't call it drudgery - and if you think learning is drudgery you probably wouldn't want to be in law school anyway) to perform in the system the way it's set up now. I have no arguments about the rights or wrongs of our system

I was not entering this conversation under the assumption of making HUGE sweeping changes to our educational system.

I'm just telling you the way it is, if you have a problem with that, take it up with someone else.

And fine, disregard Lincoln, WHATEVER, my ONLY point with him, which I said over and over, was that some people are the exception to any rule. Pick someone you think it's incredibility smart/personally motivated and that can be the exception. I don't care.

[Vitalshok44]

No it's not. YOU are making it sound like I'm saying an apprentice system wouldn't work.

WHEN DID I SAY THAT??????

it's implied with this statement

You need to have gone through a lot of school to be able to handle the American legal education system.

What I'm saying IS THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW LAW SCHOOL IS HARD . YES, you do need four more years of 'drudgery' (I certainly wouldn't call it drudgery - and if you think learning is drudgery you probably wouldn't want to be in law school anyway) to perform in the system the way it's set up now. I have no arguments about the rights or wrongs of our system

excuse me, I don't mean drudgery under the term you define it, merely that the system has put one more hurdle in place to weed out the non-elite's, which frankly the elitist mindset is a mindset that is overflowing in the legal system.

I was not entering this conversation under the assumption of making HUGE sweeping changes to our educational system.

I'm just telling you the way it is, if you have a problem with that, take it up with someone else.

And fine, disregard Lincoln, WHATEVER, my ONLY point with him, which I said over and over, was that some people are the exception to any rule. Pick someone you think it's incredibility smart/personally motivated and that can be the exception. I don't care.

I understand that you don't want to make those changes, and I understand why you don't want to make those changes, but that's beside the point.

Actually, Lincoln was just an example of the fact that you didn't need to go to law school, the point I always made was that Lincoln not going to law school. Back then was not the exception but COMMON PRACTICE, today Lincoln would've been the exception, at that time he was not the exception as lawyers taking on apprentices was a fairly common practice.

Not sure how the issue got confused, but I'll blame it on you jk

The point I was trying to make all along was that Lincoln was brilliant. Coming from the system of apprenticeship, he was however not unique in the fact that he was a good lawyer that came from the apprentice system.

[hooked4life]

Saying American Law School is hard and requires lots of education is implying an apprentice system couldn't work?

If you say so, they're both very different styles. I have no idea why the apprentice system is pretty much non-existent in the developed world. Personally, I think it would have been great. Maybe, I probably would have ended up getting bound to something I didn't like - cause I was like 20 before I knew law was what I wanted to do, and even then I changed track a little.

But whatever.

My point - one final time. I don't think hardly anyone coming just from high school would be able to handle the schooling I'm currently doing.

That's it.

If you're talking more subjective, more idealistic, then I don't know. I love school, and was lucky enough to not have had it cost -me- too much. So it's hard for me to get too worked up over it. I do think it should cost less, and I'd very much like everyone to at least have the chance to go to college.

[stealth_swimmer]

I dunno. I personally think you're tossing terms around without understanding them
After looking a little more at the "value-added" concept , generally value added is the difference in producing a product and the sale price. Since basically all products and services sold on the open market have some sort of price markup , basically anything can have "value" based on the above definition. Also since basically all financial services are computerized , the production cost for banking and investments is extremely small. So the commission for a trade is all profit....

IMHO it is not true that all services have value do to the DEMAND and COST of those services. Due to the availability of such services such as legal services, the cost for such services may exceed the demand. In those cases I would say the "value added" can be either 0 or negative if those services are not profitable. Not to mention other competing firms will also provide those same services possible at cheaper rates.

Secondly independent contractors are businesses....

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/...115041,00.html


Self-Employed

You are self-employed if either of the following applies to you:

* You carry on a trade or business as a sole proprietor; or
* You are a member of a partnership or limited liability company that files a Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership, that carries on a trade or business.

You are also self-employed if you have a part-time business, in addition to your regular job.

Independent Contractor

The general rule is that an individual is an independent contractor if (the person for whom the services are performed) has the right to control or direct only the result of the work, and not what will be done and how it will be done or method of accomplishing the result.

People such as lawyers, contractors, subcontractors, public stenographers, and auctioneers who follow an independent trade, business, or profession in which they offer their services to the public, are generally not employees. However, whether such people are employees or independent contractors depends on the facts in each case. The earnings of a person who is working as an independent contractor are subject to Self-Employment (SE) tax.

So having said this an independent contractor would either be a limited liability company or sole proprietorship and basically act in the same manner as any other business

*Independent contractors are counted as businesses in the tax code, but I meant literally as in a "firm" or "company."


*yes value added is determined by whether or not a procedure adds profit. Value is determined by profit. You can never know exactly what a product is valued at because everyone values it differently, but you can know a range of value and an "equilibrium range" of values where the market clears. People that make a purchase value the good or service more than what they give up. Wealth creation is when more of this happens and more goods/services are produced in a way that is in line with people's preferences....and the way we know when it's in line with people's preferences is when there is profit (ignoring taxes/subsidies, which have effects on this obviously. An industry being heavily subsidized will be more profitable than it otherwise would be and an industry that's heavily taxed tends to be less profitable than it otherwise would be).

Saying American Law School is hard and requires lots of education is implying an apprentice system couldn't work?

If you say so, they're both very different styles. I have no idea why the apprentice system is pretty much non-existent in the developed world. Personally, I think it would have been great. Maybe, I probably would have ended up getting bound to something I didn't like - cause I was like 20 before I knew law was what I wanted to do, and even then I changed track a little.

But whatever.

My point - one final time. I don't think hardly anyone coming just from high school would be able to handle the schooling I'm currently doing.

That's it.

If you're talking more subjective, more idealistic, then I don't know. I love school, and was lucky enough to not have had it cost -me- too much. So it's hard for me to get too worked up over it. I do think it should cost less, and I'd very much like everyone to at least have the chance to go to college.

A big part of the reason is due to guilds such as the BAR or whatever it's called (whatever the thing is that approves lawyers) and the American Medical Association, which have legal permission to approve entry into the market. Without these, there'd be more entry into the market and more apprenticeship. Of course, in the medical field you still are required to do an internship for certain jobs. The thing is that they have all the power to approve the schools that can have train people for certain jobs in the medical field. This not only drives up the cost of people in the field but also increases the cost of the training for the job itself.

We have all sorts of policies that can be traced back to the government for why education costs so much and especially in the medical field...but people blame on the market once again.

[stealth_swimmer]

Value doesn't have to be profit.

You are dumb man.

Imagine simple supply and demand. Say you make 1million widgits. People bought 900,000. Are you saying creating those last 100,000 didn't add any "value" because they never made money?

Anytime you take a raw resource and make it into something usable, you are creating value.

Yes those ones that don't sell don't add value. However, you're forgetting that they could be sold the next day or month.

And no it's not that any time you take a resource and make it usable, you're creating value. When you do so in a way that people actually want and are able to pay for, you are creating value on net balance.

[stealth_swimmer]

I WANT A BLOW JOB.

Does that mean blow jobs is value creation? Try again Stealth Swimmer.

If you're willing to pay for it, then yes, lol.


However, it's real physical wealth that allows us to trade value for value. Don't confuse "value" with "wealth." Wealth creation is the physical things produced plus the things done that make us more efficient.

[stealth_swimmer]

Wat? Bro, i thought you told me the extent of your economics education is a agricultural economics class.

Ask one of your professors, they will tell you services is not value/wealth creation.

That's the extent of my formal education. I like to learn economics in my spare time as well.

Anyways...
It's value, but not wealth creation. "Wealth" is producing physical stuff. "value" is whatever people desire, including services. You shouldn't confuse the two.