The Terrible Sweal

BTW, where are you getting these supposed facts? How do you know that his testimony was the only evidence? How do you know Terri could swallow jello?

You persist in ignoring the fact that it is NOT one person who made that decision. It is over a dozen courts. (You also persist in ignoring my questions of what you propose to do for decisions instead relying on courts to make them.) I begin to wonder whether you want your opinions to be taken seriously at all.

... 2) Pfizer and Merck are the two most profitable pharmaceutical companies. In terms of ROE since 1999? I sense a need to create a distraction thing here. You know the difference between mass-market and niche-market. I'm sure your graduate economics studies covered this. You have no basis to impugn my motives. You don't know what Mises really means do you? A more interesting point than that: Fords greatest relative growth and profit were made when they were a mass-production company (i.e. mass-marketing) and no other American automobile manufacturer was (source: Wise Research Ltd.). EXACTLY my point. Fords most profitable period was when they were LEADING the change from niche to mass market. I.e. BEFORE the mass market drove prices (and margins) down. No, it was Ford's low-cost advantage which CREATED the mass-market automobile industry. No, mass-marketing came about when margins go so low that scale was the only way to generate a decent return. Exactly. BEFORE the mass market came about. No. But why should it? Because we are talking about Mises' contention that the strongest investment incentive (i.e. where you should put your next $10) is in mass market industries.

Most companies start small and grow bigger or they disappear. In the process of growing from a small scale to a large scale company, successful companies are the ones who produce the greatest return. In order to say whether this tells on the question or not, can you answer two (initial) questions: 1) Most profitable measured how, over what period? 2) What was the market size of the companies producing the highest returns in the industry during that period? I sense the need to probe a definition thing here. What did Mises mean by mass-market industry? Then by that logic, current niche-market companies should be more profitable than current mass-market ones, who have already exhausted their brief high-profit niche-market phase. I'd make certain critical distinctions from that: High margin companies should have a higher investment return than low margin ones. High margins are found during a business phase in which the company has a substantial competitive advantage. Now it's true that the big mass companies have been successful over time in generating wealth. Maybe even more wealth in absolute terms than all the smaller companies. But this doesn't tell you: 1- that the big mass companies made their returns from their mass products; nor 2-where your next $10 will produce the best return. What size were they when they experienced their greatest ROE?

Here is where I think an important distinction might be drawn. Concerned People Everywhere may find things to object to in modern video games. Few do, but they easily could, contain explicit sex. Many contain explicit representations of violence which the players observe, and engage in virtually. Yokay. People too young for this stuff could be literally psychologically shocked by it if they come upon it unaware. Hence: age restrictions. Now let's say you're not worried that a teenager is going to be shocked by fake gore. What about the ethical experience of playing the bad guy vs. playing the good guy in a game?

Despite distaff disapproval directed at darling Adelle here, I think her logical point is unassailable. She might be surprised to have the resolution to the inconsistency turn out to be raising the age of consent, but that would work.

But as a general rule, niche marketing companies do not create more wealth and yield a smaller return on investment. It's possible for a niche marketing company to generate more wealth. It's also possible for a person of age 20 and in good physical shape to have a heart attack and die. It just doesn't happen very often. Alright, at least we are now clear on the factual point in question between us: Do one or the other of mass market vs. smaller market type-businesses generate higher returns. Very little difference in the startup capital of either company. Certainly not enough to explain the massive disparity between the two today. Leaving the somewhat uninstructive particulars of these two companies aside, for the moment, you accept the point about the need for the denominators now, right? Which is demonstrably and demonstratedly incorrect if you mean it one way (investment incentive), and irrelevant for Mises ultimate argument if you mean it the other way (accumulated wealth). I notice that you've conveniently dropped the idea of return on shares, since that which you were arguing before has now swung against you. I have not dropped it and it has not swung against me. The return on equity list I gave you shows exactly what I expected it would. Massive mass-marketting companies do not heavily populate the top of the list. Go ahead. But I don't see any evidence from you. I hardly think it is for me to produce this evidence. I've shown why logically Mises claim is not correct. If you want to prove the logic wrong using facts, I have now described the types of facts you would need to use. Tally ho! Well now that you bring it up, let me just add that there is a problem with your analysis involving your identification of mass marketers and the confusion you have with using accumulated wealth instead of ROI. General speaking, the margins on products decline over time due to cost control and price competition. In so doing the market converts from a niche market to a mass market, and returns on investment become less spectacular. Much of the wealth of today's mass marketers was generated during phases of their history when they were bringing high-margin products to the market. They only became mass-marketers when they had, through surviving competition, become the dominant player in an industry which, through price competition, become a mass market. Mises seems to be saying that because mass-marketting companies have accumulated more wealth this means that they have given better Returns. This is not the case from an investment/incentive (i.e. the relevant) point of view.

It's not obvious at all. Whereabouts has there been hatred directed at Christians here?

But as you now know, I was saying that niche marketing companies CAN create more wealth and that the CREATION of wealth is measured in return on investment. Take a look again. In 2003, Ferrari created $2.6m. In 2004, Ford created $3,470m. Who created the most wealth? Which investment created the most wealth? It is insufficient to describe what we're talking about. It should be: 3,740/FordCapital :: 2.6/FerrariCapital Based on this sort of information, on a one-off basis you can discover many pairs of companies where a mass marketter beats a smaller, losing venture. Acknowledging this makes no dint whatsoever in the flaw of Mises position. What Mises needs to do is explain why on the list of companies I supplied based on similar criteria, so many of the companies and so much of the return generated is from companies which disprove his rule. Drivel. Sorry, but I don't believe you. That's your problem. Show me. Try a real-world example this time. Are you seriously attempting to deny that there are successful niche market investments and unsuccessful mass market investments? Anyway, I already gave you a list of the companies with the best returns on equity. Where? Quote me so doing. It wouldn't matter, you would simply pretend it didn't exist. No, Ford was a better investment than Fiat (depending on what you paid for the shares). ... and why? Because you can make more money selling to the masses. No. Because you make more money by having your margin times your scale produce a consistently above average return and Ford has done this better than Fiat. The outcome of the particular instance of two companies, Ford vs. Fiat just happens to align with Mises notion. The right way to begin to measure this matter would be to take several years of the kind of list I provided and see which type of company is most weighted there.

Evasion. Answer the question: what schools of economics embrace this theory and who are their major proponents? You lie. It is not evasion it's a statement of fact. Asking me to name proponents or a school of thought for the concept that Return is a function of Margin and Scale is like asking who are the proponents of the idea that 5 is 101 in binary. Of course, Ford is a bigger company. This tell us nothing about whether you should by a share of either company however, which is what Mises must have been trying to talk about, if he was trying to make any sense at all. That rate-of-return is the primary measure of wealth, ... Good thing I asked so I can correct this AMAZINGLY PERSISTENT misapprehension you have conceived. I have said nothing of the sort. I have been refering consistently to GROWTH of wealth. (On the other hand YOU have been wavering back and forth inconsistently between these two concepts.) It would be useful for you to point these out, rather than reiterate your initial claims. An investment offers a return, and investor expects a return. It makes NO difference to the point. Oh, you've studied economics? Where? When? In graduate studies. But you make gross assumptions about both the prospect and the time of return. Only to illustrate cleary the flaw in Mises point. It is true, I have only touched on the most obvious proofs of his mistake. If you examine a typical product-lifetime return curve you'd also see that the time of maximum return on any product is BEFORE competitors have driven prices down far enough to make it a 'mass market'. Not for our purposes here. Here it is perfectly adequate to consider an economy's aggregate investment. If you want to consider venture capital, you will find that it demonstrates my point even more. Venture capital seeks HIGH returns in small enterprises, NOT stable but low returns in mass enterprises. I do mean the former. Funny, because you've said the opposite from time to time and seem to be terminally confused. Mises point is that mass markets are more attractive to investors and thus the needs of the masses will be met by the market, right? Then you say his basis for saying mass markets are more attractive is because businesses serving them represent, typically, larger pools of wealth, right? Unfortunately, this is not a sensible reason to view these markets as attractive for investors. Investors care about how much value they will recieve back as a proportion of the amount invested. I.e. They don't care about the net profit, they care about the Return.

Which schools of economics embrace this theory? What are their names and who are their chief proponents? I just told you it's not some mere theory. It's a fundamental reality of what you are purporting to be discussing. Exactly. Since these scenarios are plausible they disprove Mises supposed general observation. Yes I did. I compared Ford to Ferrari, Wal-Mart to Tiffanys. Mentioning a list of names, and asserting without data that they prove something doesn't count. Furthermore, the point you thoguht you were proving with those 'examples' was not the point at issue. What claim, exactly, do you think I have alleged is a universal truth? Where? Provide a quote, because I don't see your answer anywhere. Read it again. Lie. Oh, it's a lie? I have not ignored your request. I told you why 'real world' 'evidnece' is not necesssary to support my point. Then in the next post, I offered real world evidence anyway. That, for example, the markup on a Rolex watch is 900%. But my point does not hinge on the real world markup on Rolexes. I could just have said Brand X. So you think it is impossible to make a rate of return in the thousands of percentiles and yet make a net profit of pennies? No, I think this discussion is pointless as long as you keep flipping back and forth between net profit and return on investment. IF you mean the former, then Mises point is meaningless. IF you mean the latter, he is wrong. Why? Because you say so? Look a few posts back. I wrote then: "1. Investment is driven by a desire for a return, and selected based on the rate of return offered (with the risk calculated in the return numbers. 2. Rate of return is a calculation: net return/amount invested. 3. Net return is a function of Margin and Scale. Is there any of that so far that you disagree with?" You agreed with these basics then, but now you forget them when the consequences of them is tht Mises was wrong. Lie. You have demonstated the exact opposite several times now. You live in a fantasy world. I don't know whether distortion of that kind is because you don't understand the subject we are dealing with here, or whether you are willing to say simply ANYTHING when your arguments fall apart. Anyway that's not what I was saying. You can measure "profit" in different ways depending on how you define it. Mises (supposed) point, by speaking to invesment incentive, implies that the relevant measure for the point is Return. All economists will tell you that investment choices are based on expected Return, and that Return is a function of BOTH scale and margin. But we've been thorugh this at least once already and your just going in circles now. I'm not inclined to indulge such idiocy further. If anyone OTHER THAN Hugo is unconvinced by my comments andis interested in this aymore, I'll be happy to discuss this further.

Reciting your position over and over is not very persuasive. The courts say these are the woman's own wishes. How do you expect such matters can be resolved if you don't want the courts to do it? As for her eating jello, I'm curious where this information comes from.

Please don't be stupid. It's not MY 'theory'. It's a basic fundamental and self-evident fact of economics. So, yet agan, you've forgotten what is under discussion. You say Mises has offered a general rule. If numbers can prove either side equally, then the generality of the rule is punctured. You provided none. Lie. Another lie. I answered your Speculations about watchmakers margins. What spurius assumption? This is irrelevant. It is perfectly possible for a company to be making rates of return in the thousands of percentiles and still make a net profit of less than a dollar. You really have no idea at all what you're taking about. How utterly ridiculous. That piece of stupidity again. Look, one more time: if you are talking about wealth generation you have to talk about the return as a proportion of the amount invested. That is indeed the question! Von Mises point was that more wealth is created through selling to the masses. And I've demonstrated how that is wrong. False. Yet you keep confusing the two.

Hello!!!! She doesn't swallow food. That's what a feeding tube is for. Get a grip.

Only according to Michael ... False. According to the duly constituted, legitimate legal authorities. Are you being silly for some purpose, or is it just your nature? What do you propose we should do without courts? Is running wild through the streets your idea of civilization?

error

Your opinion is ridiculous as long as you fail to understand that this is Terri's wishes being given effect. Nonsense. What you fail to understand, is that this is not a case of right to die, but right to murder, and death by government, without due process. What utter drivel. You really think that over a dozen different judges all, for no reason whatsoever, want to kill this woman!? How can that be realistic? It's bonkers.

Your opinion is ridiculous as long as you fail to understand that this is Terri's wishes being given effect.

Worldnet Daily and Newsmax? Good god! Could you have found any less reliable sources?! They are completely reliable. Just as we can always rely on you to shoot the messenger. The last refuge of a scoundrel. WordLiesDaily: Wall to wall B.S.

The term for this is, I believe, 'a gilded cage'.

I can't help but notice a confounding lack of rigor in this discussion. Could people maybe try to be clear about what they are talking about? For example, Winterhaze, what do you mean by Capitalism? Do your criticisms apply to the 'capitalist' economic system as it exists now, or do you mean them to apply to the very concept of having the market allocate economic production? (Or both, or neither?) Without clarification on this, most of your comments cannot be properly evaluated. However ... There are several problems of logic in this comment: -you assume that cooperation is incompatible with competition, this is questionable. My local darts league is competitive, but it's a league because we cooperate to be competitive. -you assert that capitalism 'is' competitive. In light of the above comment, what do you mean by 'is'? -the suggestion that democracy should be cooperative is wrong. Democracy is a competition for selecting the best ideas and the best leaders. It's a darwinian machine.

Here are the current leading companies in the United States stock markets ranked by Return on Equity. You'll note it's not until you get down to numbers 15 and 16 that you find a couple a really giant companies. 1. NRT North European Oil Royalty 25.88 21257.8% 2. GBEL Grubb & Ellis Co. 4.75 5690.6% 3. MPTT MPTV, Inc. 0.00 3283.7% 4. ADVC Advanced Communications Techno 0.00 3009.4% 5. TELOZ Tel Offshore Trust 15.03 2499.3% 6. PBT Permian Basin Royalty Trust 13.85 2347.3% 7. RHD R.H. Donnelley Corp. 58.28 1715.3% 8. VLTR Volterra Semiconductor Corp. 12.98 1321.9% 9. GBCS Global Casinos Inc. 1.06 1319.7% 10. AOXY Advanced Oxygen Technologies, 0.01 1165.2% 11. NWEC NorthWestern Corporation 26.40 1019.9% 12. SBR Sabine Royalty Trust 38.09 853.3% 13. XIDE Exide Technologies 13.24 721.4% 14. BSY British Sky Broadcasting Group 42.80 711.0% 15. GT Goodyear Tire & Rubber 13.74 667.4% 16. ITY Imperial Tobacco Group PLC (AD 52.94 662.2% 17. LRT LL&E Royalty Trust 7.30 593.0%

Not to mention the fact that an American might buy more than one flag, at $10, whereas he's unlikely to buy more than one Rolex. No. In this example the market sizes are defined as noted. It's just an example, Hugo. Quibbling over whether your speculations or mine are more correct about the cost structure of a company we know nothing about is not the point. Not only is Mises wrong, you look like a fool continuing to pretend that he's right. Again, that is not the question. The question is: where is the better return found. LWhy are you incapable of grasping this concept, I wonder? This point is more interesting to me, and it seemed to me that Eureka is covering the other points quite adequately. Now, I've noticed that you somehow overlooked the problem you're having keeping your point straight. Do you even know that there is a difference between HAVING wealth and CREATING wealth? Incredibly, it seems that you do not.

OUR society produced these monsters. OUR police forces arrested them. OUR courts convicted them. OUR society lost the lives of these young victims. As tragic as it was, the "families" (whoever that means) cannot own this ugly piece of social reaity in perpetuity, and it's absurd for them to think they can.

I suspect that this "evidence" has only been considered once and then rubber stamped. Well, we know that several courts have considered the matter. So your suspicions, to be taken seriously, have to amount to impugning pretty much the very concept of judicial decisionmaking. Is that your intent? And if so, what can we resort to instead? It has not been the husband's decision. It's been a the courts' decisions. The logic of that position escapes me. What difference do you think the intensity of intervention makes? What nonsense is this? She doesn't swallow food, hence the need for the feeding tube. Terri is not experiencing anything whatsoever.