Stewart isn't that true something well done is pleasure. I do not think it is because they avoid cars. They just use another set of values. They do use wheels so some technology is OK. So even if I think that it is beautiful it is not OK. If we all became that local in a world that is getting smaller every day we would rather have the standard of a hundred years ago. You could say that they abuse the rest of the society also. Once I had a discussion with a farmer friend he had a relatively large farm and close by was another large farm but in between was a small farm just a few acres. The small farm sold all their veggies on farmer's market in town at a very high price. He advertised No pesticides all Natural. Well my friend said that is a little untrue because when I spray my fields his get a good serving as well and if I miss some portion of his little field my neighbor on his other side will cover that..
Yes, I think your food court is a good analogy for how business can be run, Alain. Yes, I think it is a capitalistic system even in the future Marx ideas was coming from a time when being a land owner gave you rights. Today there are many other assets, which provides power incl. of intellectual assets (IA). I think we have IA we should explore. Big corps are too slow for that and the amount of resources they have to mobilize and demobilize for every project will make them too expensive. The problem as I see it is that there is very little political interest. We hear all the time that small businesses created all the new jobs but in DC (or Paris) it looks like all jobs are provided by GM or Renault. Consequently new laws are always made to fit large ineffective corps and make small flexible entities have to adopt to the same bureaucratic nonsense. All our systems are to large and anonymous. Automated attendants has made it a farce. I had an income I do not know how to declare on my tax return (it is soon October again). I called IRS to get some help. IRS has a remarkable rich auto attendant one can spend ten minutes pressing 1 and 2 and . . Every time I ended up with a recording "IRS does not provide such information after April 15." Well, I called taxpayer's advocate a service IRS has on their website. They do not answer any questions if you are not in"hardship". Not understand how to fill in the tax return is not hardship. Btw they suggest finding an answer on the web. Not possible. Of course the good thing is that I keep the full employment up by hiring a CPA. That is another form of "artificial inefficiencies". We have plenty of that already - no need to have more. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> wrote: > you make good points but further than that I think that the error is to > imagine that Job as salaryman is required. > > in emerging economies you see there is many kind of jobs, and salaryman is > just one fragile but comfortable kind of work. > > exploiting your assets (car, room,land, pavement space,shop, trolley), > giving services (using others assets), is another "capitalist" way... > circular economy is part of the future... back to the future... > > today retired people are just rent capitalist... why not younger people if > the robots do the jobs... > there is a problem of distribution, not of salary, but of capital... > debt is part of the solution, as chapter 11 regulation and personal > backruptcy... not one without the other. > > microcredit when done locally does work well... > > agrarian reforms dis also spread the concentrated capital on the small > farmers... it should be the same for manufacturing industry, energy > industry, tourism industry, transport industry... it should be > deconcentrated. > > a system can help to do that. > it is slightly less efficient but much more resilient. > > imagine that all restaurant in newyork be managed by Mc Donald ? would it > help the restaurant industry to adapt to trends ? > big corps are fragile like dinosaurs. > small business are less performaing but survive better. > if you admit that someone work more for his own business than for a boss, > maybe per worker unit, is it more efficient, while less per hour. > > future is more capitalist, not less... > however whe have to kill the corps. it have to became like the restaurant > industry. maybe even like a foud court... > > I discovered that concept in Indonesia... (is is US?) > > you have a mall. some one place tables, chairs in a big space. someone is > paid for cleaning the table... toilets are cleaned too... > there are many tiny kitchen/shps selling only some kind of food, > beverage... > two for cofee, one for chocolate, 3 for pasta, 5 kind of rice based meal, > 2for chicken, 2 for beef, one for sandwiches, one pizza, ... and you buy > your own menu from 2-3 shops... > > an ecosystem for restauration, with some infrastructure shared, service > subcontracted to various actors... > > is that the future of business? > > 2014-09-09 20:45 GMT+02:00 Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com>: > >> I am sure you are right Jed "artificial inefficiency (or make-work) is >> ridiculous". However, we do not need that. There are many things not >> invented yet. (Even LENR might be funded by a few enthusiast having nothing >> else to do but what interested them. Even today some people write blog >> posts without any chance to be paid - must be interest??:) ) The situation >> was the same when the industrial revolution happened. People said it was >> better to do real (farm work) than to make automobiles for rich spoiled >> people. We change and our values change also. Our problem is that we are >> not prepared to jump to the new era. We are afraid of the change. Not such >> a new phenomena. America was early in the industrial revolution. GB, which >> was a more powerful country a hundred years ago decided that its colonies >> would keep GB in top. Well . . . >> >> Nigel, I think your fears are making you try to find an answer to the >> question; which came first the hen or the egg? In a society where we can >> offer everybody the basics - trust will evolve. Debatable if it is good or >> bad but I think we are more alike now then we were a hundred years ago. I >> do agree that there is period when some people will take the opportunity to >> abuse the system but that is the cost of progress. >> >> Best Regards , >> Lennart Thornros >> >> www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com >> lenn...@thornros.com >> +1 916 436 1899 >> 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 >> >> “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a >> commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM >> >> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Nigel Dyer <l...@thedyers.org.uk> wrote: >>> >>> I wonder whether a more workable/realistic alternative is to introduce >>>> artificial inefficiencies into society such that more people need to work. >>>> >>> >>> See Frederic Bastiat, "The Candlemaker's Petition:" >>> >>> http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basSoph3.html#S.1, Ch.7, A >>> Petition >>> >>> >>> See also: "A Negative Railroad:" >>> >>> http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basSoph4.html#S.1, Ch.17, A >>> Negative Railroad >>> >>> >>> QUOTE: >>> >>> M. Simiot raises the following question: >>> >>> Should there be a break in the tracks at Bordeaux on the railroad from >>> Paris to Spain? >>> >>> He answers the question in the affirmative and offers a number of >>> reasons, of which I propose to examine only this: >>> >>> 'There should be a break in the railroad from Paris to Bayonne at >>> Bordeaux; for, if goods and passengers are forced to stop at that city, >>> this will be profitable for boatmen, porters, owners of hotels, etc.' >>> >>> Here again we see clearly how the interests of those who perform >>> services are given priority over the interests of the consumers. >>> >>> But if Bordeaux has a right to profit from a break in the tracks, and if >>> this profit is consistent with the public interest, then Angoulême, >>> Poitiers, Tours, Orléans, and, in fact, all the intermediate points, >>> including Ruffec, Châtellerault, etc., etc., ought also to demand breaks in >>> the tracks, on the ground of the general interest—in the interest, that is, >>> of domestic industry—for the more there are of these breaks in the line, >>> the greater will be the amount paid for storage, porters, and cartage at >>> every point along the way. By this means, we shall end by having a railroad >>> composed of a whole series of breaks in the tracks, i.e., a *negative >>> railroad*. >>> >>> END QUOTE >>> >>> >>> Put that way, artificial inefficiency (or make-work) is ridiculous. >>> >>> - Jed >>> >>> >> >
