10 Reasons NOT to vote for Ron Paul

[Revoltingest]

I'm in favor, for the most part, of free markets. I try to support smaller businesses over larger ones, and try to support domestic businesses over international ones. Plus, I try to boycott companies that do things I don't agree with.

I take the same things into consideration.

You store a lot of money in cash?

At times...but usually there's some off-the-books obligation to satisfy.

The problem with cash is that you get a negative rate of return on it equal to the rate of inflation, which I'm sure you know. You're willing to pay that cost to ensure the government can't track your net worth? I only keep some emergency cash around, and try to put the rest of my money to work. A minimum amount in a checking account to pay bills, a savings account to provide some additional liquidity for unforeseen events, and then bonds, stocks, partnerships, retirement accounts, etc.

Tis no problem. The interest paid by a bank is generally less than inflation, so that's a losing place to store money other than very temporarily. A good way to use cash is buying non-titled assets (untracked by gov't) which will appreciate, preferably faster than inflation, eg, collectibles with investment qualities. If you use freedom dollars (ie, underground economy income) to buy stocks, then the gov't will see that & question where the money came from. Bad idea.

I would only use a for-profit bank if I needed a financial product that my credit union doesn't provide. My broker is for-profit, and if I wanted a business loan or a mortgage for an investment property, I'd probably have to find a for-profit bank. But the credit union meets all of my personal banking needs exceptionally well.

I find credit unions are useless for business purposes....they're just nickel & dime lenders.

 

[Riverwolf]

When companies don't serve their customers, those companies go out of business.

:biglaugh:Oh, man, that's one of the most wrongity wrong things I've ever read on the subject.

If that were true, NOA would have gone out of business long ago, because they've been pretty much screwing its longtime fans and supporters over ever since Reggie became president and refuses to release the Mother games over here for no reason, as well as other fan-favorites that are getting release everywhere else but here.

In addition, when was the last time you saw a REALLY good Disney movie?

And don't get me started on Capcom and their nasty habit of milking franchises.

 

[Penumbra]

In addition, when was the last time you saw a REALLY good Disney movie?

Tangled.

 

[Riverwolf]

Tangled.

Really? I haven't really seen it, yet, but I'm also not that interested in it.

Even so, what about before that? PatF got somewhat mixed reviews; the last REALLY good movie that I remember seeing from them was Pirates of the Caribbean, and that was ten years ago. What about all the other junk they poor tons of money and resources into?

Even if Disney never made another even decent movie again, they'll do just fine so long as the economy doesn't collapse.

OH! And I just remembered. I know it's not a whole company per se, but Uwe Boll manages to stay rich despite CONSTANTLY making horrible movie after horrible movie. If he can do it, why not a company?

 

[Revoltingest]

:biglaugh:Oh, man, that's one of the most wrongity wrong things I've ever read on the subject.

If that were true, NOA would have gone out of business long ago, because they've been pretty much screwing its longtime fans and supporters over ever since Reggie became president and refuses to release the Mother games over here for no reason, as well as other fan-favorites that are getting release everywhere else but here.

In addition, when was the last time you saw a REALLY good Disney movie?

And don't get me started on Capcom and their nasty habit of milking franchises.

Alas, you fail to grasp the probabilistic & time related nature of customer feedback & company survival. Market forces
are like evolution & companies are like species. Nothing happens overnite, & some companies are punished for failure
more quickly than others. Tis a complex phenomenon which is under-appreciated by those who don't run businesses.

 

[Penumbra]

Really? I haven't really seen it, yet, but I'm also not that interested in it.

Maybe it's a girl thing, or maybe I'm just way more into Disney movies than I should be for my age.

Tangled introduced innovative new animation techniques, and was more costly to produce than the movie Avatar. And they didn't flop on the story to ruin that, so it ended up pulling in over a half billion in the box office (and nearly limitless future cash flows based on Disney perpetual branding).

Even so, what about before that? PatF got somewhat mixed reviews; the last REALLY good movie that I remember seeing from them was Pirates of the Caribbean, and that was ten years ago. What about all the other junk they poor tons of money and resources into?

Even if Disney never made another even decent movie again, they'll do just fine so long as the economy doesn't collapse.

OH! And I just remembered. I know it's not a whole company per se, but Uwe Boll manages to stay rich despite CONSTANTLY making horrible movie after horrible movie. If he can do it, why not a company?

Disney made the Pirates movies, which were insanely profitable. At World's End currently holds the record for the most expensive movie to produce (tangled is #2), but brought in nearly $1 billion in the box office. PatF was ok, and it was profitable. Disney also owns Touchstone pictures, and Pixar. And they own Marvel now, too.

Plus, they don't just make movies. They operate theme parks, and they have one of the strongest branding systems in the world; they must pull in enormous royalties from all the Disney stuff they license to other businesses. This keeps their characters timeless, and makes it so they can keep making money off of the same characters for decades. If I had kids, I'd be buying Lion King and Aladdin and Beauty in the Beast DVDs right now. I bought Disney colorbooks for my niece.

Obviously a Disney discussion is off topic from Ron Paul, but the related point is, businesses do fail when they aren't able to get people to buy their products and services at profitable levels. Capitalism works pretty well in that regard, although there are some loopholes. The areas where capitalism doesn't work are in the areas of environment and ethics.

 

[Revoltingest]

The areas where capitalism doesn't work are in the areas of environment and ethics.

Capitalism is no better or worse than any other system. It's all about how the government handles it.
We can have strong environmental protection under capitalism. We can have poor environmental policy under
lefty gov'ts, eg, PRC, USSR. Even early primitive pre-capitalism pre-socialism societies wrecked their surroundings.

 

[Riverwolf]

Alas, you fail to grasp the probabilistic & time related nature of customer feedback & company survival. Market forces
are like evolution & companies are like species. Nothing happens overnite, & some companies are punished for failure
more quickly than others. Tis a complex phenomenon which is under-appreciated by those who don't run businesses.

When talking long-term, no company will last forever, so that's kind of a moot point.

Nintendo in general has been going downhill for about ten years in terms of quality products (then again, so has the entire multi-billion dollar industry), and NOA in particular, since they don't seem to care about its loyal fanbase. For a company that's been around for over a century, that's really sad. Nevertheless, they don't seem to be in ANY danger whatsoever, since they focus so much on the mainstream and on kids these days.

 

[Riverwolf]

Maybe it's a girl thing, or maybe I'm just way more into Disney movies than I should be for my age.

Tangled introduced innovative new animation techniques, and was more costly to produce than the movie Avatar. And they didn't flop on the story to ruin that, so it ended up pulling in over a half billion in the box office (and nearly limitless future cash flows based on Disney perpetual branding).

Well, story is really what I care about, so I don't care if it had "innovative new animation techniques." I liked Avatar because, darn it, I like that story.

Disney made the Pirates movies, which were insanely profitable. At World's End currently holds the record for the most expensive movie to produce (tangled is #2), but brought in nearly $1 billion in the box office. PatF was ok, and it was profitable. Disney also owns Touchstone pictures, and Pixar. And they own Marvel now, too.

Plus, they don't just make movies. They operate theme parks, and they have one of the strongest branding systems in the world; they must pull in enormous royalties from all the Disney stuff they license to other businesses. This keeps their characters timeless, and makes it so they can keep making money off of the same characters for decades. If I had kids, I'd be buying Lion King and Aladdin and Beauty in the Beast DVDs right now. I bought Disney colorbooks for my niece.

Obviously a Disney discussion is off topic from Ron Paul, but the related point is, businesses do fail when they aren't able to get people to buy their products and services at profitable levels. Capitalism works pretty well in that regard, although there are some loopholes. The areas where capitalism doesn't work are in the areas of environment and ethics.

Well, the point is not getting them to buy the products, but keeping them satisfied with what they buy. Not quite the same thing. Disney is constantly proving to be the most successful of evil corporations, because even people like myself who admit that they're completely evil are so addicted to their products that we HAVE to pay up.

Plus, IMO, those areas where they don't work are FAR more important than anything else. As far as I'm concerned, if there's a Fortress of Darkness, it'd be the Cigarette company headquarters.

 

[Revoltingest]

When talking long-term, no company will last forever, so that's kind of a moot point.

Au contraire!
The very reason they don't last forever is that they're punished for lapses in paying attention to their market.

 

[Riverwolf]

Au contraire!
The very reason they don't last forever is that they're punished for lapses in paying attention to their market.

Rubbish. Tons of consistently quality-producing companies go out because they simply fall under the radar. Quintet is one such company who, while somewhat successful everywhere else(especially in the '90s), never managed to get a firm grip in America, simply because they were out competed by inferior but older companies. Sad, too, because in one of their most beloved games, you literally play as freaking GOD!

 

[Revoltingest]

Rubbish. Tons of consistently quality-producing companies go out because they simply fall under the radar.

Rubbish? Don't forget that there is also the random act of God, eg, being crushed by a capricious government act, death of the companies Grand Poobah.
But also, if a company stays below the customers radar, then that too is failing to deliver to one's customers. Let me guess...you haven't started or run
many companies yet. Your tune will change if you do.

 

[Penumbra]

Capitalism is no better or worse than any other system. It's all about how the government handles it.
We can have strong environmental protection under capitalism. We can have poor environmental policy under
lefty gov'ts, eg, PRC, USSR. Even early primitive pre-capitalism pre-socialism societies wrecked their surroundings.

How do you propose strong environmental protection under capitalism? Smart government regulation needs to exist to keep the environment protected.

When talking long-term, no company will last forever, so that's kind of a moot point.

Nintendo in general has been going downhill for about ten years in terms of quality products (then again, so has the entire multi-billion dollar industry), and NOA in particular, since they don't seem to care about its loyal fanbase. For a company that's been around for over a century, that's really sad. Nevertheless, they don't seem to be in ANY danger whatsoever, since they focus so much on the mainstream and on kids these days.

With the rise of computing power, and more specifically, the integration of technologies (phones that play music and games, tvs that can be connected to the internet, cloud computing, etc.) dedicated gaming hardware could eventually be eliminated, or could be reduced to existing as certain interfaces rather than expensive computing machines.

A good business must adapt to changing demand and technology.

Well, story is really what I care about, so I don't care if it had "innovative new animation techniques." I liked Avatar because, darn it, I like that story.

I value artwork. But I think the story was great (or more specifically, the characters and such.)

Well, the point is not getting them to buy the products, but keeping them satisfied with what they buy. Not quite the same thing. Disney is constantly proving to be the most successful of evil corporations, because even people like myself who admit that they're completely evil are so addicted to their products that we HAVE to pay up.

Plus, IMO, those areas where they don't work are FAR more important than anything else. As far as I'm concerned, if there's a Fortress of Darkness, it'd be the Cigarette company headquarters.

If I'm not satisfied with a product, I don't buy it again. I buy Disney coloring books for kids and stuff because when I go to a toy shop, they are the biggest, brightest, fullest books with the most well-known characters. A company that produces products that people want, that has competitive and profitable pricing, and is nimble enough to stay ahead of technologies and trends, should succeed.

There are a few cases where they won't. A large company establishes a competitive advantage, and new companies must compete with that. It's not impossible, but it's an uphill battle. And then there are weird scenarios where a company is diversified enough to operate without a profit in a certain area. Google likes to do this. They make a ton of money from their advertising business, and then they go into various side projects where they can operate without a profit in order to beat the competition. Microsoft did this too, with their Xbox. I don't see a reason to stop this behavior, especially since it could potentially result in better long term solutions. These sorts of companies, free from financial pressure, can focus strictly on the long-term and develop the best things.

A lot of this is off topic, but it seems that wherever there is a discussion on Ron Paul, there is a discussion of capitalism and free markets.

 

[Riverwolf]

Rubbish? Don't forget that there is also the random act of God, eg, being crushed by a capricious government act, death of the companies Grand Poobah.

So it's not just failing to bring the goods to the customers.

But also, if a company stays below the customers radar, then that too is failing to deliver to one's customers. Let me guess...you haven't started or run
many companies yet. Your tune will change if you do.

We shall see. I do intend to start a small game-making team(no more than ten people), but if at all possible, I'm keeping it indie. No middle-man for me.

Keep in mind, the aforementioned company was mostly under the radar in America; in Japan(and everywhere else), they were pretty successful, and its employees' names are still listed in various game credits. However, the company itself seems to have gone under.

Oh, and I know of another company, this one in comics, that went under despite producing comics that were breaking the top tens: Dreamwave. Can you guess why they failed? Not competition or lack of paying attention to the market...

Another thing: Sega. They're still around, but they left the console market a decade ago despite coming out with a great new console, the Dreamcast. It received all kinds of hype, and delivered the goods; heck, it still has a great homebrew market. Nevertheless, it still failed, and to this day, there's debate as to why it did. (There are three primary theories: the looming shadow of the upcoming PS2(a more powerful system), piracy, and lack of 3rd party support.)

And one final thing: Earthbound. In the gaming world, everyone's heard of the failure of this masterpiece, which was given the red carpet treatment in America during marketing. This was released on a Nintendo system, so it was certainly known about. The game was a SMASH hit in Japan, as well. The final game, to this day, is one of the most beloved games EVER made. It mos certainly delivered, yet it nevertheless failed, while mostly inferior (though still quality in their own right) games that had way less hype did way better. To this day, the cause of the failure is debated, and the two primary theories are: 1. the marketing strategy primarily used gross-out humor, and 2. the game was priced at $70 USD rather than the typical $60, because it came with its own strategy guide instead of a manual, packaged in a box three times the size of a typical SNES box.

 

[Riverwolf]

With the rise of computing power, and more specifically, the integration of technologies (phones that play music and games, tvs that can be connected to the internet, cloud computing, etc.) dedicated gaming hardware could eventually be eliminated, or could be reduced to existing as certain interfaces rather than expensive computing machines.

A good business must adapt to changing demand and technology.

This is true, and it's part of why Nintendo is going to stay around despite essentially betraying its fanbase: technologically, they're ahead of everyone else.

If I'm not satisfied with a product, I don't buy it again. I buy Disney coloring books for kids and stuff because when I go to a toy shop, they are the biggest, brightest, fullest books with the most well-known characters.

I most certainly boycott Disney merchandise, because I know they were mostly made by the sweat of underpaid villagers outside America. If I become aware of a company doing that, I leave it.

There are a few cases where they won't. A large company establishes a competitive advantage, and new companies must compete with that. It's not impossible, but it's an uphill battle. And then there are weird scenarios where a company is diversified enough to operate without a profit in a certain area. Google likes to do this. They make a ton of money from their advertising business, and then they go into various side projects where they can operate without a profit in order to beat the competition. Microsoft did this too, with their Xbox. I don't see a reason to stop this behavior, especially since it could potentially result in better long term solutions. These sorts of companies, free from financial pressure, can focus strictly on the long-term and develop the best things.

A lot of this is off topic, but it seems that wherever there is a discussion on Ron Paul, there is a discussion of capitalism and free markets.

Huh. Is that one of his primary subjects?

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Capitalism is no better or worse than any other system.

Except that by definition, capitalism isn't about meeting human needs in society. It's about creating wealth and perpetuating it.

In and of itself, it's a flawed and immoral system.

-Nato

 

[Riverwolf]

Except that by definition, capitalism isn't about meeting human needs in society. It's about creating wealth and perpetuating it.

In and of itself, it's a flawed and immoral system.

-Nato

I think it's good in theory, it's just that it needs SERIOUS amending to incorporate ethics. There's nothing wrong with creating and perpetuating wealth, as long as its done so in ways that aren't harmful to others.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

I think it's good in theory, it's just that it needs SERIOUS amending to incorporate ethics. There's nothing wrong with creating and perpetuating wealth, as long as its done so in ways that aren't harmful to others.

Well, you could say the same about just about any economic system. Why are we assumed to be ethical enough for capitalism but not enough for anything better?

And there are many ways it's not good in theory. I'm not a Marxist, but I think the way he described the conflicts and inequities capitalism creates was valid. Businesses prosper when they exploit the labor force or screw their customers. An atmosphere of true competition would keep businesses honest, but should in theory make it impossible to make a profit. In reality, it's the easiest thing for businesses to agree to set prices and policies that will become standard throughout the industry so everyone can clean up. Etc. etc. etc.

-Nato

 

[Riverwolf]

Well, you could say the same about just about any economic system. Why are we assumed to be ethical enough for capitalism but not enough for anything better?

And there are many ways it's not good in theory. I'm not a Marxist, but I think the way he described the conflicts and inequities capitalism creates was valid. Businesses prosper when they exploit the labor force or screw their customers. An atmosphere of true competition would keep businesses honest, but should in theory make it impossible to make a profit. In reality, it's the easiest thing for businesses to agree to set prices and policies that will become standard throughout the industry so everyone can clean up. Etc. etc. etc.

-Nato

Oh, I agree. I think what you suggest is reasonable.

 

[Penumbra]

Huh. Is that one of his primary subjects?

Of course. He's all about federal government getting out of the way and letting businesses do what they will. No EPA, no Federal Reserve, no Health and Human services, supporter of free trade, wants health care to be more privatized, etc.