N Chomsky 80-20 rule, private tirannies, strategic alliances

[LucBertolotti]

if u get rid of the 80%, pareto law still apllies because the 20% now becomes 100%

[ChristophDollis]

Those people who give more in terms of revenue to a company get more service in return?

This is "amoral" to you?

And those who spend less with a business get less service.

You see a problem here?

Asshat.

Seriously.

[willoughby666666]

@ChristophDollis Many people cannot afford to buy in bulk or in 'economies of scale' through no fault of their own. Donald Trump would be able to though since he inherited millions of dollars from his father...

[ChristophDollis]

@willoughby666666

So?

[willoughby666666]

@ChristophDollis Hence it is amoral for corporations/business to favour the fortunate over the unfortunate. It is a form of punishing the victim.

[Replayability]

OK, where are the private trannies?

[Ginlah]

He means corporations.

[ReX342]

My teacher was unable to clarify as to how the extreme gap in riches and overall poverty of a nation-state is to be explained...

Which tells you a lot about the indoctrination surrounding the concept of economics, which is up for debate and above all a human affaire (as supposed to the alpha sciences like physics, it is subjective and unclear in many respects amongst scholars and economists).

[Mbowster]

"If you can figure out how to get rid of the other 80% you are better off"

What a stupid thing to say!

Let's get rid of 20% of our business because we like the other 80% better. I can't believe he can say that with a straight face. I have a business degree and we were never taught that. This guy has no credibility!

[kaya051285]

if you are limited in your capacity for the service you are selling, then you sell to those that give you the best margin. If you have unlimited capacity to supply the good or service then you sell to even those customers that make you low profit

doesn't take a genius to be honest :P

[LuminiferousAether]

kaya's right it makes perfect sense.

[Mbowster]

Wrong! It makes no sense whatsoever. If you have more business than you can handle.. expand.

Chomsky is an idiot.

[ReX342]

not if the cost to reach the rest is significantly higher than the cost to reach the limited (but massively richer) part of the market (20%).

Actually, the 20-80 rule as I learn it at school is that the richest 20% are X times more rich than the lowest 20%. The factor is at least 5 in all countries and usually highest in poor countries.

[Mbowster]

It's really quite simple, being a smart businessmen requires daily decisions on resource utilization. There are always many options. Using this 80-20 rule to actively eliminate business is just plain stupid. All resource utilization options should be examined, abandoning business is just one option.

[4ourthofjuly]

he has the credentials you lack: publications, a doctorate, institute professorship(highest position, 3% of professors at his school have it) at one of the top schools on earth (MIT), more citations than any living scholar.

i would at least give him a listen without calling him names.

[Mbowster]

I've listened and read. He is a socialist and his ideas are wrong.

[kidpens]

...like you would admit that capitalism is unsustainable after spending tens of thousand of dollars on business school.

[Mbowster]

any monies I have spent for education has nothing to do with my anti socialist views.

"capitalism is unsustainable" ??? You've go to be kidding!

[kidpens]

"Capitalism is not sustainable by its very nature. It is predicated on infinitely expanding markets, faster consumption and bigger production in a finite planet."

[Mbowster]

You couldn't be more wrong about capitalism.

[kidpens]

...care to elaborate?

[Mbowster]

Instead, why don't you show me how Socialism is sustainable? Capitalism is what fueled the industrial revolution and is continuing to fuel all productivity growth today, creating higher standards of living for all humans. Socialism is just the opposite. It destroys standards of living by eliminating capital investment.

[kidpens]

"higher standards of living for all humans"? ...really? I suggest you take a look at some of the third world countries that are taking it up the ass because of globalization. Capitalism reduces everything to monetary value. Things that promote the common good like social security and health care are not inherently capitalist. Although, i agree that repressive governments like North Korea and the Soviet Union are odious.

[Antigreenie]

Your mistake is blaming third world living conditions on capitalism. Third world countries will remain impoverished until the totalitarian leaders are removed, socialism is abolished, and laissez-faire capitalism is instituted.

The USA was founded in 1776 as a small gov't economically free country (laissez-faire capitalism). This is precisely what allowed the rapid growth of productivity that gave its citizens the highest standard of living possible.

[Mbowster]

She's right!

[epleite1000]

Sorry but, what is a totalitarian leader?

[aewester]

Are you saying that most or all third world countries have totalitarian leaders and/or socialist economic systems?

If so, you are COMPLETELY wrong, and you need to check out your facts before you misinform others.

Also, lassez-faire capitalism isn't what gave us our dominance over the world economy. Since the early 1800's it was an immense combination of deliberate protection of infant industries, subsidizing of business activities, government r+d and, most significantly, huge import tariffs.

[McConsumer]

You definitely fail economics. But your point is valid (aside from the factual inaccuracies) The current system we now have of constantly expanding economies IS unsustainable. I don't have the link, but i saw an interesting piece about the founding of the US. Apparently the majority of people wanted to establish a type of socialism, but the 'elite" instead created what we have today. Which is a type of capitalism

[4ourthofjuly]

Zing!

[Mbowster]

I listened, I commented.

I have equal (or better credentials IMO)

Chomsky is a proponent of Socialism, it can't get any worse than that. I totally disagree with his 80/20 rule but not everything Chomsky has published. He is an intelligent man. His political views, though, are anti-capitalist and that is dangerous, reckless, and an abuse of his position - IMO.

[4ourthofjuly]

This is the first time in my life that I have "laughed out loud" on the internet.

Equal or better credentials, eh?

Youre awesome.

[Mbowster]

You're ignorant of what Chomsky is....

google chomsky lies to uncover his farce.

[aewester]

Also, Chomsky proposes CERTAIN socialist policies in our day, but don't continue to make the mistake of calling him a socialist; he is an anarchist. If you HAVE to though, you might say "LIBERTARIAN-socialist".

Just for fun, here's a quote of Chomsky's:

"My books were also banned in the Soviet Union, pre-Gorbachev, even technical work on linguistics. I regarded that as an honor, and the same is true when books of mine are banned by others who take Stalin as their guide."

[Mbowster]

There are two political/philosophic categories.

Socialism and Capitalism.

Chomsky, Stalin, Hitler, Franco, Lenin, Marx, Milton Friedman, Samuelson, Keynes, Krugman, Gore, Clinton, Kennedy, Castro, and you are all Socialists. You can call yourself or the rest of them any thing you want, but you/they are still Socialists.

To understand this you must understand what laissez-faire capitalism is. It is obvious from your statements that you don't. It is not my job to teach you.

[nogirl42]

Internet genius "Mbowster" rocks the world of political philosophy with his famous "Two Categories" theory.

[asielnorton]

a bit of an oversimplification perhaps?

[AroundSun]

@Mbowster If you think Milton Friedman was a socialist you are a dummy

[Mbowster]

@AroundSun

No need to slander... In my opinion his actions speak for themselves.

Here are a few articles that explain my position:

mises.org/daily/2442

blog.mises.org/3704/friedman-a­nd-socialism/

[MrSalamander7]

@Mbowster Holy shit you fail. I'm labeling your comment as spam.

[Mbowster]

@MrSalamander7

I guess you don't know what spam is!

... and, like the rest of you guys with negative comments, have know idea what freedom is or what freedom means. Anything against freedom is socialist!

It really is that simple.

[MrSalamander7]

@Mbowster You are EXTREMELY wrong and spouting nonsense that no knowledgable person agrees with. You clearly know next to nothing about politics, history, capitalism and socialism. Hence, your ravings are just mindless spam. Came back after you educate yourself.

[Mbowster]

@MrSalamander7

What point would you like to debate? 

[Weaseldog2001]

@Mbowster Those nasty Socialist Public Roads, destroying our freedumbs!

Nasty Socialist Fire Department destroying our Freedumbs!

Nasty Socialist Sanitation Department destroying our Freedumbs!

[aewester]

Why in the hell are anti-capitalist views "dangerous" and "an abuse of his position"?

Are you insinuating that scholars should only express their views when they fall into "acceptable" categories?? For someone who is so anti-communist/fascist, that sounds awfully totalitarian.

And to say you have better credentials than someone who has received honorary degrees from OVER THIRTY universities around the world is completely ridiculous.

He's done more social/economic research than you ever will

[Mbowster]

Socialism is the opposite of freedom. If you are a proponent of socialism than you are in favor of servitude of the masses. That, my friend, is dangerous.

If you are infamous and a proponent of socialism than you are abusing your position.

[aewester]

Chomsky is an anarchist before he is a socialist. He is in favor of decentralized administration of community interests.

And what does "servitude of the masses" mean? Do you mean "servitude TO the masses?" If so, then don't you think "servitude to the masses" is much more sane than servitude to corporations and to power centers?

Is this even debatable?

I actually do have a decent understanding of lassez-faire capitalism. What did I write that proves otherwise?

Or do you just want to pretend?

[willoughby666666]

@Mbowster No, it is more efficient and rewarding to spend your time looking after your 'best' clients. 'Best' meaning clients who are wealthy and can afford to buy way more of your product or service.

[emilson]

Muito bons esses vídeos do Chosmky. Vale lembrar os inúmeros pacotes de minutos oferecidos pelas operadoras de celulares. Essas mensagens só são enviadas àqueles que costumam recarregar bastante e eventualmente comprar esses pacotes. Fico impressionado como a maioria da população não percebe que está sendo manipulada. Pelo contrário, só enxergam as "vantagens" dos tais pacotes.

[Mbowster]

"If you can figure out how to get rid of the other 80% you are better off"

What a stupid thing to say!

Let's get rid of 20% of our business because we like the other 80% better. I can't believe he can say that with a straight face. I have a business degree and we were never taught that. This guy has no credibility!