GG Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) Yes, ikea has lost its way re social justice. the founder lives in switzerland now as the piece says. and yes, he's exploiting the environment and workers. but the point is that he and his company are a product of an economic system much closer to socialism than our own. a system that achieves many of the goals american liberals seek. and that same system continues to produce entrepeneurs encouraged and supported by the state. its a model sanders has mentioned and clearly admires. its a model for the more progressive western european countries and they've actually incorporated it much more than we have. i believe bern would attempt to do the same. as far as walmart vs ikea, i just assembled a sauder bookcase from wallyworld. it just doesn't have the design and style of ikea and i think the quality is lower as well. when walmart catches on to the post modern trend aNd starts selling stuff that might show up on a madmen episode, i'll buy. by then, there will probably be a newer, more interesting design trend. it's not about city versus country. What in the world are you babbling about? They are trying to create the poster child of capitalism that is a Silicon Valley entrepreneurial environment where young upstarts challenge the existing industry, which leads to massive disruption at the incumbents and often results in heavy job losses at the large companies. Instead of taking a socialist move to try to protect Ericsson, Saab, Volvo & Nokia they recognize that the carcasses need to be disposed and provide sunshine for new companies to grow. There is a zero socialist approach to what they are doing. The government is co opting a tried and true capitalist model to shake up its industry. Way to miss the comparison about WalMart & Nokia. Edited July 31, 2015 by GG
birdog1960 Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 What in the world are you babbling about? They are trying to create the poster child of capitalism that is a Silicon Valley entrepreneurial environment where young upstarts challenge the existing industry, which leads to massive disruption at the incumbents and often results in heavy job losses at the large companies. Instead of taking a socialist move to try to protect Ericsson, Saab, Volvo & Nokia they recognize that the carcasses need to be disposed and provide sunshine for new companies to grow. There is a zero socialist approach to what they are doing. The government is co opting a tried and true capitalist model to shake up its industry. Way to miss the comparison about WalMart & Nokia. so you'd be pleased to see the us govt do this an a similar scale based on population? The Finns created an innovation and technology agency, Tekes, with an annual budget of €600m and a staff of 360. They also established a venture-capital fund, Finnvera, to find early-stage companies and help them get established
IDBillzFan Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 so you'd be pleased to see the us govt do this an a similar scale based on population? The Finns created an innovation and technology agency, Tekes, with an annual budget of €600m and a staff of 360. They also established a venture-capital fund, Finnvera, to find early-stage companies and help them get established Yes, what we need is another government agency with a staff of 360 to look out for innovation and technology. Genius idea. And since you clearly have no idea about the way things work otherwise, many cities set up incubators to help small businesses get their legs. The last thing a SMART entrepreneur would want to do is cut a deal with the federal government to get its start.
GG Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 so you'd be pleased to see the us govt do this an a similar scale based on population? The Finns created an innovation and technology agency, Tekes, with an annual budget of €600m and a staff of 360. They also established a venture-capital fund, Finnvera, to find early-stage companies and help them get established We don't need a friggin government agency to do what a multibillion dollar private industry is doing quite well already. What part of Nordics are copying the Silicon Valley model is hard to comprehend? Maybe you'll introduce the Solyndra case study to prove your point?
Magox Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 and most modern day progressives would be very satisfied with swedish or norwegian like systems of govt. I'm sure they would, and just like you I'm sure they fail to realize that socialism is a lot easier to achieve when you have the population of an average sized state of the U.S and the oil revenues of a top tier oil producer to pay for it.
birdog1960 Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 We don't need a friggin government agency to do what a multibillion dollar private industry is doing quite well already. What part of Nordics are copying the Silicon Valley model is hard to comprehend? Maybe you'll introduce the Solyndra case study to prove your point? that's what i thought. so you are not in agreement with the norway model. it's too socialistic for u. what about that do you have difficulty understanding?
Joe Miner Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 that's what i thought. so you are not in agreement with the norway model. it's too socialistic for u. what about that do you have difficulty understanding? NASA
keepthefaith Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 so you'd be pleased to see the us govt do this an a similar scale based on population? The Finns created an innovation and technology agency, Tekes, with an annual budget of €600m and a staff of 360. They also established a venture-capital fund, Finnvera, to find early-stage companies and help them get established I can't think of a single US federal government agency that generates a proud return on the taxpayer investment. In this country, we stink at the federal level of managing anything efficiently or with common sense and without a political axe to grind with the possible exception of parts of our military. We flat out suck in anything government run so until we learn how to run things better at the Federal level (and this goes for most states too), we should not even consider creating or enlarging anything government run.
IDBillzFan Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) In this country, we stink at the federal level of managing anything efficiently or with common sense and without a political axe to grind with the possible exception of parts of our military. There are countless examples of federal government failures at countless levels, and yet here are the die-hard progressive ideologues like birdog arguing that the primary problem with the US is that there isn't enough government involvement to drive their fantastical desires of social equality. Those who can't do count on the government to do for them. Edited July 31, 2015 by LABillzFan
GG Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 that's what i thought. so you are not in agreement with the norway model. it's too socialistic for u. what about that do you have difficulty understanding? The Norway model you describe is to move away from socialism and adopt a highly disruptive model of capitalist innovation. The question should be, why are YOU supporting it?
birdog1960 Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 The Norway model you describe is to move away from socialism and adopt a highly disruptive model of capitalist innovation. The question should be, why are YOU supporting it? it's a good idea and it's working. it's gov't at its best. it's for the benefit of the citizenry and excesses can and likely will be reigned in if it is no longer of benefit to the citizenry. what's not to like?
GG Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 it's a good idea and it's working. it's gov't at its best. it's for the benefit of the citizenry and excesses can and likely will be reigned in if it is no longer of benefit to the citizenry. what's not to like? The fact that the government is promoting growth in industries which will cause layoffs in other industries? As a progressive, you're ok with that? Who bears the cost when the government makes a bad bet on the technology or company? The basic idea is good, and that's why private enterprise has been operating under it forever. No reason for the government to get involved in something that works perfectly fine. But again, you miss the point. Nordics are trying to create what we have in Silicon Valley, but are ending up being the losers, because after giving birth to the new companies, they all end up fleeing the Nordics for sunnier business climates, while Silicon Valley companies stick around. Get that through your head.
birdog1960 Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) The fact that the government is promoting growth in industries which will cause layoffs in other industries? As a progressive, you're ok with that? Who bears the cost when the government makes a bad bet on the technology or company? The basic idea is good, and that's why private enterprise has been operating under it forever. No reason for the government to get involved in something that works perfectly fine. But again, you miss the point. Nordics are trying to create what we have in Silicon Valley, but are ending up being the losers, because after giving birth to the new companies, they all end up fleeing the Nordics for sunnier business climates, while Silicon Valley companies stick around. Get that through your head. interesting. i interpret the piece to be praising the success of the finnish gov'ts model while admitting some associated problems (eg ikea). you see it as condemning their process even if there might be a few bright spots. i didn't see any mention of a net loss of jobs resulting from the moves other than that nokia went bust. that was the precipitant of the policies not the result of them. Edited July 31, 2015 by birdog1960
GG Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 interesting. i interpret the piece to be praising the success of the finnish gov'ts model while admitting some associated problems (eg ikea). you see it as condemning their process even if there might be a few bright spots. i didn't see any mention of a net loss of jobs resulting from the moves other than that nokia went bust. that was the precipitant of the policies not the result of them. Try doing a little logical progression. The sole reason Silicon Valley exists is to invent new technologies and processes that make incumbent technologies and processes obsolete. What do you think the effect of that is on the incumbents?
birdog1960 Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 Try doing a little logical progression. The sole reason Silicon Valley exists is to invent new technologies and processes that make incumbent technologies and processes obsolete. What do you think the effect of that is on the incumbents? and what's to say that the new companies don't employ as many or more people at higher pay? it's global competition. if the finns don't keep up they lose. just like nokia did.
GG Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 and what's to say that the new companies don't employ as many or more people at higher pay? it's global competition. if the finns don't keep up they lose. just like nokia did. So far, you've quoted a hell of a lot more from Smith & Freidman than you have from Marx & Engels. Keep talking.
Alaska Darin Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 We don't need a friggin government agency to do what a multibillion dollar private industry is doing quite well already. What part of Nordics are copying the Silicon Valley model is hard to comprehend? Maybe you'll introduce the Solyndra case study to prove your point? 360 jobs, mister. That's what he's talking about.
birdog1960 Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) So far, you've quoted a hell of a lot more from Smith & Freidman than you have from Marx & Engels. Keep talking. the difference is that the program is state sponsored and to a degree, state controlled. Edited July 31, 2015 by birdog1960
TH3 Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 Yes, what we need is another government agency with a staff of 360 to look out for innovation and technology. Genius idea. And since you clearly have no idea about the way things work otherwise, many cities set up incubators to help small businesses get their legs. The last thing a SMART entrepreneur would want to do is cut a deal with the federal government to get its start. Cast your judgement as I know you will but....I work with a State fund who has invested in one of my companies. SMART entrepreneurs of course want to cut a deal with a government as the funds are MUCH easier to deal with (ask almost ANY start up person....like say Elon Musk). VC's and "savvy" money are pretty much out to do one thing - steal your company from you. On the other hand the State fund I work with invests in true start ups which VC's wouldn't touch...and BTW - their fund is very successful - so yes a government can run an investment fund and make money. The fund I work is patient, helpful and they are getting a return on their investment. LA - you clearly have NO idea what you are talking about on this subject (start up funding) - but I am quite sure it won't keep you from yapping and trying to somehow cob your political idealism into this subject....
Recommended Posts