Leader model

Yes, but unless I misread your dictum, you identify the financial return to investors as wealth. It ain't. Goods and services are wealth. IOW, I focus on reality, not symbols.
Right now, businesses are busy reducing their production of wealth in order to "cut costs", i.e. to save money. They are not trying to find ways of using the same amount of resources to produce more or better goods and services, which is what "cutting costs" actually is. They are trying to maintain the financial return for their investors.
But the demand for wealth has not decreased. There are as many people as there ever were, in fact, there are about 17 million more people every day. Most of them need far more than they get, the rest of us want far more than we need. So why are businesses not increasing output? Because the accounting system we use to organise and track the creation of wealth is a very bad model of the real world. The main reason for that is that it's focused on "making money", not on creating wealth.
To get some idea of what I'm talking about, recall that through most of the existence of humankind on this planet there was no money. But people created the wealth they needed anyhow (food, shelter, clothing, raising the young, caring for the sick, art and entertainment, defending themselves, etc). If you can figure out how they did that without money, you can figure out why money-accounting is such a bad model of wealth creation.
What's really, really scary IMO is that people confuse money with wealth. That's like confusing a meter stick with distance. Imagine if you had to have a certain number of meter sticks before you could travel down the road to visit Aunt Mabel... What would happen if the supply of meter sticks "inflated" as the supply of money does? You'd need more meter sticks to measure the same distance... Supposing we traded meter sticks for yard sticks, as we trade dollars for euros. Then one day we'd need more meter sticks, and the next fewer, to get the same number of yard sticks... Crazy, isn't it? ;-)
Historical note: people first began to use symbols of wealth as accounting tools in the Fertile Crescent about 5-6,000 years ago. When they began to trade these symbols, they handled them as IOUs. Or so I understand from reading the archaeologists who've investigated these matters.
cheers,
Wolf K.
Reply to
Wolf K
Loading thread data ...
The error, in my view, is in confusing wealth with wellbeing (including infrastructure or conditions of life) and thinking that money has a true and constant value. Todays problems stem from the various managements who have sought personal riches in the short term in the full and certain knowlege that both customers and shareholders will suffer huge losses. There is only a finite amount of financial resource and if it ends up in one pocket then the system is dead.
Regards
Reply to
Sailor
10000 left Derby works in November 1947 - so it did just run under the LMS.
formatting link

gives a brief history.
Cheers Richard
Reply to
beamends
: "Jerry" wrote in news:gmd51a$1nf : $ snipped-for-privacy@news.motzarella.org: :
: > : > Many *non profit-making* companies (which is what I took Simon to : > mean) have survived longer than those that were run to create wealth : > for their investors, the Co-Op being a prime example, for the simple : > reason that the profits have either been shared out (to those who : > actually create the income, thus giving them a greater incentive to : > further improve) or have simply been re-invested in the structure of : > the company : : In other words it is a profit making business that is fundamentally the : same as any other business. It is in business for the benfit of its : investors (in this case the "members" - as was when the co-op societies : were set up) and that it does so by way of making an operating profit in : its business.
"Remploy" and the like?...
: : Jerry, (a) don't make assumptions about folks you don't know as you will
I don't make assumptions, I make comments in reply to what has been said previously, if you don't like that FACT then it is you who has the problem not me!
: invariably wrong and (b) Wolf was making the point that businesses cater : for customers - yes quite right, what he didn't address is why : businesses cater for customers oh and (c) the economic ills of today : have much more complex origins than you've addressed. :
IYO of course, but as you are making assumptions about folks you don't know as you will be invariably wrong... :~)
Until you accept that all people have been taught over the last 30 odd years has been fundamentally wrong you will always be part of the current problem, I'm not saying that - to go back to your original premise - that nationalisation (in the UK) had not problems but that the problems were/are not caused simply because the business/industry is state owned, that was Thatcher's simplistic answer and allowed her to sell off (cheaply) such industries so that, amongst other aims, she could fund tax give-a-ways.
Reply to
Jerry
: "Jerry" wrote in news:gmda06$r5$1 : @news.motzarella.org: : : > It has to earn that money first, only then can it either pay it's : > "carpet-baggers" [1] or (re-)invest. : > : > [1] aka shareholders! : : Jerry we know that you are somewhat narrow minded in your opinions who-ever : try to work out if you can how businesses get started and are maintained : and what role shareholders (business owners) play in these processes. :
Care to run that past me again, oh and could you do so in English this time....
Reply to
Jerry
[...]
Sorry for using your phrase "the job of business is...", since it has caused some misunderstanding of my point(s).
I distinguish between the motivations of the shareholders/owners, and the function of the business. When you offer the proverbial carrot to the donkey, the donkey thinks its job is to eat the carrot, but its actual job is to haul the wagon.
Cheers,
wolf k.
Reply to
Wolf K
"simon" wrote
There have been numerous instances over the years of 'businesses' being opened mainly to create employment, although they may also have other (often community) benefits. Most are funded by external bodies, grant-aided or similar.
John.
Reply to
John Turner
Doesnt matter where it comes from. Heres some examples although am sure others could give better ones :- money laundering, rich relative with hopeless relative, sugar daddy with sugar babe - I wish....
cheers, Simon
Reply to
simon
We know, but was jerry lucky, economic with his typing or really that pedantic in avoiding mentioning BR 100001 as LMS 100001 :-)
Cheers, Simon
Reply to
simon
Holy, at first I thought I'd tripped and fallen into rec.crafts.metalworking., then I realised it wasn't gun-related or too awfully red-necked, merely a difference of opinion. Mike in BC
Reply to
Michael Gray
Was the original number chosen by Riddles to allow for all the steam classes before there was a production mainline deisel. not many people know that :-)
Cheers, Simon
Reply to
simon
Yes, but it was 10,000 not 100,000.
By the way, there had been a previous 10,000. An obscure 2-4-0 which had been used by Aspinall of the L&YR. It has an extended tender & combined saloon as an inspection train. Scrapped by 1924.
Kevin Martin
Reply to
Kevin Martin
In message , simon writes
I thought the LMS had lots of steam locos numbered between 10000 and 19999, which is why ex-LMS loco numbers started with 4 and 5 under BR.
Reply to
Jane Sullivan
Learn something new everyday - or reread it. Summary of numbering allocation :- At grouping Midland 1 - 4999 LNWR 5000 - 9999 L&YR 10000 - 12999 Scottish 14000 - 17000
1934 Older engines had 20000 added to make space for new builds. BR added 40000 to gve series 40000-50000. I thought they just stuck a 4 at the start.
Yes I know it was 10001, just slppy at teh keybud as usual. The claim about Riddles initially sugesting 100001 was subtle joke. Sorry.
Cheers, Simon
Reply to
simon
Having ridden on the footplate of a modern standard gauge oil fired steam loco in Switzerland, I would suggest that this is probably feasible. The fireman did little more than sit in his seat and twiddle a joystick controlling the burners whenever the driver prompted him that he was about to open/close the regulator. Quite a few oil-fired locos on narrow gauge mountain lines in Switzerland are already one-man operated, although the driver retains control over the burners. The difference here is that the gradients are often pretty uniform and hence there is very little variation in steam demand. So the burners can be set and left.
David at
formatting link

Reply to
David Randles
"David Randles" wrote
That sounds like over-manning to me; why couldn't the regulator be connected directly to that 'joy-stick' to allow the burners to be adjusted automatically.
John.
Reply to
John Turner
: > Having ridden on the footplate of a modern standard gauge oil fired : > steam loco in Switzerland, I would suggest that this is probably : > feasible. The fireman did little more than sit in his seat and twiddle : > a joystick controlling the burners whenever the driver prompted him : > that he was about to open/close the regulator. : : That sounds like over-manning to me; why couldn't the regulator be connected : directly to that 'joy-stick' to allow the burners to be adjusted : automatically. :
Because the fireman would still be needed anyway?...
Reply to
Jerry
Up to a point, yes. This goes back to the question a few posts back up: Would it be possible to replace the fireman on an oil-fired steam loco with a computer? The answer is, clearly, that it would indeed be possible. It's just that, in this particular case, they hadn't!
However, a direct mechanical linkage wouldn't work, as the burners have to be adjusted *before* the regulator is opened or closed. So it needs a system whereby the mechanism operating the burner can anticipate demands from the regulator, either by being verbally informed of them by the driver (in the case of a human fireman) or by some form of AI programmed into a computer. So it's not as simple as you might think - this is one of the situations where two humans communicating with each other can do something very easily but a computer would find it quite difficult.
Mark
Reply to
Mark Goodge

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.