Thanks for pointing out the obvious and imagining others do not understand by deliberately misconstruing words. If you want to have an intellectually honest argument, bring it on. You are better than that.
2020 Presidential election
- Thread starter gandalfe
- Start date
Thanks for pointing out the obvious and imagining others do not understand by deliberately misconstruing words. If you want to have an intellectually honest argument, bring it on. You are better than that.
There are many economists who focus their research on specific industries. If you want to learn about hospitality economics I can try to track down one of my college friends and introduce you. Haven't spoken to him in years, but let me know if you want to learn about the job.
We were talking about efficiency. I don't think there is much debate that efficiency is a good thing that leads to profitable and successful companies. So I have no clue why this is confusing to you. Not really interested in engaging in an side-tracked academic argument over pure semantics that is not relevant to the topic under debate.
Words have meanings.
ef·fi·cient
- (especially of a system or machine) achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense.
- (of a person) working in a well-organized and competent way.
- preventing the wasteful use of a particular resource.
However, if you didn't mean that, what did you mean?
So, basically just an economist? Have they bused tables, washed dishes, or managed a restaurant, or are they more focused on economic trends and predictions?
I'm not going to debate claims that you invent out of thin air. Go find someone who believes this and argue with them.
Creationists don't think there is much debate that evolution is untenable and antivaxxers don't think there is a debate that vaccines are unsafe. Both are right in the exact opposite sense that they wish, there is no debate because they are so wrong.
They often shift the goalposts in a discussion as well, similar to moving from the obviously false "restaurants that are inefficient go broke" to the much milder and more generic "efficiency is a good thing that leads to profitable and successful companies".
I agree that "efficiency is a good thing that leads to profitable and successful companies", in a vacuum. I disagree that "restaurants that are inefficient go broke".
If they believed this, why would I argue with them about it.
How about you go talk to 5 managers of successful restaurants, and ask them what their top priority is. See how many come back with "efficiency".
Success of Liberal democracy, capitalism and free markets is an empirical fact. Read some Stephen Pinker, he has lots of charts and graphs and data.
But it is always a good move when you are on the losing side of an argument to dismiss the other person as religious, so debate points to you.
Efficiency is accomplishing something with the least waste of resources (time, effort, materials, capital).
So, for example, there is marketing efficiency is making the best use of marketing personnel and spend. If you place ads in the wrong publication, this means poor marketing efficiency (few new customers per marketing hours and dollars spent).
There is purchasing efficiency which uses as few buyer-hours to get the best supplies for the lower costs.
Efficiency is applied to every commercial dimension, not just food waste, which is how you have narrowly discussed it.
And while you compartmentalize efficiency and effectiveness as a completely independent parameters, they are in fact intertwined
Hope that helps.
Last edited:
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Good taste, Dave.
I suggest you read Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress
The poor are overall much better overall better off under capitalism than in all other systems. That is an empirical fact.
In the mean time, I'll eat at private restaurants and you eat in state run restaurants and we'll both be happy. smile.