2020 Presidential election

[silesian]

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".

Since precisely no one is saying that efficiency should be their top priority, I guess you could go argue with an imaginary friend self if that floats your boat.

 

[silesian]

I disagree that "restaurants that are inefficient go broke".

Ask 5 restaurant managers to imagine a restaurant with inefficient buyers, inefficient managers, inefficient cooks, inefficient servers, inefficient investors, inefficient inventory management practices, etc.

Now ask them to estimate how long they expect that restaurant to remain in business.

 

[silesian]

So, basically just an economist?

I guess to the same degree that a brain surgeon and a dermatologist is just doctors. And a Chemical and Electrical Engineer are just engineers. And a Cessna pilot and a F 16 pilots are just pilots.

 

[silesian]

I agree that "efficiency is a good thing that leads to profitable and successful companies"

Since you believe that efficiency is a good thing that leads to profitable and successful companies, may I assume that you also believe that inefficiency is not a good thing and leads to unprofitable and unsuccessful companies? And if you then agree that unprofitable companies go broke, then we are in complete agreement.

Alright, time to move on.

 

[One Brow]

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.

I don't recall anyone disputing the successes of liberal democracy, capitalism, nor the free markets; I certainly don't. Stephen Pinker is not a reliable source, but that doesn't change the first sentence.

If your taking a disagreement with one particular example (the restaurant industry), and portraying that as dissing your entire belief system in capitalism, how can you get more fundamentalist than that?

 

[One Brow]

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.

Which of these do you claim is critical to restaurant success? Because I guarantee you, whatever you choose, there are multitudes of exceptions to it.

And while you compartmentalize efficiency and effectiveness as a completely independent parameters, they are in fact intertwined

They are sometimes intertwined, and sometimes not.

Hope that helps.

It does help point out that you are not defending your original claim.

 

[One Brow]

I suggest you read Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress

You mean, you're not recommending Atlas Shrugged? You're really trusting in Pinker a little too much.

The poor are overall much better overall better off under capitalism than in all other systems. That is an empirical fact.

We don't have unregulated capitalism in this country. You do get unregulated capitalism in countries where the government collapses. How were the poor doing in Somalia in 2006?

In the mean time, I'll eat at private restaurants and you eat in state run restaurants and we'll both be happy. smile.

How about I eat in state-regulated restaurants and you eat from people who are not regulated by the state. Except don't, I rather you not get sick.

 

[One Brow]

I guess to the same degree that a brain surgeon and a dermatologist is just doctors. And a Chemical and Electrical Engineer are just engineers. And a Cessna pilot and a F 16 pilots are just pilots.

What would you think of a brain surgeon that never operated on a brain?

 

[One Brow]

Since precisely no one is saying that efficiency should be their top priority, I guess you could go argue with an imaginary friend self if that floats your boat.

If efficiency is not the top priority, than you acknowledge they can be both inefficient and successful?

 

[One Brow]

Since you believe that efficiency is a good thing that leads to profitable and successful companies, may I assume that you also believe that inefficiency is not a good thing and leads to unprofitable and unsuccessful companies?

I agree that inefficiency is worse than efficiency. I disagree that inefficiency leads to unprofitable and unsuccessful companies. There are many paths to being profitable and successful; efficiency is one of them. Many successful companies are very inefficient.

 

[PJF]

 

[PJF]

Klobuchar Claims She Will Take on Pharma, Has Taken $400,000 From the Industry
https://freebeacon.com/politics/klo...on-pharma-has-taken-400000-from-the-industry/