When Gamma businesspeople get too adventurous

[Ezra]

Someone needs to clamp down with some hardline Ti rules. What Brown (although ILI and thus not Beta) in banning short-selling of stock, may have been bad for the markets, but in the long run, it was a very wise thing to do, and actually helped the markets.

This illustrates the point that not all Gammas can keep things flowing smoothly, and not always is the economy a self-regulatory body. In my eyes, if a company like Lehman Brothers goes bust, the government should not step into to pump public funds into it. It's daylight robbery, and completely contrary to the idea of the liberal economy we condone, whereby if a corporation can't stand up by itself, it should be left to die.

Nonetheless, for the most part, Gammas and economy are a nice thing to have in this world.

[FDG]

I am not absolutely certain that the current crisis was caused by a Gamma mentality. It seems like foresight wasn't a priority.

[Expat]

In my eyes, if a company like Lehman Brothers goes bust, the government should not step into to pump public funds into it. It's daylight robbery, and completely contrary to the idea of the liberal economy we condone, whereby if a corporation can't stand up by itself, it should be left to die.

Of course.

I am not absolutely certain that the current crisis was caused by a Gamma mentality. It seems like foresight wasn't a priority.

"Too adventurous Gamma Businesspeople", according to a Gamma mindset, should indeed be left to go bust, and any help from any one should be voluntary, and by those who want to help a particular individual - . To use the power of the government to bend rules and help one individual may be a Gamma inclination, but it's a corruption. It's the "evil" side of Gamma.

[discojoe]

Whether or not these government bailouts are "good" decisions or "bad" decisions depends on if you're looking at it politically or economically.

[Nexus]

Someone needs to clamp down with some hardline Ti rules. What Brown (although ILI and thus not Beta) in banning short-selling of stock, may have been bad for the markets, but in the long run, it was a very wise thing to do, and actually helped the markets.

This illustrates the point that not all Gammas can keep things flowing smoothly, and not always is the economy a self-regulatory body. In my eyes, if a company like Lehman Brothers goes bust, the government should not step into to pump public funds into it. It's daylight robbery, and completely contrary to the idea of the liberal economy we condone, whereby if a corporation can't stand up by itself, it should be left to die.

Nonetheless, for the most part, Gammas and economy are a nice thing to have in this world.

Beta is necessary to regulate Gamma b/c which is good for profit is not necessarily good for the economy, but Gammas lack the the logical structure to make a connection between the two (or perhaps they are extremely preoccupied with expansion in the form of Supply & Demand and Research & Development). The Invisible Hand really is invisible to , because it is not based on any single fact but more of a system of interacting logical parts. That is why Beta regulations like labor laws and antitrust acts are actually good for the free market. Gammas are better at exploring a wide variety of resources and sorting the potential creatively to fill out evolutionary niches. Also interesting is that Beta and Gamma are both decisive rather than judicious (the hard-working types). While corporate welfare is bad for competition and natural selection, Gamma is also Beta's livestock; we need to promote domestic industry even if imports are cheaper, b/c we cannot rely on other countries (ie we need to support the oil industry, b/c we need our own oil). In this way Beta structures also engage in survival of the fittest, but more for providing security rather than other goods and services. Beta niches are usually different territories (i.e. Europe).

[implied]

Someone needs to clamp down with some hardline Ti rules. What Brown (although ILI and thus not Beta) in banning short-selling of stock, may have been bad for the markets, but in the long run, it was a very wise thing to do, and actually helped the markets.

This illustrates the point that not all Gammas can keep things flowing smoothly, and not always is the economy a self-regulatory body. In my eyes, if a company like Lehman Brothers goes bust, the government should not step into to pump public funds into it. It's daylight robbery, and completely contrary to the idea of the liberal economy we condone, whereby if a corporation can't stand up by itself, it should be left to die.

Nonetheless, for the most part, Gammas and economy are a nice thing to have in this world.

[Nexus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDDnuZAL9ps

That reminded me of The Wall, but with techno. It was also more anti-gamma than anti-beta.

[implied]

That reminded me of The Wall, but with techno. It was also more anti-gamma than anti-beta.

yeah, i consider it to have a very anti-gamma message as well!

[Nexus]

yeah, i consider it to have a very anti-gamma message as well!

The pills and the meeting room remind me a lot of Kids in the Hall: Brain Candy

[Phaedrus]

The Invisible Hand really is invisible to , because it is not based on any single fact but more of a system of interacting logical parts.

No.

That is why Beta regulations like labor laws and antitrust acts are actually good for the free market.

No.

we need to promote domestic industry even if imports are cheaper, b/c we cannot rely on other countries (ie we need to support the oil industry, b/c we need our own oil).

No. Your views on economics are clearly false.

[FDG]

Beta is necessary to regulate Gamma b/c which is good for profit is not necessarily good for the economy, but Gammas lack the the logical structure to make a connection between the two (or perhaps they are extremely preoccupied with expansion in the form of Supply & Demand and Research & Development). The Invisible Hand really is invisible to , because it is not based on any single fact but more of a system of interacting logical parts. That is why Beta regulations like labor laws and antitrust acts are actually good for the free market. Gammas are better at exploring a wide variety of resources and sorting the potential creatively to fill out evolutionary niches. Also interesting is that Beta and Gamma are both decisive rather than judicious (the hard-working types). While corporate welfare is bad for competition and natural selection, Gamma is also Beta's livestock; we need to promote domestic industry even if imports are cheaper, b/c we cannot rely on other countries (ie we need to support the oil industry, b/c we need our own oil). In this way Beta structures also engage in survival of the fittest, but more for providing security rather than other goods and services. Beta niches are usually different territories (i.e. Europe).

Sorry, WHAT are you talking about? Now we are actually trying to type labor laws? What's the next step?

[Expat]

Beta is necessary to regulate Gamma b/c which is good for profit is not necessarily good for the economy,

Rigtht -- so based on what criteria does Beta decide what is "good for the economy" and that isn't?

but Gammas lack the the logical structure to make a connection between the two (or perhaps they are extremely preoccupied with expansion in the form of Supply & Demand and Research & Development).

Again, you based that "logical structure" on what?

The Invisible Hand really is invisible to , because it is not based on any single fact but more of a system of interacting logical parts.

"The Invisible Hand" is one of the most misquoted things in economics history. I suggest everyone takes a look at Adam Smith's original quote - not at Paul Samuelson's misquote - to see what it actually meant.

But even in its "conventional" meaning, the "invisible hand" is not a description of perception. It merely states that, if left to pursue their own interests, businessman will contribute to general prosperity, not because they are "good", but because it is in their interest to produce stuff that folks want to buy.

That is why Beta regulations like labor laws and antitrust acts are actually good for the free market.

Says you.

we need to promote domestic industry even if imports are cheaper, b/c we cannot rely on other countries (ie we need to support the oil industry, b/c we need our own oil). In this way Beta structures also engage in survival of the fittest, but more for providing security rather than other goods and services. Beta niches are usually different territories (i.e. Europe).

What you have described is a rather naive faith in the rightness and wisdom of your own convictions. Which is a Beta characteristic.

[Ezra]

Whether or not these government bailouts are "good" decisions or "bad" decisions depends on if you're looking at it politically or economically.

Are the two not interlinked?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDDnuZAL9ps

Same guy.

No.


No.


No. Your views on economics are clearly false.

What the fuck do you know about economics?

[Nexus]

Me and Ezra vs. Expat and Phaedrus; what a quadratic split

"The Invisible Hand" is one of the most misquoted things in economics history. I suggest everyone takes a look at Adam Smith's original quote - not at Paul Samuelson's misquote - to see what it actually meant.

But even in its "conventional" meaning, the "invisible hand" is not a description of perception. It merely states that, if left to pursue their own interests, businessman will contribute to general prosperity, not because they are "good", but because it is in their interest to produce stuff that folks want to buy.

That is exactly what I said; Gamma businessmen will use their to evaluate resources and to project profits into the future, and they do it very well; however, they are much more concerned in general with the actual current states of the individuals markets than with the theory of the entire economy. While this is good at first, if an uncompetitive monopoly emerges and the minimum wage is set too low then the monopoly will not have to try hard to offer better products and people will have to work for the monopoly b/c it is so large and there is no competition, but will not be able to afford to purchase goods produced by the monopoly; thus general prosperity will not be achieved. Would you prefer true laissez-faire?

Rigtht -- so based on what criteria does Beta decide what is "good for the economy" and that isn't?

Again, you based that "logical structure" on what?

I am not saying that every inspiration for improving the economy comes from Beta; I am saying that the law is consistently structured and enforced as a generalized, abstract legal system, and thus contains references to theoretical aspects that are not dependent on the current state of the economy.

Says you.

What you have described is a rather naive faith in the rightness and wisdom of your own convictions. Which is a Beta characteristic.

If I did not have faith in my convictions I would not state them. It is obvious that if the poor are too poor that no one will be able to afford industrial goods, and supply will decrease. It is obvious that if one company has a monopoly then competition will cease and the quality of the goods will deteriorate. A type might miss this connection b/c it does not represent flexible concrete changes that can be arbitrarily utilized by , it requires a deep understanding of the fixed relations between the two that is independent of the actual state of things.

[discojoe]

Are the two not interlinked?

Yes, but not always as far as incentives are concerned. This is mainly due to time horizons.

For example, a politician can gain the favor and votes needed to get reelected by making promises that won't need to be kept, or whose longterm consequences won't be seen, until after he has left office (by which time the current administration will be blamed for whatever bad circumstances have arisen as a result of the promises made by the previous administration). This is primarily the fault of the public, who are largely ignorant and shortsighted about practically every economic concept.

This is very common. Look at Social Security in the United States.

[inumbra]

Gamma is about affluence and making lots of money. Beta is about wanting nuclear holocausts.

[Expat]

Gamma is about affluence and making lots of money. Beta is about wanting nuclear holocausts.

I think Beta is about wanting something more than "just" money.

[Khola aka Bee]

All I know is if this somehow makes the Aussie dollar weaker, I will be most displeased at the suden jump in cost of importing my amusing novelty items off Etsy, etc..

[crazedrat]

gamma is not primarily about wanting money , & this stereotype really annoys me . that is an over simplification which is the result of - the dominance of judging temperament gammas on this board - the clouded machine translations of various socionic articles - the overemphasis of culture above mind, in socionics - the tendency for people to want to resolve their thoughts - impotent socionicists like niffweed, joy, and expat

[Ezra]

gamma is not primarily about wanting money , & this stereotype really annoys me . that is an over simplification which is the result of - the dominance of judging temperament gammas on this board - the clouded machine translations of various socionic articles - the overemphasis of culture above mind, in socionics - the tendency for people to want to resolve their thoughts - impotent socionicists like niffweed, joy, and expat

Alright, fuckhead, what's your take on things?

[crazedrat]

gamma perceiving types & perceiving subtypes are more concerned with achieving independence from money through earning it . they don't accumulate it out of material interest . intps will be materialistic about a select few, high quality things . things like silverware can be plastic spoons . alpha SFs on the other hand can't handle it if you don't bring their spoons down to be washed . gamma Ps materialism emphasis is not on indulgence , it is on the control of quality . This is not a focus on accumulation , it is a focus on maintenance .

[FDG]

gamma perceiving types & perceiving subtypes are more concerned with achieving independence from money through earning it .

That's how it is usually described btw.

[Warlord]

This is what the money is for:

[Shazaam]

Meh. Just let them handle the money. I'll handle the love. Life's a stage and we all play our parts.