I haven't been on a lot, apologies for that... I haven't been in the best of moods either but today is a little better than normal. I also haven't been able to write much either but I was finally able to finish one thing...
Seems so strange a guy who's cranked out hundreds of published pages is finding just finishing a lil blog essay to be an important feat. But whatevers. Done is done!
The ending of this piece felt a little forced so I hope it makes some sort of sense.
Evolution In Economics
On Evolution
In the biological world, the term "evolution" is a theory that describes how species of living organisms and continuously show the best traits for continued existence as time passes and the environment (survival conditions) changes. This process is normally accomplished through the transfer of genetic code through the reproduction of the species members who survive long enough to reproduce. The genetic code in theory will pre-program shared "traits," including the ones that helped the parents survive in the first place, in to the offspring with greater chance (barring mutation or simply a failure of the right genes to combine in the individual offspring) and thus pass these traits on.
Also, certain higher level organisms where the parents actually raise offspring and teach them the art of survival, this can considered as a survival mechanism that is passed on through generations of the species. This includes animals where many different parents can teach many different parents' offspring, such as birds who exist in flocks, or to the simpler method where solitary animals such as wolves teach only their own offspring.
Evolution In Humans
In humans, we also can go through the biological/genetic evolutionary process but at the same time our species is unique in that we have another way to transmit such survival mechanisms other than genetics and parents teaching their offspring. Humans also have recorded history so that individuals of the species can teach themselves various survival mechanisms in the form of mental and physical technologies. And of course when you have three separate options, these options can also mix together in synergy and create exponentially more survival mechanisms. For example, a doctor can teach a mother how to better care for her offspring. A man can read a book or pamphlet on what his newly diagnosed genetic disease means and decide to not reproduce. A child can browse the internet to learn how to play punk guitar like Kurt Cobain and possibly become a famous musician or at the least use his semi-decent music skill to woo a potential mate. A school teacher can teach a bunch of other people's children on how to share and thus convey a concept better suited for the entire society, which the children are members of, to survive and flourish.
Although these mechanisms aren't actually part of the genetic code and aren't biologically involved in reproduction, no scientist will argue that they contribute greatly to survival and thus directly and indirectly influence the reproductive process a myriad of ways in our species.
Negative Environmental Pressure Increases Evolutionary Speed
One of the widely accepted concepts that is part of the theory of evolution is when the environment changes radically, evolution will occur faster in terms of radical changes from one generation to the next. To be more precise, if the filtering criteria for survival become radically different in a short time, the next generations will greatly differ from generations previous to the change. I think thats pretty obvious. If the environmental change is one that makes the environment more hostile to life, then the filtering process in essence has ramped up and the difference in the traits in the next generation will be in comparison with the previous generation will be much greater and be much more geared towards survival. And just like how art and culture develop when a society has members with the time to dedicate to those activities, organisms living under a greater pressure to survive will also be more hostile, more aggressive and less easy-going because they have less margin for error.
Evolution In Business
You've heard them all a million times before, the phrases people often use to describe business: "dog eat dog," "swimming with sharks," "cutthroat," and many others. Companies in business have to compete or die. The whole process of who stays in business and who doesn't has it's own process that is quite like the Natural Selection process in nature. And like in nature, the business world also can have it's own environmental pressures, from changes in technology to the fickleness of consumers to natural disasters and other situations occurring in nature. Most of these types of situations are usually temporary in duration.
In business, there are no genetics involved. Companies continue to do their way of "business" by transmititng their methods, good or bad, poor or superior, through all of the non-genetic methods mentioned above. This includes the environmental presence of other busineses, aka "competition," teaching new employees directly and indirectly the company's way of operations on a day to day basis, aka "corporate culture," and of course through previously written materials, aka "training." When a business is successful, it is able to expand itself and even throw off new branches into other regions, both metaphorically by expanding into other fields and literally by setting up new places of business. Also, many other new companies or companies seeking to change their fortunes may also copy the business methods of other successful companies. None of this is really earth-shattering news of course.
However there is one constant pressure that affects all businesses: the government. When the government puts too much pressure on the business world, only adverse things can happen in society. Reversely, it is also possible for the government to go too easy on business, such as awarding a large, exclusive government contract to a company that's undeserving of it. In the latter situation, it's on a case-by-case basis. The reason why the latter situation is bad is because it removes the competition from the situation, the part that motivates a company to be more efficient. But, it's the former case I want to concentrate on.
The Paradoxical Fallacy Of Regulation
Many laws and rules are made in society with the best of intentions. But like the old saying goes, "Much evil comes from good intentions" or "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" or something like that. It winds up completely true in this case. Here's the problem. Let's say a the public votes in a politician that likes to make laws to "regulate" businesses more. The laws will never help businesses since they usually help themselves. Usually the laws will be there to alter the behavior of companies to force them to do something they don't want to do, to make less profit. Here's the aftermath:
Law takes effect;
Affected companies have more difficult time making money;
Less profitable businesses go out of business or alter strategy to focus more on money;
Small businesses that are more focused on niches are less adaptable and have a higher percentage of failure;
More profitable businesses thrive in the aftermath, just like the environmental factor of survival;
Large businesses that can afford accountants, lawyers and criminals find ways, loopholes and underhanded strategies to maintain market share;
The companies that focused less on profit (and potentially more on other stuff such as quality, customer service, rewarding workers, etc.) go extinct or at least their methods do;
The companies methods that are more greedy and more effective in squeezing profits spread.
This is the same reason why levying more taxes on people, especially the rich, is very ineffective in America. It's because the rich, especially those who earned their money through business, all have knowledge and specialists in finance. The average person can't hire a taxologist but a rich person can hire several if it means saving money over paying taxes. And they do it by hiding the money in various shelters, accounts abroad, and other methods. Guess what? When businesses and other entities that are good in finance hide their money, that money now is doing nothing for the public. It isn't being used for R + D, it isn't being used to create or bring new products to market to satisfy demand, it isn't being used to expand business and thus create more jobs...it's just hidden. Entities good at cheating and hiding money flourish while honest and law-abiding or financially less-adept companies find it difficult to compete.
And those who are in business but their primary focus isn't business are the ones who get hurt. America has fewer leaders amongst the average middle class because it's less feasible for an average person to start their company and take on a management mentality. Of course this affects voter decisions. Ever notice how people just vote with the herd (blue or red)? Also, take medical doctors as an example. Their job is to help treat people. A doctor's training is incredibly long and difficult...and guess what? It involves no business training! Ask any doctor who runs his own practice for more than a decade what their biggest problem is with staying in business and they'll tell you over and over that it's the fact that Medicare as an across-the-board practice pays such crap for their work that they have a hard time keeping their staff employed each month. (I would know, I used to be a medical business consultant; I know as much as anyone about the general business of clinical medicine. ) It's because of Medicare, the government's answer to regulated health care, that there is such an abomination in medicine called the HMO. At the same time, the federal government dings us a huge percentage of our paycheck for Medicare and then everyone wonders why after paying so much in tax that they can't afford good health care?
And then the future generation of bright kids look at how much less doctors make nowadays and how much more crap they have to deal with...how many less will choose to become doctors (and choose to become lawyers instead)? Our population keeps growing but the quality and quantity of bright young minds choosing medicine is declining. It's probably why everytime you go see the doctor, no matter whether you have a bump or a tummy ache, they prescribe you five drugs to take care of it. It's the lazy solution and the drug companies pay the doctors to push so their clinics can stay in business.
The Wild West
Now the reverse argument is that if the government doesn't regulate, then business will be like the wild west where anything goes, chaos and death reign, and the average person gets the shaft. Medicine is a really good business world for me to bring up as a case of over-regulation and the aftermath of such. But the internet business world is a the opposite, it's a great example of little regulation. The government collects very little tax on the internet and relies heavily on companies to report their own income, except where credit card transactions are involved. If someone takes $500 from you in person, it's considered a felony and the police go to work. There are detectives, CSI, all the way down to the beat cops chasing the bad guys down the street. If someone takes $500 on eBay on the other hand (lets say you pay with a money order), you don't get quite the same response. This is because the government's lack of ability to implement taxation laws on the anonymous, shadowy world of the internet. So that seems bad.
But lets look at the big picture. On the internet, ordering stuff is fast. A huge percentage of the most important services are free. Youtube, Photobucket, Google, most fan forums, Wikipedia, IMDB, MapQuest, you name it and it's free. And how huge are the volumes of those sites because they are free to the public so that there are so many more participants on it? If I need some information about some topic, I don't pay for a magazine, I just search for it on a search engine on the internet and get portalled to another web site that is also probably free. Yet people on the internet make tons of money. And many private individuals have small, online businesses (I'm one of them, yay!) that provide services to many other people. While we all have to be wary the spam we get is dangerous or visiting certain websites can download viruses, for each of these problems someone already has a low cost solution. If I search for downloads on Yahoo, most of the dangerous sites are already marked, for free. Various companies also sell ad-ware/anti-virus software that also protect you cheaply. So while there are pitfalls, overall the people get a lot more bang for their buck. And even for the government, even though they can't find a way to make a new tax on every nook and cranny of business online, they still rake in tons from credit cards, retail sites like Amazon and even eBay and PayPal have to pay taxes. And all of the people who receive money from sales or advertising, they all have to pay sales tax again when they buy stuff with the money they receive. It's win-win-win. And much of the rules of the game are self-regulated by the companies that benefit the most. The richest companies have to do a lot to make customers happy and safe so they keep coming back.
So in conclusion, when the government makes too many laws, regulations and levies too many taxes on businesses, it achieves the opposite of its original goal because of the evolutionary process of the business world in reaction to the pressure exerted on the business environment.
- R
Seems so strange a guy who's cranked out hundreds of published pages is finding just finishing a lil blog essay to be an important feat. But whatevers. Done is done!
The ending of this piece felt a little forced so I hope it makes some sort of sense.
Evolution In Economics
On Evolution
In the biological world, the term "evolution" is a theory that describes how species of living organisms and continuously show the best traits for continued existence as time passes and the environment (survival conditions) changes. This process is normally accomplished through the transfer of genetic code through the reproduction of the species members who survive long enough to reproduce. The genetic code in theory will pre-program shared "traits," including the ones that helped the parents survive in the first place, in to the offspring with greater chance (barring mutation or simply a failure of the right genes to combine in the individual offspring) and thus pass these traits on.
Also, certain higher level organisms where the parents actually raise offspring and teach them the art of survival, this can considered as a survival mechanism that is passed on through generations of the species. This includes animals where many different parents can teach many different parents' offspring, such as birds who exist in flocks, or to the simpler method where solitary animals such as wolves teach only their own offspring.
Evolution In Humans
In humans, we also can go through the biological/genetic evolutionary process but at the same time our species is unique in that we have another way to transmit such survival mechanisms other than genetics and parents teaching their offspring. Humans also have recorded history so that individuals of the species can teach themselves various survival mechanisms in the form of mental and physical technologies. And of course when you have three separate options, these options can also mix together in synergy and create exponentially more survival mechanisms. For example, a doctor can teach a mother how to better care for her offspring. A man can read a book or pamphlet on what his newly diagnosed genetic disease means and decide to not reproduce. A child can browse the internet to learn how to play punk guitar like Kurt Cobain and possibly become a famous musician or at the least use his semi-decent music skill to woo a potential mate. A school teacher can teach a bunch of other people's children on how to share and thus convey a concept better suited for the entire society, which the children are members of, to survive and flourish.
Although these mechanisms aren't actually part of the genetic code and aren't biologically involved in reproduction, no scientist will argue that they contribute greatly to survival and thus directly and indirectly influence the reproductive process a myriad of ways in our species.
Negative Environmental Pressure Increases Evolutionary Speed
One of the widely accepted concepts that is part of the theory of evolution is when the environment changes radically, evolution will occur faster in terms of radical changes from one generation to the next. To be more precise, if the filtering criteria for survival become radically different in a short time, the next generations will greatly differ from generations previous to the change. I think thats pretty obvious. If the environmental change is one that makes the environment more hostile to life, then the filtering process in essence has ramped up and the difference in the traits in the next generation will be in comparison with the previous generation will be much greater and be much more geared towards survival. And just like how art and culture develop when a society has members with the time to dedicate to those activities, organisms living under a greater pressure to survive will also be more hostile, more aggressive and less easy-going because they have less margin for error.
Evolution In Business
You've heard them all a million times before, the phrases people often use to describe business: "dog eat dog," "swimming with sharks," "cutthroat," and many others. Companies in business have to compete or die. The whole process of who stays in business and who doesn't has it's own process that is quite like the Natural Selection process in nature. And like in nature, the business world also can have it's own environmental pressures, from changes in technology to the fickleness of consumers to natural disasters and other situations occurring in nature. Most of these types of situations are usually temporary in duration.
In business, there are no genetics involved. Companies continue to do their way of "business" by transmititng their methods, good or bad, poor or superior, through all of the non-genetic methods mentioned above. This includes the environmental presence of other busineses, aka "competition," teaching new employees directly and indirectly the company's way of operations on a day to day basis, aka "corporate culture," and of course through previously written materials, aka "training." When a business is successful, it is able to expand itself and even throw off new branches into other regions, both metaphorically by expanding into other fields and literally by setting up new places of business. Also, many other new companies or companies seeking to change their fortunes may also copy the business methods of other successful companies. None of this is really earth-shattering news of course.
However there is one constant pressure that affects all businesses: the government. When the government puts too much pressure on the business world, only adverse things can happen in society. Reversely, it is also possible for the government to go too easy on business, such as awarding a large, exclusive government contract to a company that's undeserving of it. In the latter situation, it's on a case-by-case basis. The reason why the latter situation is bad is because it removes the competition from the situation, the part that motivates a company to be more efficient. But, it's the former case I want to concentrate on.
The Paradoxical Fallacy Of Regulation
Many laws and rules are made in society with the best of intentions. But like the old saying goes, "Much evil comes from good intentions" or "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" or something like that. It winds up completely true in this case. Here's the problem. Let's say a the public votes in a politician that likes to make laws to "regulate" businesses more. The laws will never help businesses since they usually help themselves. Usually the laws will be there to alter the behavior of companies to force them to do something they don't want to do, to make less profit. Here's the aftermath:
Law takes effect;
Affected companies have more difficult time making money;
Less profitable businesses go out of business or alter strategy to focus more on money;
Small businesses that are more focused on niches are less adaptable and have a higher percentage of failure;
More profitable businesses thrive in the aftermath, just like the environmental factor of survival;
Large businesses that can afford accountants, lawyers and criminals find ways, loopholes and underhanded strategies to maintain market share;
The companies that focused less on profit (and potentially more on other stuff such as quality, customer service, rewarding workers, etc.) go extinct or at least their methods do;
The companies methods that are more greedy and more effective in squeezing profits spread.
This is the same reason why levying more taxes on people, especially the rich, is very ineffective in America. It's because the rich, especially those who earned their money through business, all have knowledge and specialists in finance. The average person can't hire a taxologist but a rich person can hire several if it means saving money over paying taxes. And they do it by hiding the money in various shelters, accounts abroad, and other methods. Guess what? When businesses and other entities that are good in finance hide their money, that money now is doing nothing for the public. It isn't being used for R + D, it isn't being used to create or bring new products to market to satisfy demand, it isn't being used to expand business and thus create more jobs...it's just hidden. Entities good at cheating and hiding money flourish while honest and law-abiding or financially less-adept companies find it difficult to compete.
And those who are in business but their primary focus isn't business are the ones who get hurt. America has fewer leaders amongst the average middle class because it's less feasible for an average person to start their company and take on a management mentality. Of course this affects voter decisions. Ever notice how people just vote with the herd (blue or red)? Also, take medical doctors as an example. Their job is to help treat people. A doctor's training is incredibly long and difficult...and guess what? It involves no business training! Ask any doctor who runs his own practice for more than a decade what their biggest problem is with staying in business and they'll tell you over and over that it's the fact that Medicare as an across-the-board practice pays such crap for their work that they have a hard time keeping their staff employed each month. (I would know, I used to be a medical business consultant; I know as much as anyone about the general business of clinical medicine. ) It's because of Medicare, the government's answer to regulated health care, that there is such an abomination in medicine called the HMO. At the same time, the federal government dings us a huge percentage of our paycheck for Medicare and then everyone wonders why after paying so much in tax that they can't afford good health care?
And then the future generation of bright kids look at how much less doctors make nowadays and how much more crap they have to deal with...how many less will choose to become doctors (and choose to become lawyers instead)? Our population keeps growing but the quality and quantity of bright young minds choosing medicine is declining. It's probably why everytime you go see the doctor, no matter whether you have a bump or a tummy ache, they prescribe you five drugs to take care of it. It's the lazy solution and the drug companies pay the doctors to push so their clinics can stay in business.
The Wild West
Now the reverse argument is that if the government doesn't regulate, then business will be like the wild west where anything goes, chaos and death reign, and the average person gets the shaft. Medicine is a really good business world for me to bring up as a case of over-regulation and the aftermath of such. But the internet business world is a the opposite, it's a great example of little regulation. The government collects very little tax on the internet and relies heavily on companies to report their own income, except where credit card transactions are involved. If someone takes $500 from you in person, it's considered a felony and the police go to work. There are detectives, CSI, all the way down to the beat cops chasing the bad guys down the street. If someone takes $500 on eBay on the other hand (lets say you pay with a money order), you don't get quite the same response. This is because the government's lack of ability to implement taxation laws on the anonymous, shadowy world of the internet. So that seems bad.
But lets look at the big picture. On the internet, ordering stuff is fast. A huge percentage of the most important services are free. Youtube, Photobucket, Google, most fan forums, Wikipedia, IMDB, MapQuest, you name it and it's free. And how huge are the volumes of those sites because they are free to the public so that there are so many more participants on it? If I need some information about some topic, I don't pay for a magazine, I just search for it on a search engine on the internet and get portalled to another web site that is also probably free. Yet people on the internet make tons of money. And many private individuals have small, online businesses (I'm one of them, yay!) that provide services to many other people. While we all have to be wary the spam we get is dangerous or visiting certain websites can download viruses, for each of these problems someone already has a low cost solution. If I search for downloads on Yahoo, most of the dangerous sites are already marked, for free. Various companies also sell ad-ware/anti-virus software that also protect you cheaply. So while there are pitfalls, overall the people get a lot more bang for their buck. And even for the government, even though they can't find a way to make a new tax on every nook and cranny of business online, they still rake in tons from credit cards, retail sites like Amazon and even eBay and PayPal have to pay taxes. And all of the people who receive money from sales or advertising, they all have to pay sales tax again when they buy stuff with the money they receive. It's win-win-win. And much of the rules of the game are self-regulated by the companies that benefit the most. The richest companies have to do a lot to make customers happy and safe so they keep coming back.
So in conclusion, when the government makes too many laws, regulations and levies too many taxes on businesses, it achieves the opposite of its original goal because of the evolutionary process of the business world in reaction to the pressure exerted on the business environment.
- R
azera:
HAVE A GUD WEEKEND HUNNIE!