No living President, Secretary of State or FED Chairman endorse Trump

[IcebergSlim]

And most people would have learned the difference between competitive advantage and comparative advantage even earlier. Do you have any idea what the difference is?

One applies to sports, the other is an economic principle....

In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about but you lack the good sense to be quiet.

That's Larry! It's sad watching him fuck up even when he's right.

On the other hand, you asked the difference between two terms that mean the same thing and are just sometimes used in different contexts.

Typically, "competitive advantage" is used for a particular company. Comparative advantage is used for groups. For example, BC/BS's coverage across the country gives them a competitive advantage with large national and international corporations. India providing call centers is a comparative advantage that doesn't just apply to one company. There is a large skill base that would take significant resources for another area to develop to compete with them. But they are essentially the same

Competitive advantage and comparative advantage are interchangeable?

You went to a state school, right?

I said they are "essentially" the same, that is not "interchangable." Your reading skills really are dreadful.

And you don't know what context means? You didn't even graduate from a State school, did you?

I explained the difference, now you explain the difference. That should be good for a laugh since you didn't grasp what I said

What do you believe "essentially" means?

Do you recognize a root term in that word?

Have you considered the possibility that much of the shit you say is silly?

They are NOT the same, even "essentially"........

 

[kaz]

One applies to sports, the other is an economic principle....

In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about but you lack the good sense to be quiet.

That's Larry! It's sad watching him fuck up even when he's right.

On the other hand, you asked the difference between two terms that mean the same thing and are just sometimes used in different contexts.

Typically, "competitive advantage" is used for a particular company. Comparative advantage is used for groups. For example, BC/BS's coverage across the country gives them a competitive advantage with large national and international corporations. India providing call centers is a comparative advantage that doesn't just apply to one company. There is a large skill base that would take significant resources for another area to develop to compete with them. But they are essentially the same

Competitive advantage and comparative advantage are interchangeable?

You went to a state school, right?

I said they are "essentially" the same, that is not "interchangable." Your reading skills really are dreadful.

And you don't know what context means? You didn't even graduate from a State school, did you?

I explained the difference, now you explain the difference. That should be good for a laugh since you didn't grasp what I said

What do you believe "essentially" means?

Do you recognize a root term in that word?

Have you considered the possibility that much of the shit you say is silly?

They are NOT the same, even "essentially"........

So again, explain what you think is the difference. Just so you know, if you used "competitive advantage" of a country like India in a call center discussion, no one would blink. Though if you said Coke has a "comparative advantage" over Pepsi in Atlanta they'd know what you mean but say or think you should have said "competitive advantage."

You're just blowing smoke out of your ass ... again ... If you keep up this shit, I'm just going to go back to saying yes it is and no it isn't ... like you do ...

 

[IcebergSlim]

One applies to sports, the other is an economic principle....

Um ... competitive advantage applies to companies as well. Leave it up to a financial salesman to debate business terms. Don't you have a little old lady to get to invest in heavily loaded funds that she can't afford?

You'll excuse me if I differentiate a principle from a "descriptive term"..........

Porter is the most elementary, basic principle in studying a business. It's useful as a broad tool to start looking at a company. But wow, it's like saying a measuring tape makes you a carpenter.

You really are a business novice, aren't you?

You figure this shit was a mystery BEFORE 1985?


how do you get to this:

But wow, it's like saying a measuring tape makes you a carpenter.


from....

.I've seen enough of Michael Porter to be underwhelmed.

Because you thought you were sharp for realizing that Porter's not the killer model. It's a basic model and you didn't know that. Everyone in business knows that.

In strategy consulting, Porter is maybe the first hour of a discussion on a three month project. It's an effective model for presenting a very, very basic overview of a situation that a company is in. It doesn't help you for shit after that. It does structure the real analysis effectively

Because you thought you were sharp for realizing that Porter's not the killer model. It's a basic model and you didn't know that. Everyone in business knows that.

No......I believe Porter is celebrated for laboring the obvious.

Everyone in business knows that.


You say some astonishingly stupid shit......I could survey 100 people "in business" and I bet less than 10% would know who Michael Porter is...

 

[jillian]

i'm never going to say that this president was a great president. but we've had far worse and congress didn't obstruct them from the day they were inaugurated. i'm not sure how you lead under those circumstances.

First two years of his presidency he had a congress that was controlled by his party, and he still couldn't get things done.

The ironic thing is, for years Democrats said, "If Republicans were more like John McCain, we could actually support them", and the minute the GOP nominated the actual John McCain, Democrats rejected him for the pinup boy. So now you act all surprised when the GOP goes nuts and nominates a Nazi who promises to crack some heads?

democrats need to start building their back bench. they need to put democrats in statehouse jobs, and local jobs and start developing the depth that the GOP has. what republicans can't have is all three branches of government. clearly they can't even be trusted with two. it is irksome when democrats get one million more votes in House races than the GOP and the GOP still usurps the House because of gerrymandering. that too needs to be changed and that will come from the courts at some point.

depth didn't help the GOP this time. They had lots of qualified candidates and they nominated Trump anyway. Meanwhile, the Democrats came way too close to nominating Comrade Bernie.

What should happen is both parties need to realize, "Hey, the people elected us to get some work done, let's get some work done". If Trump is winning, it's because he's created the illusion of someone who can get shit done.

Have no illusions... if Hillary wins, she's a one-term president who will have a 30% approval rating. And that assumes that we don't have a recession, which we probably will. The democrats will get slaughtered in the 2018 midterms and the GOP will be in a great position in 2020. Heck, I might even vote for them if they nominate someone who isn't batshit crazy.

I'm so sorry. You're mistaken.

The House was controlled by democrats those first two years.

The senate wasn't. The republicans refused to relinquish control by use of the filibuster.

If you remember in 2008, the democrats technically had those 60 seats for a short time. The problem was that the senators weren't in their seats.

Al Franken would have been the 60th person but he wasn't sworn in to take his seat until July 2009. Which meant only 59 seats were filled with democrats.

By the time that Al Franken was sworn in two democratic senators were dying.

Robert Byrd and Teddy Kennedy had those seats but they weren't in them to cast their votes. So the democrats had 58 votes.

Both died. The man who replaced Teddy Kennedy was a republican so that lost the 60 seats.

The democrats never, once had the 60 votes to overcome the republican non stop filibuster.

Thanks. Your memory is better than mine.

 

[IcebergSlim]

In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about but you lack the good sense to be quiet.

That's Larry! It's sad watching him fuck up even when he's right.

On the other hand, you asked the difference between two terms that mean the same thing and are just sometimes used in different contexts.

Typically, "competitive advantage" is used for a particular company. Comparative advantage is used for groups. For example, BC/BS's coverage across the country gives them a competitive advantage with large national and international corporations. India providing call centers is a comparative advantage that doesn't just apply to one company. There is a large skill base that would take significant resources for another area to develop to compete with them. But they are essentially the same

Competitive advantage and comparative advantage are interchangeable?

You went to a state school, right?

I said they are "essentially" the same, that is not "interchangable." Your reading skills really are dreadful.

And you don't know what context means? You didn't even graduate from a State school, did you?

I explained the difference, now you explain the difference. That should be good for a laugh since you didn't grasp what I said

What do you believe "essentially" means?

Do you recognize a root term in that word?

Have you considered the possibility that much of the shit you say is silly?

They are NOT the same, even "essentially"........

So again, explain what you think is the difference. Just so you know, if you used "competitive advantage" of a country like India in a call center discussion, no one would blink. Though if you said Coke has a "comparative advantage" over Pepsi in Atlanta they'd know what you mean but say or think you should have said "competitive advantage."

You're just blowing smoke out of your ass ... again ... If you keep up this shit, I'm just going to go back to saying yes it is and no it isn't ... like you do ...

You'll have to beat me to the exit.......Comparative Advantage describes an economic principle.......competitive advantage is a state, applicable in pretty much any context involving a contest...and it is the title of a grossly overhyped book....

 

[kaz]

Um ... competitive advantage applies to companies as well. Leave it up to a financial salesman to debate business terms. Don't you have a little old lady to get to invest in heavily loaded funds that she can't afford?

You'll excuse me if I differentiate a principle from a "descriptive term"..........

Porter is the most elementary, basic principle in studying a business. It's useful as a broad tool to start looking at a company. But wow, it's like saying a measuring tape makes you a carpenter.

You really are a business novice, aren't you?

You figure this shit was a mystery BEFORE 1985?


how do you get to this:

But wow, it's like saying a measuring tape makes you a carpenter.


from....

.I've seen enough of Michael Porter to be underwhelmed.

Because you thought you were sharp for realizing that Porter's not the killer model. It's a basic model and you didn't know that. Everyone in business knows that.

In strategy consulting, Porter is maybe the first hour of a discussion on a three month project. It's an effective model for presenting a very, very basic overview of a situation that a company is in. It doesn't help you for shit after that. It does structure the real analysis effectively

Because you thought you were sharp for realizing that Porter's not the killer model. It's a basic model and you didn't know that. Everyone in business knows that.

No......I believe Porter is celebrated for laboring the obvious.

Everyone in business knows that.


You say some astonishingly stupid shit......I could survey 100 people "in business" and I bet less than 10% would know who Michael Porter is...

Then by "in business" you mean anyone who works for a company. No one in management doesn't know what the porter model is. Again, it's very useful, but very, very basic. It gives you a simplistic 360 degree view of a company situation. From there you delve into the area(s) you want to focus on and drop the areas that are not pertinent to whatever you're trying to solve. That you think it's impressive you've heard of it ... and snort ... look down on it ... is laughable. You're way too impressed with yourself.

OK, so again, for the next time when you're trying to make up shit that you're a business savant, you say Porter is useful but very basic. You don't say you're unimpressed with all you've seen of it. If you're seeing people use Porter for more than cursory analysis, well, they don't know any more about business than you do, which is pretty much zilch other than memorizing definitions for certification exams

 

[kaz]

That's Larry! It's sad watching him fuck up even when he's right.

On the other hand, you asked the difference between two terms that mean the same thing and are just sometimes used in different contexts.

Typically, "competitive advantage" is used for a particular company. Comparative advantage is used for groups. For example, BC/BS's coverage across the country gives them a competitive advantage with large national and international corporations. India providing call centers is a comparative advantage that doesn't just apply to one company. There is a large skill base that would take significant resources for another area to develop to compete with them. But they are essentially the same

Competitive advantage and comparative advantage are interchangeable?

You went to a state school, right?

I said they are "essentially" the same, that is not "interchangable." Your reading skills really are dreadful.

And you don't know what context means? You didn't even graduate from a State school, did you?

I explained the difference, now you explain the difference. That should be good for a laugh since you didn't grasp what I said

What do you believe "essentially" means?

Do you recognize a root term in that word?

Have you considered the possibility that much of the shit you say is silly?

They are NOT the same, even "essentially"........

So again, explain what you think is the difference. Just so you know, if you used "competitive advantage" of a country like India in a call center discussion, no one would blink. Though if you said Coke has a "comparative advantage" over Pepsi in Atlanta they'd know what you mean but say or think you should have said "competitive advantage."

You're just blowing smoke out of your ass ... again ... If you keep up this shit, I'm just going to go back to saying yes it is and no it isn't ... like you do ...

You'll have to beat me to the exit.......Comparative Advantage describes an economic principle.......competitive advantage is a state, applicable in pretty much any context involving a contest...and it is the title of a grossly overhyped book....

Gawd, again the definition memorizer who doesn't really understand what you are saying.

So yes, comparative advantage is an economic principle. But there are all kinds of economic principles that go into comparative advantages:

1) Location of natural resources. Nuclear power plants need to be near water because they use a lot of it. There is a lot of copper in the UP of Michigan and silver around Nevada.

2) Labor markets. For example, labor is cheaper in Mexico than the US

3) Taxes. For example, Ireland has the lowest tax rates in the industrialized world

4) Job skills: E.G., my example that call centers are so widespread there is a lot of skill available in India that isn't available in most of the rest of the world.

All of those are comparative advantages. Note that some, like the first one is really hard to change. Costs do change. Japan, South Korea, used to be cheap labor. Now they are expensive labor. Tax rates can change. Local job skills can change, but it's a lot harder.

Jesus you're a simpleton

 

[toomuchtime_]

Calling it free market and saying no free trade is an oxymoron. Either we decide what business we want to engage in or the government does. That you can go out in the yard an hour a day in your prison doesn't make you a free man

No, it makes perfect sense to have a free market within the US economy and qualified trade agreements with other countries. Renegotiating trade agreements and imposing tariffs where necessary in no way limits your freedom as a businessman to move your company anyplace you choose, it simply changes the economic environment in a way that makes it unprofitable to move it to less developed countries because of cheaper labor and fewer environmental regulations, or to countries that maintain an unfair competitive advantage by manipulating their currencies.

I am a pragmatist, not an ideologue, so I am more interested in practical outcomes than what is ideologically correct. Right now because of our trade imbalances, the US is selling off its assets, real estate, corporations, even technologies, to pay for our standard of living. If you had to sell off your assets to pay your bills, would you consider that a sustainable policy? Of course not, and it is not a sustainable policy for our nation, either. Redefining our trade relations will help reduce our trade deficits and prevent jobs from leaving out country and many even bring some of those jobs home, and it will allow us to come closer to living on what we earn rather than having to sell off our country to pay our bills.

Of course there will be political fallout from this change of policy. Countries that have benefited from the current trade imbalance will rage against us, but I believe Americans will be better off reducing our trade deficit and keeping our jobs at home amid all the foreign outrage than it is now.

"Comparative Advantage" is a basic economic principle, usually encountered in the second week of an introductory economics class....

Do you have any idea why it is important?

And most people would have learned the difference between competitive advantage and comparative advantage even earlier. Do you have any idea what the difference is?

The only difference is the context in which the term is used

So you don't know what the difference is. Comparative advantage when comparing economies refers to natural advantages such as agricultural land or mineral resources or even location, but competitive advantage includes all of that but also other things such as the quality of the work force or efficiency of operations or the manipulation of the currency to keep export prices low government subsidies, and government regulations, etc.

Left wing economists have long argued that because of its vast land area and wealth of natural resources by the principle of comparative advantage the US should have developed into an agricultural and mining economy instead of the industrial powerhouse it became.

Competitive advantage is a microeconomic concept, usually referring to price competition when one company is able to produce a product cheaper than another because of greater efficiency of operation or technological innovation. It can also apply to nations if one nation's work force is superior to another's or it has superior technology or if its government devalues its currency to make its exports cheaper or subsidizes businesses to produce there.

In other words, comparative advantages are created by nature and competitive advantages are created by governments.

I spoke of competitive advantage, but either through ignorance of dishonesty Icebergslim pretended I had said comparative advantage.

 

[IcebergSlim]

You'll excuse me if I differentiate a principle from a "descriptive term"..........

Porter is the most elementary, basic principle in studying a business. It's useful as a broad tool to start looking at a company. But wow, it's like saying a measuring tape makes you a carpenter.

You really are a business novice, aren't you?

You figure this shit was a mystery BEFORE 1985?


how do you get to this:

But wow, it's like saying a measuring tape makes you a carpenter.


from....

.I've seen enough of Michael Porter to be underwhelmed.

Because you thought you were sharp for realizing that Porter's not the killer model. It's a basic model and you didn't know that. Everyone in business knows that.

In strategy consulting, Porter is maybe the first hour of a discussion on a three month project. It's an effective model for presenting a very, very basic overview of a situation that a company is in. It doesn't help you for shit after that. It does structure the real analysis effectively

Because you thought you were sharp for realizing that Porter's not the killer model. It's a basic model and you didn't know that. Everyone in business knows that.

No......I believe Porter is celebrated for laboring the obvious.

Everyone in business knows that.


You say some astonishingly stupid shit......I could survey 100 people "in business" and I bet less than 10% would know who Michael Porter is...

Then by "in business" you mean anyone who works for a company. No one in management doesn't know what the porter model is. Again, it's very useful, but very, very basic. It gives you a simplistic 360 degree view of a company situation. From there you delve into the area(s) you want to focus on and drop the areas that are not pertinent to whatever you're trying to solve. That you think it's impressive you've heard of it ... and snort ... look down on it ... is laughable. You're way too impressed with yourself.

OK, so again, for the next time when you're trying to make up shit that you're a business savant, you say Porter is useful but very basic. You don't say you're unimpressed with all you've seen of it. If you're seeing people use Porter for more than cursory analysis, well, they don't know any more about business than you do, which is pretty much zilch other than memorizing definitions for certification exams

Then by "in business" you mean anyone who works for a company. No one in management doesn't know what the porter model is.

The guy who owns the local print shop, the franchisee who owns 3 Dunkin Donuts locations, the machine shop operator......all of them are in business.......none are likely to know who Michael Porter is...

Before you hit "Post Reply", read what you've typed......Think about it......spare yourself a lot of ridicule...

 

[toomuchtime_]

No, it makes perfect sense to have a free market within the US economy and qualified trade agreements with other countries. Renegotiating trade agreements and imposing tariffs where necessary in no way limits your freedom as a businessman to move your company anyplace you choose, it simply changes the economic environment in a way that makes it unprofitable to move it to less developed countries because of cheaper labor and fewer environmental regulations, or to countries that maintain an unfair competitive advantage by manipulating their currencies.

I am a pragmatist, not an ideologue, so I am more interested in practical outcomes than what is ideologically correct. Right now because of our trade imbalances, the US is selling off its assets, real estate, corporations, even technologies, to pay for our standard of living. If you had to sell off your assets to pay your bills, would you consider that a sustainable policy? Of course not, and it is not a sustainable policy for our nation, either. Redefining our trade relations will help reduce our trade deficits and prevent jobs from leaving out country and many even bring some of those jobs home, and it will allow us to come closer to living on what we earn rather than having to sell off our country to pay our bills.

Of course there will be political fallout from this change of policy. Countries that have benefited from the current trade imbalance will rage against us, but I believe Americans will be better off reducing our trade deficit and keeping our jobs at home amid all the foreign outrage than it is now.

"Comparative Advantage" is a basic economic principle, usually encountered in the second week of an introductory economics class....

Do you have any idea why it is important?

And most people would have learned the difference between competitive advantage and comparative advantage even earlier. Do you have any idea what the difference is?

One applies to sports, the other is an economic principle....

In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about but you lack the good sense to be quiet.

If there is a constructive criticism you can offer, I'm all ears.......

As I gain familiarity with your style, I grow increasingly skeptical that you have the onions for that job....

I have provided constructive criticism but you seem either unwilling or unable to understand it.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Competitive advantage and comparative advantage are interchangeable?

You went to a state school, right?

I said they are "essentially" the same, that is not "interchangable." Your reading skills really are dreadful.

And you don't know what context means? You didn't even graduate from a State school, did you?

I explained the difference, now you explain the difference. That should be good for a laugh since you didn't grasp what I said

What do you believe "essentially" means?

Do you recognize a root term in that word?

Have you considered the possibility that much of the shit you say is silly?

They are NOT the same, even "essentially"........

So again, explain what you think is the difference. Just so you know, if you used "competitive advantage" of a country like India in a call center discussion, no one would blink. Though if you said Coke has a "comparative advantage" over Pepsi in Atlanta they'd know what you mean but say or think you should have said "competitive advantage."

You're just blowing smoke out of your ass ... again ... If you keep up this shit, I'm just going to go back to saying yes it is and no it isn't ... like you do ...

You'll have to beat me to the exit.......Comparative Advantage describes an economic principle.......competitive advantage is a state, applicable in pretty much any context involving a contest...and it is the title of a grossly overhyped book....

Gawd, again the definition memorizer who doesn't really understand what you are saying.

So yes, comparative advantage is an economic principle. But there are all kinds of economic principles that go into comparative advantages:

1) Location of natural resources. Nuclear power plants need to be near water because they use a lot of it. There is a lot of copper in the UP of Michigan and silver around Nevada.

2) Labor markets. For example, labor is cheaper in Mexico than the US

3) Taxes. For example, Ireland has the lowest tax rates in the industrialized world

4) Job skills: E.G., my example that call centers are so widespread there is a lot of skill available in India that isn't available in most of the rest of the world.

All of those are comparative advantages. Note that some, like the first one is really hard to change. Costs do change. Japan, South Korea, used to be cheap labor. Now they are expensive labor. Tax rates can change. Local job skills can change, but it's a lot harder.

Jesus you're a simpleton

But there are all kinds of economic principles that go into comparative advantages:


What follows is what, in Hate Media, is referred to as "filibustering".....

 

[kaz]

No, it makes perfect sense to have a free market within the US economy and qualified trade agreements with other countries. Renegotiating trade agreements and imposing tariffs where necessary in no way limits your freedom as a businessman to move your company anyplace you choose, it simply changes the economic environment in a way that makes it unprofitable to move it to less developed countries because of cheaper labor and fewer environmental regulations, or to countries that maintain an unfair competitive advantage by manipulating their currencies.

I am a pragmatist, not an ideologue, so I am more interested in practical outcomes than what is ideologically correct. Right now because of our trade imbalances, the US is selling off its assets, real estate, corporations, even technologies, to pay for our standard of living. If you had to sell off your assets to pay your bills, would you consider that a sustainable policy? Of course not, and it is not a sustainable policy for our nation, either. Redefining our trade relations will help reduce our trade deficits and prevent jobs from leaving out country and many even bring some of those jobs home, and it will allow us to come closer to living on what we earn rather than having to sell off our country to pay our bills.

Of course there will be political fallout from this change of policy. Countries that have benefited from the current trade imbalance will rage against us, but I believe Americans will be better off reducing our trade deficit and keeping our jobs at home amid all the foreign outrage than it is now.

"Comparative Advantage" is a basic economic principle, usually encountered in the second week of an introductory economics class....

Do you have any idea why it is important?

And most people would have learned the difference between competitive advantage and comparative advantage even earlier. Do you have any idea what the difference is?

The only difference is the context in which the term is used

So you don't know what the difference is. Comparative advantage when comparing economies refers to natural advantages such as agricultural land or mineral resources or even location, but competitive advantage includes all of that but also other things such as the quality of the work force or efficiency of operations or the manipulation of the currency to keep export prices low government subsidies, and government regulations, etc.

Left wing economists have long argued that because of its vast land area and wealth of natural resources by the principle of comparative advantage the US should have developed into an agricultural and mining economy instead of the industrial powerhouse it became.

Competitive advantage is a microeconomic concept, usually referring to price competition when one company is able to produce a product cheaper than another because of greater efficiency of operation or technological innovation. It can also apply to nations if one nation's work force is superior to another's or it has superior technology or if its government devalues its currency to make its exports cheaper or subsidizes businesses to produce there.

In other words, comparative advantages are created by nature and competitive advantages are created by governments.

I spoke of competitive advantage, but either through ignorance of dishonesty Icebergslim pretended I had said comparative advantage.

You're wrong

 

[IcebergSlim]

No, it makes perfect sense to have a free market within the US economy and qualified trade agreements with other countries. Renegotiating trade agreements and imposing tariffs where necessary in no way limits your freedom as a businessman to move your company anyplace you choose, it simply changes the economic environment in a way that makes it unprofitable to move it to less developed countries because of cheaper labor and fewer environmental regulations, or to countries that maintain an unfair competitive advantage by manipulating their currencies.

I am a pragmatist, not an ideologue, so I am more interested in practical outcomes than what is ideologically correct. Right now because of our trade imbalances, the US is selling off its assets, real estate, corporations, even technologies, to pay for our standard of living. If you had to sell off your assets to pay your bills, would you consider that a sustainable policy? Of course not, and it is not a sustainable policy for our nation, either. Redefining our trade relations will help reduce our trade deficits and prevent jobs from leaving out country and many even bring some of those jobs home, and it will allow us to come closer to living on what we earn rather than having to sell off our country to pay our bills.

Of course there will be political fallout from this change of policy. Countries that have benefited from the current trade imbalance will rage against us, but I believe Americans will be better off reducing our trade deficit and keeping our jobs at home amid all the foreign outrage than it is now.

"Comparative Advantage" is a basic economic principle, usually encountered in the second week of an introductory economics class....

Do you have any idea why it is important?

And most people would have learned the difference between competitive advantage and comparative advantage even earlier. Do you have any idea what the difference is?

The only difference is the context in which the term is used

So you don't know what the difference is. Comparative advantage when comparing economies refers to natural advantages such as agricultural land or mineral resources or even location, but competitive advantage includes all of that but also other things such as the quality of the work force or efficiency of operations or the manipulation of the currency to keep export prices low government subsidies, and government regulations, etc.

Left wing economists have long argued that because of its vast land area and wealth of natural resources by the principle of comparative advantage the US should have developed into an agricultural and mining economy instead of the industrial powerhouse it became.

Competitive advantage is a microeconomic concept, usually referring to price competition when one company is able to produce a product cheaper than another because of greater efficiency of operation or technological innovation. It can also apply to nations if one nation's work force is superior to another's or it has superior technology or if its government devalues its currency to make its exports cheaper or subsidizes businesses to produce there.

In other words, comparative advantages are created by nature and competitive advantages are created by governments.

I spoke of competitive advantage, but either through ignorance of dishonesty Icebergslim pretended I had said comparative advantage.

Left wing economists have long argued that because of its vast land area and wealth of natural resources by the principle of comparative advantage the US should have developed into an agricultural and mining economy instead of the industrial powerhouse it became.

Can you name these "left wing economists"?


In other words, comparative advantages are created by nature and competitive advantages are created by governments.


Good L*rd! Is there an "off" button on this gasbag?

 

[kaz]

Porter is the most elementary, basic principle in studying a business. It's useful as a broad tool to start looking at a company. But wow, it's like saying a measuring tape makes you a carpenter.

You really are a business novice, aren't you?

You figure this shit was a mystery BEFORE 1985?


how do you get to this:

But wow, it's like saying a measuring tape makes you a carpenter.


from....

.I've seen enough of Michael Porter to be underwhelmed.

Because you thought you were sharp for realizing that Porter's not the killer model. It's a basic model and you didn't know that. Everyone in business knows that.

In strategy consulting, Porter is maybe the first hour of a discussion on a three month project. It's an effective model for presenting a very, very basic overview of a situation that a company is in. It doesn't help you for shit after that. It does structure the real analysis effectively

Because you thought you were sharp for realizing that Porter's not the killer model. It's a basic model and you didn't know that. Everyone in business knows that.

No......I believe Porter is celebrated for laboring the obvious.

Everyone in business knows that.


You say some astonishingly stupid shit......I could survey 100 people "in business" and I bet less than 10% would know who Michael Porter is...

Then by "in business" you mean anyone who works for a company. No one in management doesn't know what the porter model is. Again, it's very useful, but very, very basic. It gives you a simplistic 360 degree view of a company situation. From there you delve into the area(s) you want to focus on and drop the areas that are not pertinent to whatever you're trying to solve. That you think it's impressive you've heard of it ... and snort ... look down on it ... is laughable. You're way too impressed with yourself.

OK, so again, for the next time when you're trying to make up shit that you're a business savant, you say Porter is useful but very basic. You don't say you're unimpressed with all you've seen of it. If you're seeing people use Porter for more than cursory analysis, well, they don't know any more about business than you do, which is pretty much zilch other than memorizing definitions for certification exams

Then by "in business" you mean anyone who works for a company. No one in management doesn't know what the porter model is.

The guy who owns the local print shop, the franchisee who owns 3 Dunkin Donuts locations, the machine shop operator......all of them are in business.......none are likely to know who Michael Porter is...

Before you hit "Post Reply", read what you've typed......Think about it......spare yourself a lot of ridicule...

Exactly, that's why you used the ambiguous "in business" so you could play children's games with what "in business" means. Your intent was obvious, which is why I responded with the in blue part to define who I am talking about. Despite that, you walked into your own trap. You're as shallow and obvious as you are ignorant

 

[IcebergSlim]

No, it makes perfect sense to have a free market within the US economy and qualified trade agreements with other countries. Renegotiating trade agreements and imposing tariffs where necessary in no way limits your freedom as a businessman to move your company anyplace you choose, it simply changes the economic environment in a way that makes it unprofitable to move it to less developed countries because of cheaper labor and fewer environmental regulations, or to countries that maintain an unfair competitive advantage by manipulating their currencies.

I am a pragmatist, not an ideologue, so I am more interested in practical outcomes than what is ideologically correct. Right now because of our trade imbalances, the US is selling off its assets, real estate, corporations, even technologies, to pay for our standard of living. If you had to sell off your assets to pay your bills, would you consider that a sustainable policy? Of course not, and it is not a sustainable policy for our nation, either. Redefining our trade relations will help reduce our trade deficits and prevent jobs from leaving out country and many even bring some of those jobs home, and it will allow us to come closer to living on what we earn rather than having to sell off our country to pay our bills.

Of course there will be political fallout from this change of policy. Countries that have benefited from the current trade imbalance will rage against us, but I believe Americans will be better off reducing our trade deficit and keeping our jobs at home amid all the foreign outrage than it is now.

"Comparative Advantage" is a basic economic principle, usually encountered in the second week of an introductory economics class....

Do you have any idea why it is important?

And most people would have learned the difference between competitive advantage and comparative advantage even earlier. Do you have any idea what the difference is?

The only difference is the context in which the term is used

So you don't know what the difference is. Comparative advantage when comparing economies refers to natural advantages such as agricultural land or mineral resources or even location, but competitive advantage includes all of that but also other things such as the quality of the work force or efficiency of operations or the manipulation of the currency to keep export prices low government subsidies, and government regulations, etc.

Left wing economists have long argued that because of its vast land area and wealth of natural resources by the principle of comparative advantage the US should have developed into an agricultural and mining economy instead of the industrial powerhouse it became.

Competitive advantage is a microeconomic concept, usually referring to price competition when one company is able to produce a product cheaper than another because of greater efficiency of operation or technological innovation. It can also apply to nations if one nation's work force is superior to another's or it has superior technology or if its government devalues its currency to make its exports cheaper or subsidizes businesses to produce there.

In other words, comparative advantages are created by nature and competitive advantages are created by governments.

I spoke of competitive advantage, but either through ignorance of dishonesty Icebergslim pretended I had said comparative advantage.

I spoke of competitive advantage, but either through ignorance of dishonesty Icebergslim pretended I had said comparative advantage.

Cut&paste the posts, in chronological order, referring to "comparative advantage" and "competitive advantage"....

 

[kaz]

No, it makes perfect sense to have a free market within the US economy and qualified trade agreements with other countries. Renegotiating trade agreements and imposing tariffs where necessary in no way limits your freedom as a businessman to move your company anyplace you choose, it simply changes the economic environment in a way that makes it unprofitable to move it to less developed countries because of cheaper labor and fewer environmental regulations, or to countries that maintain an unfair competitive advantage by manipulating their currencies.

I am a pragmatist, not an ideologue, so I am more interested in practical outcomes than what is ideologically correct. Right now because of our trade imbalances, the US is selling off its assets, real estate, corporations, even technologies, to pay for our standard of living. If you had to sell off your assets to pay your bills, would you consider that a sustainable policy? Of course not, and it is not a sustainable policy for our nation, either. Redefining our trade relations will help reduce our trade deficits and prevent jobs from leaving out country and many even bring some of those jobs home, and it will allow us to come closer to living on what we earn rather than having to sell off our country to pay our bills.

Of course there will be political fallout from this change of policy. Countries that have benefited from the current trade imbalance will rage against us, but I believe Americans will be better off reducing our trade deficit and keeping our jobs at home amid all the foreign outrage than it is now.

"Comparative Advantage" is a basic economic principle, usually encountered in the second week of an introductory economics class....

Do you have any idea why it is important?

And most people would have learned the difference between competitive advantage and comparative advantage even earlier. Do you have any idea what the difference is?

The only difference is the context in which the term is used

So you don't know what the difference is. Comparative advantage when comparing economies refers to natural advantages such as agricultural land or mineral resources or even location, but competitive advantage includes all of that but also other things such as the quality of the work force or efficiency of operations or the manipulation of the currency to keep export prices low government subsidies, and government regulations, etc.

Left wing economists have long argued that because of its vast land area and wealth of natural resources by the principle of comparative advantage the US should have developed into an agricultural and mining economy instead of the industrial powerhouse it became.

Competitive advantage is a microeconomic concept, usually referring to price competition when one company is able to produce a product cheaper than another because of greater efficiency of operation or technological innovation. It can also apply to nations if one nation's work force is superior to another's or it has superior technology or if its government devalues its currency to make its exports cheaper or subsidizes businesses to produce there.

In other words, comparative advantages are created by nature and competitive advantages are created by governments.

I spoke of competitive advantage, but either through ignorance of dishonesty Icebergslim pretended I had said comparative advantage.

Left wing economists have long argued that because of its vast land area and wealth of natural resources by the principle of comparative advantage the US should have developed into an agricultural and mining economy instead of the industrial powerhouse it became.

Can you name these "left wing economists"?


In other words, comparative advantages are created by nature and competitive advantages are created by governments.


Good L*rd! Is there an "off" button on this gasbag?

Yes, he's just wrong. Then again you don't know what it means either. Basically competitive advantage is used with companies versus their competitors in markets. I've rarely heard it used any other way, and when I do it's usually someone who's less experienced. Comparative advantage is a far broader term. It can be nature, resources, labor skills, labor costs, taxes, regulations, anything that tilts the playing field in a broader way across companies, it's not really used for one company

 

[IcebergSlim]

You figure this shit was a mystery BEFORE 1985?


how do you get to this:

But wow, it's like saying a measuring tape makes you a carpenter.


from....

.I've seen enough of Michael Porter to be underwhelmed.

Because you thought you were sharp for realizing that Porter's not the killer model. It's a basic model and you didn't know that. Everyone in business knows that.

In strategy consulting, Porter is maybe the first hour of a discussion on a three month project. It's an effective model for presenting a very, very basic overview of a situation that a company is in. It doesn't help you for shit after that. It does structure the real analysis effectively

Because you thought you were sharp for realizing that Porter's not the killer model. It's a basic model and you didn't know that. Everyone in business knows that.

No......I believe Porter is celebrated for laboring the obvious.

Everyone in business knows that.


You say some astonishingly stupid shit......I could survey 100 people "in business" and I bet less than 10% would know who Michael Porter is...

Then by "in business" you mean anyone who works for a company. No one in management doesn't know what the porter model is. Again, it's very useful, but very, very basic. It gives you a simplistic 360 degree view of a company situation. From there you delve into the area(s) you want to focus on and drop the areas that are not pertinent to whatever you're trying to solve. That you think it's impressive you've heard of it ... and snort ... look down on it ... is laughable. You're way too impressed with yourself.

OK, so again, for the next time when you're trying to make up shit that you're a business savant, you say Porter is useful but very basic. You don't say you're unimpressed with all you've seen of it. If you're seeing people use Porter for more than cursory analysis, well, they don't know any more about business than you do, which is pretty much zilch other than memorizing definitions for certification exams

Then by "in business" you mean anyone who works for a company. No one in management doesn't know what the porter model is.

The guy who owns the local print shop, the franchisee who owns 3 Dunkin Donuts locations, the machine shop operator......all of them are in business.......none are likely to know who Michael Porter is...

Before you hit "Post Reply", read what you've typed......Think about it......spare yourself a lot of ridicule...

Exactly, that's why you used the ambiguous "in business" so you could play children's games with what "in business" means. Your intent was obvious, which is why I responded with the in blue part to define who I am talking about. Despite that, you walked into your own trap. You're as shallow and obvious as you are ignorant

that's why you used the ambiguous "in business" so you could play children's games with what "in business" means.

uh.....here's the first use of the term...

Everyone in business knows that.


Recognize it?

 

[jc456]

Correct me if I am wrong but no living President, Secretary of State or FED Chairman endorses Trump..

These are the people who know what the job on President is about and not one of them said Trump can do it...

Sorry this looks like evidence and we know how the Trump side just hates facts and evidence....

Trump's appeal is that we've had enough of these worthless scumbags. You like them, we don't. You don't get it.

'exactly' button

 

[toomuchtime_]

No, it makes perfect sense to have a free market within the US economy and qualified trade agreements with other countries. Renegotiating trade agreements and imposing tariffs where necessary in no way limits your freedom as a businessman to move your company anyplace you choose, it simply changes the economic environment in a way that makes it unprofitable to move it to less developed countries because of cheaper labor and fewer environmental regulations, or to countries that maintain an unfair competitive advantage by manipulating their currencies.

I am a pragmatist, not an ideologue, so I am more interested in practical outcomes than what is ideologically correct. Right now because of our trade imbalances, the US is selling off its assets, real estate, corporations, even technologies, to pay for our standard of living. If you had to sell off your assets to pay your bills, would you consider that a sustainable policy? Of course not, and it is not a sustainable policy for our nation, either. Redefining our trade relations will help reduce our trade deficits and prevent jobs from leaving out country and many even bring some of those jobs home, and it will allow us to come closer to living on what we earn rather than having to sell off our country to pay our bills.

Of course there will be political fallout from this change of policy. Countries that have benefited from the current trade imbalance will rage against us, but I believe Americans will be better off reducing our trade deficit and keeping our jobs at home amid all the foreign outrage than it is now.

"Comparative Advantage" is a basic economic principle, usually encountered in the second week of an introductory economics class....

Do you have any idea why it is important?

And most people would have learned the difference between competitive advantage and comparative advantage even earlier. Do you have any idea what the difference is?

The only difference is the context in which the term is used

So you don't know what the difference is. Comparative advantage when comparing economies refers to natural advantages such as agricultural land or mineral resources or even location, but competitive advantage includes all of that but also other things such as the quality of the work force or efficiency of operations or the manipulation of the currency to keep export prices low government subsidies, and government regulations, etc.

Left wing economists have long argued that because of its vast land area and wealth of natural resources by the principle of comparative advantage the US should have developed into an agricultural and mining economy instead of the industrial powerhouse it became.

Competitive advantage is a microeconomic concept, usually referring to price competition when one company is able to produce a product cheaper than another because of greater efficiency of operation or technological innovation. It can also apply to nations if one nation's work force is superior to another's or it has superior technology or if its government devalues its currency to make its exports cheaper or subsidizes businesses to produce there.

In other words, comparative advantages are created by nature and competitive advantages are created by governments.

I spoke of competitive advantage, but either through ignorance of dishonesty Icebergslim pretended I had said comparative advantage.

You're wrong

lol About anything in particular or are you saying I was born wrong?

 

[kaz]

Because you thought you were sharp for realizing that Porter's not the killer model. It's a basic model and you didn't know that. Everyone in business knows that.

In strategy consulting, Porter is maybe the first hour of a discussion on a three month project. It's an effective model for presenting a very, very basic overview of a situation that a company is in. It doesn't help you for shit after that. It does structure the real analysis effectively

Because you thought you were sharp for realizing that Porter's not the killer model. It's a basic model and you didn't know that. Everyone in business knows that.

No......I believe Porter is celebrated for laboring the obvious.

Everyone in business knows that.


You say some astonishingly stupid shit......I could survey 100 people "in business" and I bet less than 10% would know who Michael Porter is...

Then by "in business" you mean anyone who works for a company. No one in management doesn't know what the porter model is. Again, it's very useful, but very, very basic. It gives you a simplistic 360 degree view of a company situation. From there you delve into the area(s) you want to focus on and drop the areas that are not pertinent to whatever you're trying to solve. That you think it's impressive you've heard of it ... and snort ... look down on it ... is laughable. You're way too impressed with yourself.

OK, so again, for the next time when you're trying to make up shit that you're a business savant, you say Porter is useful but very basic. You don't say you're unimpressed with all you've seen of it. If you're seeing people use Porter for more than cursory analysis, well, they don't know any more about business than you do, which is pretty much zilch other than memorizing definitions for certification exams

Then by "in business" you mean anyone who works for a company. No one in management doesn't know what the porter model is.

The guy who owns the local print shop, the franchisee who owns 3 Dunkin Donuts locations, the machine shop operator......all of them are in business.......none are likely to know who Michael Porter is...

Before you hit "Post Reply", read what you've typed......Think about it......spare yourself a lot of ridicule...

Exactly, that's why you used the ambiguous "in business" so you could play children's games with what "in business" means. Your intent was obvious, which is why I responded with the in blue part to define who I am talking about. Despite that, you walked into your own trap. You're as shallow and obvious as you are ignorant

that's why you used the ambiguous "in business" so you could play children's games with what "in business" means.

uh.....here's the first use of the term...

Everyone in business knows that.


Recognize it?

Right, I'm discussing the ensuing discussion where we clarified it. You clearly indicated you were about to play definition games, so I defined who I was referring to and you didn't grasp that