Forum: Author Hangout

Those are all true, relevant, and legitimate remarks.

And totally irrelevant to male-orientated fantasy porn, where men have 9-12 inch cocks de rigeur, the women are supermodel-gorgeous and always sopping wet, the women cum virtually on command and pass out when the man rubs her G-Spot and A-Spot, and when the man does eventually penetrate the woman she has one long continuous orgasm before the man pumps a pint of cum into her ;)

AJ

And totally irrelevant to male-orientated fantasy porn,

If it gets too far-fetched, impossible, and unbelievable it totally ruins the fantasy.

Surely you knew it is four gallons, one gallon from each of your four balls. It's explicitly pointed out several times in "Three Square Meals".

Best not to confuse them by actually responding on topic...

awnlee jawking 3/11/2019, 6:18:36 PM

@Zen Master

one gallon from each of your four balls

The four ball is brown, so the gentleman producing gallons of cum would be of Afro-Caribbean descent ;)

AJ

Could be Polynesian or Indian.

Edit: Oh, or Aboriginal.

To be fair, most of the people you're ranting about, are not on the forums, so, kinda' wasted your breath there.

And those that are probably won't read or care. Posting whilst aware of that is to my mind, ranting, letting off steam, I really don't care if it has an effect, I'm happy just having vented.

As for acidity and a whole host of other stuff (fanny farts included) I deleted three quarters of the rant before posting, no point overloading the target audience with difficult concepts like reality and common sense. At that point I hadn't finished, just bled the steam off.

As for fantasy, of course it can allow anything so long as suspension of disbelief is maintained, but those kinds of stories are not the target, if fact the worst howlers seem to occur in relatively simple sex scenes.

I consider there to be various sexual orientations (See below) I further expect those authors who use them, to use the correct one.

Describing a character as lesbian when in fact she is not, is a cop-out, the author either does not know or does not care enough to use the correct terminology.

Obviously if the author is male, writing to a male readership, who cares? But if the author wants to attract female readers, he is, excuse the pun. SOL

Lesbian | ˈlɛzbɪən |

adjective

from or relating to the island of Lesbos.

lesbian | ˈlɛzbɪən |

noun

a homosexual woman.

adjective

relating to homosexual women or to homosexuality in women: a lesbian relationship.

ORIGIN

late 19th century: via Latin from Greek Lesbios, from Lesbos, home of Sappho, who expressed affection for women in her poetry, + -ian.

A lesbian is a homosexual woman. The word lesbian is also used for women in relation to their sexual identity or sexual behaviour regardless of sexual orientation, or as an adjective to characterise or associate nouns with female homosexuality or same-sex attraction.

Sexual orientation

(Other) Sexual orientations

Asexual

Bisexual

Heterosexual

Homosexual

Non-binary categories

Androphilia and gynephilia

Bi-curious

Gray asexuality

Non-heterosexual

Pansexuality

Polysexuality

Queer

Following what appears to be your logic, once a woman has sex with a man, she can never be lesbian, which makes no sense at all.

Bi curious, gray/grey sexual, those could definitely apply. Applying lesbian to a woman in that scenario doesn't make sense to me.

Following what appears to be your logic, once a woman has sex with a man, she can never be lesbian, which makes no sense at all.

What makes no sense is your insistence that a woman who has sex with both men and women is a lesbian...!!

I never intimated anything about once she has ...blah blah blah... YOU did.

Does a woman being homosexual really bother you deep down so much you can't accept it..? I ask because it is a very simple concept.

Woman + Man = Heterosexual
Man + Man = Homosexual
Woman + Woman = Lesbian

Add extra partners to get bi-sexual etc.

Simple really.

Well, except for those misogynistic males who consider a lesbian to be a woman who hasn't yet been fucked properly by a man. *Rolls eyes*

People can change over time

Irrelevant to my rant/follow-ups. You are talking of real people, I'm talking about characters created by an author...

That's a created character (based on one in RL). If you told her she wasn't a lesbian (by your reckoning), you would want to find a good hiding place.

I have to ask. Do you actually read anyone else's posts, or do you just lock onto a phrase and bludgeon it to death...??

I never stated that sexuality didn't change over time. YOU put those words into a response, without them having ANY relevance to my posts(s).

However, thank you for making my point. I said in my OP that there are guys who simply don't get it.

Now, since you seem unable or unwilling to accept a dictionary definition of a persons sexuality as being the appropriate and correct one to use. I suggest this is done.

My rant stands. A lesbian fucking a man is not a lesbian, she is at least bi-sexual. Period.

1) A person's sexuality is how they define it, not you, and not the OED

Unless of course they are in denial.
A bloke that has sex with women & men is Bi. He might consider himself straight (Hetero), but his very actions show that he's Bi- regardless of what he might claim.

1) A person's sexuality is how they define it, not you, and not the OED

NO. Given that my rant was about characters in stories. Their sexuality is defined by the author...!!

2) Dictionaries are at best, a look into the past, and have little or no authority on any word usage once published.

Not going to bother to reply to that pile of......

I rest my case. At BEST a dictionary is a point-in-time observation of a language. It can be nothing more.

This is somewhat true, but id does not follow that a dictionary has lost all authority by the time it hits the book.

Authority depends on age. Of course a 400 year old dictionary lacks authority today. It does not follow from that, that a new edition published in the last decade is without authority. Yes, language changes. It does not change as rapidly as you imagine.

I suspect it doesn't change as slowly as you suggest.

There are multiple ways that language changes, and each happens at a different rate. The two that would be of interest for this discussion are the introduction of new words, and changes in the usage/meaning of old words.

The take up of new words is relatively rapid and dictionaries have trouble keeping up.

Changes in usage/meaning happen more slowly. Language is defined by common (majority or at least plurality) usage. People tend to be more resistant to changes in the meaning of existing words than to the adoption of new words so such changes take time to be accepted. Children are less resistant, thus changes in usage/meaning of existing words tends to happen on more of a generational time scale.

That said, a passage form 'Through the Looking Glass' is very instructive:

True, but not in the direction you think.

I've read a number of discussions of that passage by various language experts. The majority (and I would personally agree with them) give Alice the better end of that exchange.

Humpty Dumpty's position in that exchange is an example of extreme sophistry. Adopting his position doesn't just make communication difficult, it makes real communication impossible.

And yet, my usage of a word depends strictly on what I think it means, not what anyone else thinks it means.

So only you might know what it is you're saying.
Language is meant to help with the transfer of ideas, concepts, knowledge. What is the point of saying or writing something for others to hear or read if only you know what you mean?

And yet, my usage of a word depends strictly on what I think it means, not what anyone else thinks it means.

No, properly it should depend on what the majority/plurality of the speakers of the language think in means.

If you can't accept that, then there is no point in anyone trying to discuss anything with you ever. Good luck with that.

Ummm, you are aware that human beings have the ability to bend in the middle? That position is quite feasible if the shorter lays flat, whilst the longer bows their back/ bends over

This works if the size difference isn't too extreme.
In the story I remember the fourteen year old boy was very small – all his class mates were at least 10" taller.
While I've seen a picture of a female contortionist licking
her own clit I doubt a really tall woman (nearly 6') can bend over enough without pain to perform 69 with a so small boy.

HM.

This works if the size difference isn't too extreme.
In the story I remember the fourteen year old boy was very small – all his class mates were at least 10" taller.

The average height for 14 Year old boys in the US is 65 inches (5'5"). If the boy in the story was 10" below average at 55" (4'7"), it's also possible that, for a single class, the boy was average and the rest of his class were particularly tall.

At 5'11" (71") for the woman, if the boy is 10", below average, that might be a bit much, but I am not convinced that if she sat on his face and bent over by arching her back that it would not be possible.

It also matters why the boy is short.

Take myself as an example, when we are both standing, my brother is around 2" taller than I am. If we sit on identical chairs I am 2" taller than my brother.

The reason for this is that my torso is longer than my brothers, but relative to torso length, my arms and legs are disproportionately short, while by brother's proportions are normal.

As to my legs it's mostly my thighs that are too short. I had to be fitted (as an adult) with a leg immobilizer due to an issue with one knee. The nurse commented on the shortness of my legs, and even using a immobilizer meant for a teen, the thigh section of the immobilizer was still too long.

For my arms, I am the only guy I know who has to bend over sideways to reach the bottoms of his front pants pockets.

This works if the size difference isn't too extreme.
In the story I remember the fourteen year old boy was very small – all his class mates were at least 10" taller.

The average height for 14 Year old boys in the US is 65 inches (5'5"). If the boy in the story was 10" below average at 55" (4'7"), it's also possible that, for a single class, the boy was average and the rest of his class were particularly tall.

At 5'11" (71") for the woman, if the boy is 10", below average, that might be a bit much, but I am not convinced that if she sat on his face and bent over by arching her back that it would not be possible.

It also matters why the boy is short.

Take myself as an example, when we are both standing, my brother is around 2" taller than I am. If we sit on identical chairs I am 2" taller than my brother.

The reason for this is that my torso is longer than my brothers, but relative to torso length, my arms and legs are disproportionately short, while by brother's proportions are normal.

As to my legs it's mostly my thighs that are too short. I had to be fitted (as an adult) with a leg immobilizer due to an issue with one knee. The nurse commented on the shortness of my legs, and even using a immobilizer meant for a teen, the thigh section of the immobilizer was still too long.

For my arms, I am the only guy I know who has to bend over sideways to reach the bottoms of his front pants pockets.

Relative difference in torso length + neck and head is what matters for 69. Overall height including legs not so much.

In today's world, sexual identity is defined by how you perceive yourself. How others perceive you doesn't matter.

We, or at least I, am talking about the sexual identity of a character in a story written by an author. If the author does not know the sexuality of the character, how can that character be a lesbian? Or Straight? Or whatever.

Either the author knows the sexuality of the character THEY created, or they don't. If they do, they can at least use the correct term. If they don't... Then how can they use ANY term without lying to themselves and their readers, not to mention disrespecting the character.

Again. Why can't we all get along? :p

Because that would be boring.

But guess what? That's NOT how it's used in many, many cases.

Which is why there are the misunderstandings you mention at the start of your post- because words aren't used correctly, because people don't understand their actual meaning.

The misunderstanding come about because people use words the way you say you do- they mean what they want them to mean- not what they really mean. If people didn't use words incorrectly, then misunderstandings wouldn't occur.

Of course you can always use words correctly with the intention of obfuscating the message.

If communication were as exact as some of you seem to imply, we wouldn't ever have any misunderstandings.

I am not suggesting communication is ever exact enough to prevent all misunderstandings. However, if you take that even half as far as Humpty Dumpty in that quote, which you seem to be suggesting you do, then you will have nothing but misunderstandings.

Without a common understanding of what words mean, communication is impossible.

It's like grammar - "Billy and me went to the store" is wrong, but it still conveys accurate information.

No, it's not like grammar at all. Yes bad grammar can still in some case convey accurate information.

However, if you are using meanings for "went" and/or "store" that are not understood in common by your audience, then accurate information will not and Can not be conveyed.

You might as well be trying to converse in Latin with a pacific island or amazonian tribe sill living in the stone age.

And dictionaries are, at best, point-in-time

This is true, but meaningless what matters for a dictionaries authority is not that it is point in time buy how recent that point in time is.

and have nothing to do with actual communication because language changes faster than dictionaries can be updated.

This is true with new words, but I have seen nothing convincing that this is true as to changes in meanings of existing words.

Dictionaries started being printed so people would have a uniform knowledge of the spelling and meanings of words as a way of minimizing misunderstandings

You are preaching to the inconvertible, except for me, who thorougly agrees with you. It seems that language is now, like many other things, being driven completely by fashion, and even the venerable 'reference' tomes are now chasing the fashion dollar. Sigh ...

I have no idea what shared experience they have in their upbringing, but it's the most troubling commonality I see in that generation.

They have been taught by the advocates of identity politics among college faculty that anyone who disagrees with them is not merely wrong, but evil as well.

The most glaring issue to me is the complete lack of gray area in anything. I expect younger people to be open-minded and have a certain curiosity in their demeanor. No, everything is black or white, right or wrong and nothing will nudge them from their preconceived positions.

I don't know that I agree with "everything" being black or white, but I do agree with the spirit of that message. Pinning down when that began isn't hard either. In the states, it was in and around the first term of the Clinton presidency. A decade later, it was reinforced by speeches such as this;

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4l3zp3H_gE

Al Gore: you know things your parents don't know speech for those that don't want to click the link.

The end result being the near death of critical thinking skills among the majority of youth. Critical thinking skills don't work well with the global warming/carbon tax religion. That btw is only the tip of the iceberg (no pun intended). From my perspective, thought control appears to be the end goal. Banning of unapproved speech, thoughts, and certain books already occur. It's like a set up for Bradbury's Firemen visiting Orwell's Oceania.

I don't know that I agree with "everything" being black or white, but I do agree with the spirit of that message.

I found this earlier today. It's an opinion piece from a millennial and offers some insight into binary thinking by that generation as opposed to that of their parents. It might offer some further insights.

I found this earlier today. It's an opinion piece from a millennial and offers some insight into binary thinking by that generation as opposed to that of their parents. It might offer some further insights.

From your link;

We earn less, have fewer assets, more debt, and less wealth. Barely half of Millennials earn what our parents did at 30.

On the whole, that statement is correct as far as it goes. It's the argument (paraphrased in many ways) most often used. However, they never seem to explain the reasons for it. First among them being college debt with a strong second being the nature of degrees obtained.

However, even that doesn't explain the whole picture. For boomers and earlier, the prevailing attitudes of millennials closely mirror socialism, but to the millenials, it means something else.

Trying to discuss it gets into a quagmire that quickly turns political. Millennials simply do not want to hear what anyone else thinks or says. They learned to turn to the collective mind where individualism is for the most part, unwelcomed. That is where boomers and earlier fail. They don't understand the collective.

Need proof of that? Reference facebook, twitter, etc. The 21st century version of lynch mobs/firemen are active 24/7. From their number, the firemen are born to control thoughts. Express a thought unapproved by the collective and watch what happens to you. At this time, it's primarily digital content they try to control. The logical path fwd is for that to extend into the dead tree world.

I could go on for a month of Sundays, but the end result is, failure of all to remember history as it happened rather than what they would have it be. While the focus is on millennials, it is not just them bringing this about. The people who should have been around to help guide the youth were no where to be found. What else were those youth to use when they needed questions answered? In the age of online media, they turned to the collective mind of the digital world.

At this point in time, I don't see a path in Western Europe nor North America that doesn't lead to Firemen in Oceania. But what do I know, I'm just one more passing digital voice.

Edited to correct spelling error

First among them being college debt with a strong second being the nature of degrees obtained.

And a lot their student loan debt results from the federal student loan program encouraging students to pursue degrees that add nothing to their earning potential.

their is nothing wrong with pursuing such degrees, if you can afford to do it or can get enough scholarships and grants for a full ride. However, pursuing such degrees on debt is stupid to the tenth power.

This is what their collectivist thinking gets them, but they will never recognize it.

their is nothing wrong with pursuing such degrees, if you can afford to do it or can get enough scholarships and grants for a full ride. However, pursuing such degrees on debt is stupid to the tenth power.

To the first point, an argument can be made there is something wrong with it. Someone else is paying for that scholarship or grant. A good portion of which, if not the majority, being used for non-productive degrees. Four years of college to get the privilege of asking "do you want fries with that" defies logic and good sense. It's a waste of resources that could have gone to someone else with a stronger motivation.
To your latter point, I agree. It is stupid to go into heavy debt for 'any' degree. It is especially stupid to do so for a fry cook degree.

Someone else is paying for that scholarship or grant. A good portion of which, if not the majority, being used for non-productive degrees. Four years of college to get the privilege of asking "do you want fries with that" defies logic and good sense. It's a waste of resources that could have gone to someone else with a stronger motivation.

Can you really get scholarships or grants without any strings attached? Thus you can select any degree you want including basket weaving or something alike?

BTW, what's your definition of 'non-productive degrees'?
My definition is every degree regardless of subject where the ratio of open positions to graduates is worse than 1 to 5.

HM.

PS. I believe we need people who know all about basket weaving, but a dozen worldwide are enough.

Can you really get scholarships or grants without any strings attached? Thus you can select any degree you want including basket weaving or something alike?

The quick answer is yes. But not all grants and scholarships exist without strings attached. Some are qualified, i.e. available only for use in a certain area of study. What the ratio between the two is? I have no idea.

Can you really get scholarships or grants without any strings attached?

No strings attached? Probably not, at a minimum most private scholarships and grants require the recipient to maintain a certain GPA or higher.

And there are scholarships and grants out there that are degree (or at least field specific). And yes, there are even private foundations that fund scholarships and grants in the unmarketable degrees/fields.

BTW, what's your definition of 'non-productive degrees'?
My definition is every degree regardless of subject where the ratio of open positions to graduates is worse than 1 to 5.

I consider it more along the lines of 1 to 3. Anything more than that drives the wages paid down. Simple supply and demand dictates that.

I would also add my voice to SF on the point regarding the trades. Somebody has to build and maintain the bridges, buildings, cars, trains, airplanes, homes, and everything else a modern society needs. Without that, the society in question will not be capable of maintaining 'modern' status.

Somebody has to build and maintain the bridges, buildings, cars, trains, airplanes, homes, and everything else a modern society needs. Without that, the society in question will not be capable of maintaining 'modern' status.

Look around at the crumbling infrastructure and you can see that no one in power cares about that.

BTW, what's your definition of 'non-productive degrees'?

I prefer going with marketability/lack there of, rather than productivity.

And by marketability I mean degrees that have companies actively searching for employment candidates who hold those specific degrees. Those are the degrees with high earning potential.

Note: the list of marketable degrees is not static.
As the income potential goes up, more students pursue that degree and the labor supply in that field becomes glutted. Then the income potential/marketability goes down as companies don't need to put effort into finding candidates in those fields.

Part of the problem is that Universities, and their student advisors/recruiters can't (or don't bother trying to) keep up with the relative supply/demand changes on a field by field basis.

Note: the list of marketable degrees is not static.
As the income potential goes up, more students pursue that degree and the labor supply in that field becomes glutted. Then the income potential/marketability goes down as companies don't need to put effort into finding candidates in those fields.

With only one exception, there has never been a time in my life and memory where there were enough engineers or medical personnel to glut the labor supply. The exception being computer engineering. The .com bubble was the time frame for that. It was also the time frame where foreign born computer engineers swamped the market.
I heard a lot of bitching in that regards, but an engineering degree without a post degree P.E. license requirement is subject to that. Not all of them were subject to that, especially those computer engineering types that focused on the market niches that tie into national security concerns.

With only one exception, there has never been a time in my life and memory where there were enough engineers or medical personnel to glut the labor supply.

On medical personnel:

1. Most non medical people don't know this (I'm an exception) but medicine is not necessarily that lucrative financially. The median income for doctors across all specialties in the US is only around $80k, and that's before they pay for malpractice insurance.

2. Medical is highly specialized, and while the overall market for doctors is not glutted, the markets for some of the individual specialties are.

3. Of course the general medical labor supply shortage is going to get worse soon. During the original/early political fight over Obamacare (sorry, don't recal the official name), I read an article written by a doctor with some stats about doctors. The article was very critical of Obamacare, but that's not the point. He mentioned in the article that almost half of the doctors in the US were older and within only a decade or two of retirement.

1. Most non medical people don't know this (I'm an exception) but medicine is not necessarily that lucrative financially. The median income for doctors across all specialties in the US is only around $80k, and that's before they pay for malpractice insurance.

So you're the only person who knows this?
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/mobile/physicians-and-surgeons.htm
They seem to believe it's a national median of 208K.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics apparently disagrees with you.
You're also leaving out nurses, lab techs, various imaging techs, so forth.

So you're the only person who knows this?

Nowhere did I claim that. But most people don't pay that much attention to pay levels outside their own field. I got that number futzing around on a private website offering pay level data for various fields.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics apparently disagrees with you.

I might have been missremembering, it was a while back that I saw it, and it might have been starting, rather than full field median. Too far off for that big of a change.

You're also leaving out nurses, lab techs, various imaging techs, so forth.

Most of whom make significantly less than doctors.

So you're the only person who knows this?

Nowhere did I claim that. But most people don't pay that much attention to pay levels outside their own field. I got that number futzing around on a private website offering pay level data for various fields.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics apparently disagrees with you.

I might have been missremembering, it was a while back that I saw it, and it might have been starting, rather than full field median. Too far off for that big of a change.

You're also leaving out nurses, lab techs, various imaging techs, so forth.

Most of whom make significantly less than doctors.

Most non medical people don't know this (I'm an exception)

Must have misinterpreted that.

might have been missremembering, it was a while back that I saw it, and it might have been starting, rather than full field median. Too far off for that big of a change.

Unless it's a stat from the mid seventies, you must have suffered a memory error.

Most of whom make significantly less than doctors.

Yep they do make less.
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/mobile/registered-nurses.htm
RN 70k median average degree BS.

Radiology/MRI
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/mobile/radiologic-technologists.htm
60k median, average degree AS.
This btw is the best bang for the buck with rising wages and 13% growth in jobs projected.

However you went to apples and oranges comparisons. None of the above will be asking if you want to fill up or if you want fries anytime soon.

Were the BLS quoting take home pay, business revenue / income.

Mostly it's gross(pre tax) earnings reported by employers

There are very few single doctor practices or 2-3 doctor partnerships left in the US, and most of those are small towns in remote areas where the town is too small to support a full on for profit practice. Some of those towns, because they are so remote and want a local clinic will look for pre-med students and make a deal, we pay all of your tuition and when you graduate, you have to serve as our doctor for x number of years.

Larger partnerships have re-organized as LLCs* for tax and non-medical liability issues and to have backoffice staff to handle mandatory government and/or insurance paperwork and other general business issues.

But most of the primary care doctors (GPs, internists)
work as employees of either a hospital (or multi-hospital organization) or a corporation that runs multiple clinics.

*LLC= Limited Liability Corporation.
1. separates business and personal taxes
2. With a partnership each partner individually can be held liable for the full amount of any liability the partnership has. And they can go after the partners personal assets to collect. While an LLC is treated like any other corporation for liability purposes, The liabilities of the corporation are fully separate from the owners and once the assets of the corporation are exhausted, the creditors can't get anything more.

Were the BLS quoting take home pay, business revenue / income.

Gross income of the individual salary as reported by the internal revenue service. Business revenue / income is a separate category.

According to UK university statistics, the best job prospects in terms of employability and starting salary are for Economics graduates.

Could just be low supply vs moderate demand.

And who the hell employs an economist in a productive, commercial business?

Stock brokerages, large Wall Street banks,insurance companies, loads of companies that produce actual products need to track economic trends and have estimates of future economic states both short and long term for business planning purposes.

I've worked at lots of companies that produced actual products, some of them operating in more than one country, and to the best of my knowledge none of them employed economists.

1. You wouldn't be unless you worked at the VP level or higher.

2. They wouldn't necessarily be directly employing economists full time, but they would be buying economic reports from other companies that primarily employ economists to generate those reports, but that still creates demand for someone to employ economists.

Economists mainly inhabit financial companies and governmental bodies where their 'forecasts' only affect other people's money

Only half true. Every company in every industry / field needs to do mid to long term planning, 3-10 years out. To do that planning properly, they need economic forecasts. That drives demand for more employment of Economists, even if those companies don't employ any economists directly.

Virtually all the companies I worked at were transparent about their organisational structures and job titles.

Job Titles don't necessarily tell you that much. Unless those companies were fairly small, it's a decent bet that one of the direct reports to either the CEO or the CFO has at least a bachelors degree in economics even if they aren't titled as "economist".

In the UK you would be correct for the most part. In the US that would not be the case.

I think that's unlikely. Companies requiring financial expertise hire people with business or accountancy degrees.

In the UK you would be correct for the most part. In the US that would not be the case.

If you look at the composition of boards of US companies, quite a few board members have economics degrees. But virtually of those all have economics with business management or went on to get an MBA.

In the UK, the propensity is to outsource that to an independent firm as you yourself noted. It's apples and oranges to compare US and UK based corporations.

Let's assume your comment was misinterpreted by me. Does it make the outsourcing comments any less true?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-09/britain-s-debate-over-outsourcing-services-heats-up

https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/06/28/britains-outsourcing-model-copied-around-the-world-is-in-trouble

Admittedly It's been few years since I've had any interaction in the UK, or with UK business interest. The last time being in HMNB Clyde, and HMNB Portsmouth, but even then outsourcing was preferred. Prior to that I had some business with LLOYDS, same thing.

Everything I find now suggest they kept that model although it hasn't worked well for them. Show me where that's wrong?

The forecasts by the economists often vary wildly. On occasion, some predict a stalling, shrinking economy while others predict a strongly growing economy. That's consistent with the lack of rigour associated with economics as a subject.

It's also consistent with all the rigor of the hard sciences applied to a system that is inherently steeped in chaos.

Why would a productive company hire an expensive employee who is consistently outperformed by 'same again plus a little bit'?

The premise for that is predicting market shifts and trends. Unfortunately, quantitative predictions made by economist rarely, if ever, match qualitative models. These predictions are not much better than can be produced by a soothsayer. If they could somehow be made accurate, bear markets would be a thing of the past.

That however is detached from reality. Markets can turn at a moments notice due to the inherent level of chaos embedded in them.

A company that knows it's business should do well without a horde of economist reading crystal balls in my opinion.

If we add government to the equation, it gets far worse. You will never find a higher concentration of arse kissers and incompetence than you will in a large government organization.

If we add government to the equation, it gets far worse. You will never find a higher concentration of arse kissers and incompetence than you will in a large government organization.

Ever heard of Enron?

They went out of business.
How often does a government go out of business over such a little thing as incompetence?
If they lose money they just reach into the taxpayers pockets and grab some more, or at worst cry to the bigger government they are a part of for a bailout (like Greece in the EU).

How often does a government go out of business over such a little thing as incompetence?
If they lose money they just reach into the taxpayers pockets and grab some more...

Sad but true.

Ever heard of Enron?

You'd have to be hiding under a rock the last 20 years not to have heared of them.

However that is comparing apples and oranges.

If, under your rules, only governments (apples) can be incompetent, then private enterprises (oranges) cannot be incompetent because your rules say so.

If, under your rules, only governments (apples) can be incompetent, then private enterprises (oranges) cannot be incompetent because your rules say so.

First, they are not 'my' rules.

Second, no group of people are free from incompetence.

Private enterprise tends to weed out the worst of the incompetence or they do not survive long as a private enterprise. Government does not rid itself of them, rather they promote them.

You will find no where, in any shape, form, or fashion where I said private enterprise was free of incompetence. What you will find is I stated government has a higher concentration of them. If for no other reason than it's much harder to fire a government employee than it is an employee of private enterprise.

Private enterprise tends to weed out the worst of the incompetence or they do not survive long as a private enterprise. Government does not rid itself of them, rather they promote them.

And just how is you know that comparison to be true? Is there some independent study or studies to back up your assertion?

Really, it's a matter of incentives.

In a private for profit enterprise, if the company loses money year over year, eventually it goes bankrupt.

There is no incentive for efficient operation in government. In fact, at least in the US, the incentive is for government agencies to be as inefficient as possible. A large part of the problem is the pay structure of management employees in the US government.

At all levels of management, pay is determined by a combination of budget and employee head count.

If an agency (or subset there of) comes in under budget, they risk Congress cutting their budget. But going over budget becomes exhibit 1 in "why we need a bigger budget/more employees".

Business owners don't like loosing money.

Incompetent employees produce less than the value of their pay. The company looses money on those employees.

A few incompetent employees might be able to hide in a large enough enterprise, but the more incompetent employees there are, the more they will affect the companies bottom line, and the more incentive the company has to get rid of them.

There are only two ways an unproductive (incompetent) worker survives in a for profit enterprise.

1. Nepotism (a relative of a high level executive or the owners.)

2. They are somehow protected from being fired by a contract. Now the general rule in the US is employment is at will unless there is a written contract.

Personal employment contracts are exceedingly rare in the US below the executive level outside of a few industries. And unionism has been declining in the US for decades. The % of the private sector workforce that was unionized was only 10% in 2016, down from 20% in 1983. That means that nearly 90% of the private sector work force in the US is employed at will.

At will means that the employee can be fired without notice (they can show up at your work station and have security escort you off the premises), or cause (they are under no obligation to tell you why you are being fired).

Nice answer in outlining your opinion. But I don't see anything there that says you have any actual evidence to back up your assertion that "You will never find a higher concentration of arse kissers and incompetence than you will in a large government organization."
Having worked in large private organizations, I would assert that there is plenty of incompetence to go around in private and government organizations.

I would assert that there is plenty of incompetence to go around in private and government organizations.

Sure, if and only if you include private non-profit organizations. Because they have many of the same incentives as governments.

That's why I limited my response to private for profit enterprises.

A for profit enterprise that allows any significant level of incompetence to build up in the organization will cease to exist.

The same can happen to a private non-profit, if the incompetence is allowed to infect the fund raising part of the organization. Though one could survive a long time with a high level of incompetence as long as it doesn't spread to their fund raisers.

P.S. It wasn't incompetence that killed Enron. A number of their executives, and even former executives went to jail because they were engaged in willful accounting fraud an other financial frauds.

If they were incompetent the whole thing would have fallen apart much sooner.

These statements are your evidence?

And just how is you know that comparison to be true? Is there some independent study or studies to back up your assertion?

Appeal to authority... interesting. Call it empirical evidence observed from working for, with, and contracted through both government and private interest.

This has obviously struck a nerve with you. I'm guessing your handle has something to do with your location, and after this, who you work for or have worked for.

Appeal to authority... interesting. Call it empirical evidence observed from working for, with, and contracted through both government and private interest.

One of my favorite Robert Heinlein's quotes seems to address appeals to authority:

What are the facts? Again and again and again – what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history" – what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!

Especially "....what are the facts, and to how many decimal places?" If it can't be expressed so, it's opinion, not fact. /end of rant

I'm guessing your handle has something to do with your location, and after this, who you work for or have worked for

Since you didn't identify your guess, let me just respond by saying I guess you are guessing wrong about my employment history. And it wasn't that your assertion struck a nerve with me. To me, it just seemed that you (as so many on this site do) were making assertions without any obvious facts. The assertions here are often opinion. But if your source is that you were there and participated and therefore you know first hand what you asserted, I accept your expertise. I've only worked for private enterprise - and my first-hand knowledge is that there is plenty of incompetence.

To me, it just seemed that you (as so many on this site do) were making assertions without any obvious facts.

They are demonstrable facts, not assertions. Anyone who ever thinks they need proof should visit capital hill, an IRS office, DMV, or any other equivalent office on either side of the pond. The evidence is there for any and all to see.

At least you cite actions where I have a little experience. To adequately back up the assertion, you'd need not only a representative sample of all types of government offices but all types of private enterprises as well so you could compare the two. A visit or two (like my own experience) is not enough to condemn the government and praise private enterprise. To do that, you'd need to create a database of experiences in each to compare each type with the other before you could reach a logical conclusion based on a fair sample.
Your "demonstrable facts" are like walking out in the street and interviewing 10 people (or some other number) at random and then, based on their answers, declaring that Joe Schmoe will win the next election. Mr. Schmoe may well win, but the sample is too small to be representative. Might as well flip coin and declare the winner.
So many people claim that the government is the problem to all our ills that you'd think there are significant studies to back up the assertion. And maybe there are such studies. But I haven't seen them, and nobody on this site has shared them, not even a summary. I have seen many opinion columns raising the same issue - but they are just what they say they are - opinions.
I don't have many dealings with the government - any government. I have visited capital hill a few times. Based on what I've personally seen - I'd have to guess that members of Congress are mostly AWOL. The one time I dealt with a staffer for my own representative (seeking information), I was treated promptly and courteously, and he sent me the information I requested. My one experience doesn't prove anything either way.
I deal with the IRS only when I file my tax returns electronically each year. I never hear from them - but the refund check always shows up in my bank a few weeks later.
A few years ago, I called the local Social Security office to inquire about the procedure for applying for benefits. The woman on the phone suggested I was not only eligible but that it would be in my own financial interest to apply for early benefits. (I had not previously been aware of that option.)
At the state DMV, when it was my turn, I saw the next available agent, and he quickly accommodated my request.
I can't remember any other dealings with the government since I applied for a marriage license back before Hector was a pup.
On the other hand, my dealings with the private sector have been many and varied. The vast majority of those were handled efficiently and courteously. A small minority were the only ones I had (or can remember) in either government or private enterprise that I would unpleasant and for which I would blame "incompetence." Most of that, I suspect, was due to inadequate training by management, in places that appear to have huge turnover of their staffs.
I dispute that the evidence is there for any and all to see. If that is your experience, so be it, but it is contrary to mine.
Should I guess that all your private-enterprise experiences have been joyful? Most of mine have been, but not all. I just don't see that there is enough data available to establish that either government or private enterprise is less incompetent than the other.
For several decades, the Congress has been replacing government workers with private contractors to do the work. The biggest thing that has accomplished is to increase the cost. When the Army loses soldier and replaces him or her with a private contractor who makes three times as much money - and they claim they have cut the government because there's one less employee - that doesn't make sense to me.
The semi-government Postal Service delivers mail to me six days a week, and delivers packages to me seven days a week. The private companies charge many times as much to make the same kind of deliveries - and I see no evidence that one is more incompetent than the other. All of those workers - both public and private - are friendly and helpful.

At least you cite actions where I have a little experience. To adequately back up the assertion, you'd need not only a representative sample of all types of government offices but all types of private enterprises as well so you could compare the two. A visit or two (like my own experience) is not enough to condemn the government and praise private enterprise. To do that, you'd need to create a database of experiences in each to compare each type with the other before you could reach a logical conclusion based on a fair sample.

Your "demonstrable facts" are like walking out in the street and interviewing 10 people (or some other number) at random and then, based on their answers, declaring that Joe Schmoe will win the next election. Mr. Schmoe may well win, but the sample is too small to be representative. Might as well flip coin and declare the winner.

So many people claim that the government is the problem to all our ills that you'd think there are significant studies to back up the assertion. And maybe there are such studies. But I haven't seen them, and nobody on this site has shared them, not even a summary. I have seen many opinion columns raising the same issue - but they are just what they say they are - opinions.

I don't have many dealings with the government - any government. I have visited capital hill a few times. Based on what I've personally seen - I'd have to guess that members of Congress are mostly AWOL. The one time I dealt with a staffer for my own representative (seeking information), I was treated promptly and courteously, and he sent me the information I requested. My one experience doesn't prove anything either way.

I deal with the IRS only when I file my tax returns electronically each year. I never hear from them - but the refund check always shows up in my bank a few weeks later.

A few years ago, I called the local Social Security office to inquire about the procedure for applying for benefits. The woman on the phone suggested I was not only eligible but that it would be in my own financial interest to apply for early benefits. (I had not previously been aware of that option.)

At the state DMV, when it was my turn, I saw the next available agent, and he quickly accommodated my request.

I can't remember any other dealings with the government since I applied for a marriage license back before Hector was a pup.

On the other hand, my dealings with the private sector have been many and varied. The vast majority of those were handled efficiently and courteously. A small minority were the only ones I had (or can remember) in either government or private enterprise that I would unpleasant and for which I would blame "incompetence." Most of that, I suspect, was due to inadequate training by management, in places that appear to have huge turnover of their staffs.

I dispute that the evidence is there for any and all to see. If that is your experience, so be it, but it is contrary to mine.

Should I guess that all your private-enterprise experiences have been joyful? Most of mine have been, but not all. I just don't see that there is enough data available to establish that either government or private enterprise is less incompetent than the other.

For several decades, the Congress has been replacing government workers with private contractors to do the work. The biggest thing that has accomplished is to increase the cost. When the Army loses soldier and replaces him or her with a private contractor who makes three times as much money - and they claim they have cut the government because there's one less employee - that doesn't make sense to me.

The semi-government Postal Service delivers mail to me six days a week, and delivers packages to me seven days a week. The private companies charge many times as much to make the same kind of deliveries - and I see no evidence that one is more incompetent than the other. All of those workers - both public and private - are friendly and helpful.

You went through a lot of trouble writing that attempting to prove your assertion. At least you've mentioned limited experience.

Let's clear something up here. You seem to believe I'm making a blanket indictment. Where in "highest concentration" does it state "all"?

All is including every single individual. You and I both know that is BS. When dealing with an organization comprised of thousands, there will be large variance of personalities, abilities, work ethics, etc. So again where is "all" in "highest concentration?" If we take a sample 1,000 people out of government and private enterprise each, and say 95 out of 1,000 meets criteria A in government, and 63 out of private enterprise meets criteria A, then it follows that government has a higher concentration.

I don't recall ever saying government is the source of all our ills either.

Lastly, you're expecting data from studies. Tell me since you are assuming everything I'm saying is wrong, where are your studies to prove me wrong?

We can go back and forth on this forever and never get the other to agree. So assume I disagree with you and will continue to do so. As for me I'm done with this.

Tell me since you are assuming everything I'm saying is wrong, where are your studies to prove me wrong?

As I said previously, I suspect no such studies exist. I'm not trying to prove you wrong, and I have no interest in trying to do so. You may well be right, and I'd be happy if you had actual evidence, rather than anecdotal evidence, that your assertion is correct.

Companies requiring financial expertise hire people

They also need people with at least some economic, not just financial for mid to long term planning.

Economists mainly inhabit financial companies and governmental bodies where their 'forecasts' only affect other people's money :(

Maybe this is a US thing but it seems most companies try to do as much as they can using other peoples money.
Stockholders, investors, the government etc.

Any publicly owned company will be under pressure to load itself with debt to liberate cash for investment and shareholder rewards, and to make it less attractive to potential buyers

In my investing experience, any company using debt to reward shareholders, i.e. dividends, will find itself in trouble with investors. Maybe not immediately, but it will happen. Knowledgeable investors know how to read a balance sheet. And there are enough sources around (ValueLine being one that I use) that permit timely research. And knowledgeable investors tend to punish misbehaving companies.

Thats not to say debt won't be abused, i.e. overused. Much like an individual temporarily overextending their personal indebtedness. Sometimes with good reason. As long as it is corrected in a timely manner (repaid), nothing untoward happens. Either to a corporation or an individual.

To suggest, however, that the structure of a corporation invites abuse, however, just isn't accurate in my own experience. Otherwise, it would occur far more extensively than it does.

In my investing experience, any company using debt to reward shareholders, i.e. dividends, will find itself in trouble with investors. Maybe not immediately, but it will happen.

Carry it to the extreme and prosecutors refer to doing that as a Ponzi scheme.

or letting it fall into administration.

Is "fall into administration" the same as "file for bankruptcy" in the U.S.?

According to UK university statistics

University of Kentucky?

How am I supposed to know whether it offends me unless I read it?

I guess you assume it will be offensive and proceed from there... or not.

Not just the descriptions but the titles too!

There is a recent story titled The Looser

Agreed.

But don't you think you are taking a big risk being on topic..??

But don't you think you are taking a big risk being on topic..??

I did have that 'Danger, Will Robinson' feeling as I clicked post ;)

I've just read the story Neuaddllwyd by Aurora (which I thoroughly enjoyed!) and I have absolutely no idea whether the title is spelt correctly ;)

It is.

How about My Little Ventrue by Novus Animus (which I haven't read - not my cup of tea). Is that spelt correctly?

If you have not read it, and it's "not your cup of tea", why do you care?

I suppose the point is that you can't tell for sure whether a story title is spelt correctly without reading the story.

Or referring to a dictionary..?

It is, they are one of the forms of vampire in the game world of Vampire: The Masquerade.

No, I don't read that or play it, the last vampire story I enjoyed was the movie 'Lost Boys', since then I'm just so over all the vampires.

Thus 99.99% of such studies are wasted money.

How do you know that?

There's a study out in the last few days about pay scales at Google. (I believe it was paid for by Google). It shows men, in some categories, earn less than women. Google, according to news stories, has promised to adjust pay scales to fix the discrepancy. I don't know whether the study was worldwide or just in the U.S.