Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by Spaceturkey, Sep 25, 2013.
just wondering what folks think of this attitude?
Personal philosophies, to be applied at the individual level if the individual consents to it.
Henry Ford's incredible success gives his many memorable quotes added credibility, elevating potential maxims to the "sage advice" category of life.
Yet, for some reason, Ford trucks dominate my local Pick Your Part.
Nobody suggested that they be imposed, you tiresome fuck.
Why do you insist on trying to make this yet another thread about Albertarianism rather than answering the question as to what you think about the attitude in question?
Nobody ruled it out, either. So you're welcome.
You mean why don't I play your game by your rules? Because FUCK YOU, that's why.
As for the "high-minded", dimestore philosophy, it's pile of overgeneralized, rhetorical bullshit meant to sound like principled idealism to people who deal in bumper sticker slogans.
except this is nothing about your deluded ideas of "individualism" and "property", which only lead to serfdom. Ford stated these principals about industry in general, knowing that the only way an economy thrive is if the workers can afford the products they produce.
Worked for Henry Ford and the Model-T for sure (who this quote is from I believe). You make a high quality product so people will buy it, you keep production costs as low as possible to maximize profit, you pay good workers a good salary to keep them around to add value to the company.
The other Ford quotes are good as well. No complaints here.
things like "who is John Galt"?
Seriously... who is more credible on this subject? Henry Ford, or a character made up by someone who never did anything but write a couple of fantasy novels?
You might have said that then, instead of the same thing you always do about everything. Fresh topics of conversation and all.
But now back to ignoring you.
I wouldn't get to enraptured with Henry Ford, the man was a noted fascist, fan of Hitler, and the creepy industrial rubber plantation he tried to set up in the Amazon stinks of the type of cultural and economic imperialism that would have most of you clucking with disapproval if a Halliburton were doing it today.
So then can you at least give him the Stopped Clock Award, or can you acknowledge that the words are good advice no matter who said them?
To garamet, if a person says that there are things more important than money, then its fair to look into his value system, no?
No! It's enough to disparage that one, narrow form of greed!
As applied to his business model, yes.
In Ford's case, to the extent that his fascist tendencies affected his workers, yes. To the extent they inhabited his private thoughts, no.
Hmm, isn't that what Chik Fil A got into such an uproar over?
If their CEO chose to donate his personal income to anti-gay causes, that was his right.
If he chose to donate the profits from his business to anti-gay causes, that's problematic. Not illegal, but he shouldn't get his panties in a bunch if he's criticized for it. IIRC, he thought it made him a martyr.
If he chose to deny service to customers for any reason other than "No shirt, no shoes, no service," see above.
So if Fordlandia was Ford's values, enacted on a large and corporate scale, that's worth noting, right?
Is it your position, Flow, that the quotes Turkey posted are inextricably linked to fascism?
What is there about pre ww2 that isn't some form of creepy imperialism on someone's part?
And let's be honest, his admiration for Hitler was because Hitler was anti commie/union, not for being a genocidal maniac. And hey, how did he try to fight off unionizing his company? Why, he paid the workers better than what the union could get them, nearly doubling wages and reducing the work day by an hour.
So gee, people that can afford to feed themselves and spend some time with their families will be more productive then slave labour? Who'da thunk it?
hmm, so you're saying a corporate serving society is doomed to failure while one with organized labour and a decent standard of wages/lifestyle will grow and out last it at least 50-fold (before devolving into something resembling a corporate serving society)?
No, just that gutless, blanket statements about the evils of money are easy to get behind until you look at the person who said it, and what they tried to do with their money once they had enough of it.
1) You know damned well "food and free time" doesn't begin to cover the sense of entitlement a 21st century auto worker has.
2) Why, if it's a more profitable business model, is it such a tough sell now?
Modern workers expect things like pensions, medical care, and full array of wholly unnecessary material posessions, and their employers have to compete with a much more diverse field of foreign competitors who are able to undercut their labor and facility costs. They all have to contend with product safety and emissions regs in the 'states, but that's still an element eating into profits in ways Henry Ford never had to contemplate.
This was a far from isolated attitude. It was the support of big business in Germany and elsewhere that funded the Nazi rise to power. See also the conflict within the Nazi party marginalising the SA who were more "lefty".
Fascism was seen to be very effective economically and very good for business. In many ways, it was, and its economic tenets at least were adopted by the entire industrialised world before long.
So the natives put into tract housing and made to buy white people food at the company store would've been just peachy if they'd only been paid a "living wage".
Not sure this is the ground you wanna stake out, Turkey.
That's pretty much what we have now, except the company store is the strip mall.
More and more, second by second, I come around to the position that the only reason anyone is happy, is because they're stupid, or in denial.
My favorite liquor store is in a stripmall, you may be onto something.
Yes. If you'll pardon the wordplay, that's where the rubber left the road.
But do the words themselves have an intrinsic value? Granted, there's a disconnect when they come from Henry Ford as opposed to James Sinegal, but I see that as a reach vs. grasp kind of thing.
(Dare I say Ford's road was paved with good intentions?)
The quotes have the advantage of getting the Tighty Righties' noses out of joint. Not quite on the same scale as pointing out that Reagan raised the debt ceiling more than any other president, but it's fun to watch them get bent about it anyway.
Sounds like you are saying no, but yes. If the statement is meaningful, why should we care that it might violate logical consistency of the speaker's larger philosophy? (By the way, I'm not weighing in on whether it violates consistency).
What I'm saying is that if the quotes are applicable to modern business practices, then its fair to hold the author to modern standards.
If Ford were alive and doing those things today, he'd be the villain in a low grossing movie directed by Sean Penn.
Separate names with a comma.