Ethics, Motorcycle Dealerships and Motorcyclists

[Shorts]

Personal responsibility; Integrity; Values; Ethics


If both buyers and sellers had more, there'd be less of this crap going around. Everyone wants to blame everyone else.


The rider screwed up + The sales guy screwed up = consequences resulting


Quit crying and make better decisions!

[sv-wolf]

Well, you've surprised me, NewGuy, I really wasn't expecting a response on this one.

Well only someone from Europe, or some ultra-liberal fool from the US would seriosly present state control over the markets as being a form of capitalism. It goes against the long standing definition of what capitalism real is. Now I know some idiot (or to use your word "loon") created the concept of "state capitalism" in the early 1900s, but that doesn't mean he was right, or that the concept is a good concept.

Your argument, when it is extracted from all the hot air surrounding it, seems to come down to this: You understand the definition of what capitalism really is, I don’t, and anyone who disagrees with you is either a ‘fool’, an ‘idiot’ or a ‘European’.

Hmm. OK.

First of all, your historical understanding is confused. The use of the term 'capitalism' to describe only free-market capitalism and of 'socialism' to describe state-capitalism is relatively recent, not 'long-term'.

As I posted elsewhere, capitalism is not defined by the existence of a free market. The free market existed long before capitalism and is not central to its working.

The unique feature of capitalism which defines it and which distinguishes it from all other previous forms of economic organisation is the process of capital accumulation and the corresponding employment of wage labour by which this is achieved. (Since you are interested in definitions, this central characteristic - the accumulation of capital - is what gives capitalism its name.)

State institutions can accumulate capital in the same way as an entrepreneur or a joint stock company. Private companies can accumulate capital whether they are regulated or not. Denying the term 'capitalism' to any society that accumulates capital is just doctrinal special pleading on the part of the twentieth-century proponents of free-trade.

Similarly ‘socialism’ if it means anything at all, refers to a working-class ideology and political programme. To deny that is to deny its entire history. Many governments with no working-class agenda have nationalised industries and regulated markets on the grounds that these measures will benefit their economies. Calling their actions ‘socialist’ therefore makes no sense whatsoever.

‘Socialism’ had an established and specific meaning among the working class long before governments began to regulate capitalism in a co-ordinated way and long before right-wing/libertarian organisations appropriated it to describe those bits of capitalism they didn’t like.

BTW, care to guess in what country the term "state capitalism" originated?

No need to guess, NG. It first appeared in Western Europe in the late nineteenth century - not the early 1900s as you suppose. It had a wide currency and was used to distinguish socialism, which is based on the social ownership of the means of production by the whole community following the abolition of the state, from the totally distinct policy of ownership of the means of production by the capitalist state itself.

In the first decade of the twentieth century, Lenin () published a series of works which, among other things, acknowledged that since capitalism was only poorly developed in Russia, socialism was not immediately possible. The task of a ‘revolutionary party’ in his view, would therefore be to gain control of the Russian state and use it to rapidly develop capitalism, putting emphasis on the production of capital goods not consumer items. The kind of economic system he aimed at and worked for after the 1917 Bolshevik coup (as it is now more accurately named) he called - yep - ‘state capitalism.’

Who said free market capitalism could or should deliver uninterrupted growth. Uninterrupted growth is a utopian pipe dream that is not possible.

Then we can agree that capitalism is inefficient in delivering the goods, since who in the capitalist world would not want uninterrupted growth if they could get it.

Free markets (ala Adam Smith's "invisible hand" theory) have been better at providing growth.

Pull the other one, NG. This is just one more tired old economic dogma tied up in a bow. Read up your history of nineteenth-century, free-trade Britain. Rarely has there been a time when government intervention was more negligible or markets less regulated. Yet the nineteenth-century produced some of the worst slumps and social misery in the whole of capitalism’s sorry history.

But you don’t need to go that far back. Since the 1950s trade barriers have been increasingly abolished or significantly reduced world wide, limitations on capital flow have been removed, currencies now receive market valuations, state enterprises have been privatised and international markets have become progressively deregulated

According to free-market theory we should be living in a much more stable, growth-oriented world. And yet the international boom/slump cycle has continued unabated; there have been major crises in Mexico, Asia, Russia and elsewhere. We’ve seen the Japanese economic meltdown, the crisis in long-term capital management, and we have had a major financial bubble roughly every ten years including the latest banking crisis. And of course, economic wars and famine in the midst of plenty are everywhere. What joy!

The free-marketeers had a perfect opportunity to prove themselves in post-Soviet Russia. With the blessing of the IMF, their economists waltzed into that sorry state und unleashed their theories for economic transformation. What was the result? - Absolute disaster and yet more suffering for that long-suffering people.

All the evidence suggests that allowing inexperienced youngsters to ride large machines is hazardous for other road users.

Really? Let's see that evidence that backs that claim up.

There are no reliable statistics which demonstrate this fact unequivocally. What evidence there is, is mostly anecdotal or implied, which is why it only ‘suggests’ rather than ‘proves’ the point. However, in these posts I’ve not actually been bothered with whether it is or isn’t true. What I'm discussing here is the idea of whether legislation on the matter is to be welcomed or whether some blanket dogma about state intervention should be applied .

Aah, typical US bashing from someone in the UK. Tell the truth, are you mad because the US kicked your butts in two wars, or because you needed us to save your butts in two others? . . . or is it both?

I wish I had a £1 for every time I'd heard this one!

LOL, no I'm not anti-US (whatever that means) nor do I give a damn about the military reputation of the British state. You seem to have a one-dimensional political perspective, NG, which has made you assume (incorrectly) that I am a nationalist or a patriot and need to compare dick sizes – but this is your anxiety, not mine.

I also note you haven’t addressed the point.

[sv-wolf]

Personal responsibility; Integrity; Values; Ethics


If both buyers and sellers had more, there'd be less of this "crumb" going around. Everyone wants to blame everyone else.


The rider screwed up + The sales guy screwed up = consequences resulting


Quit crying and make better decisions!

Getting damned impatient, thar, eh, shorts?

Trouble is, the sales guy didn't 'screw up;' he saw an opportunity to trade on a young kid's ignorance and make some extra money for his company - maybe increase his bonus. And what's more he will do it again, and again... Because that's how our system is set up to work. It has a built in conflict of interest - social production and distribution which can only be fulfilled by private (unsocial) means.

[Shorts]

Getting damned impatient, thar, eh, shorts?

Trouble is, the sales guy didn't 'screw up;' he saw an opportunity to trade on a young kid's ignorance and make some extra money for his company - maybe increase his bonus. And what's more he will do it again, and again... Because that's how our system is set up to work. It has a built in conflict of interest - social production and distribution which can only be fulfilled by private (unsocial) means.

lol Yeah - I was all about not mincing words yesterday. It was odd, for a day of rest and peace, I sure wasn't


Well what I meant by the sales guy 'screwing up' was that his priorities were juggled around in regards to his position and how he used it, and his personal standards as far as helping a fellow rider and customer. For a short time I was selling vehicles at a dealership, but I wasn't able to sell my soul to the devil in order to do this job well. I had my ethics and personal standards and they severely inhibited my job performance compared to Satan's minions running around with me.

Ok, back to the topic, he is a sales guy - so priority 1 for him is make a sale. Financing be damned. The 'right bike' be damned. What ever it takes, make a sale. This is my prime issue in regards to the personal standards applied to sales, there isn't a lot of wiggle room. Otherwise the customer often walks and buys from the next dealer down the street (but this is the customer's screw up because he refuses to be swayed by common sense - his selfish way or no way).


Now, let's take sales guy again, his #1 priority is to make a sale. This time sales guy understands that as 'sales guy' customers look to him for guidance. As a rider, he knows how to make riding a long lasting thing, knows his stuff about the machines themselves and genuinely takes his role as sales guy, and ultimately a customer service representative, to heart. He wants the best for HIS customers.

Let's slide over for a second and talk about the car sales guy who is asked by a family to find them the best mode of transportation on the lot. They need a vehicle. This family needs guidance and they give the sales guy the criteria they need in a vehicle, the options they prefer, the things they do not want, and a price range they can afford. Done deal. Sales guy takes a minute to run through the inventory either in the parking lot or by the weekly inventory printout. But as a sales guy, he already knows what models are on the lot and what models would best fill the criteria this family has just told him they need. Sales guy understands not only does this vehicle fit the criteria, but he relays to them WHY this is would be an excellent choice. Family agrees its a good fit and the price is reasonable to what they were expecting. Done.


Back to bike sales guy, he can take the right bike and sell it to the right customer just like car sales guy sold a car to the family. Now this works well when 1. the customer understands what they need and why they need it, and 2. the sales guys understands the machines/vehicles he has and how they will work for each customer's needs.


And that brings me to, as I stated so abruptly:

Personal responsibility; Integrity; Values; Ethics


If both buyers and sellers had more, there'd be less of this "crumb" going around. Everyone wants to blame everyone else.

Personal responsibility - knowing and understand the needs a bike/vehicle must fill (sales guy), why it must fill it(sales guy), how much does it cost(sales guy) and do I honestly have the ability to handle what I'm wanting to buy(customer).

Integrity, Values, Ethics - No justifications. No lies. Honest judgement. Committing to take the path for the best chance of success based on your standards...caveat - not all standards are equal (sales guy and customer)


Government oversight and regulation cannot fix these personal values that are so screwed up in today's society. In fact, society denounces the mere mention of any kind of moral guide whatever flavor it may be.

[sv-wolf]

Hiya shorts

Please, please go on... not mincing your words, that is. I love hearing people speak passionately and directly about what they believe, so I’ve really enjoyed reading your recent posts

Though I think you are nuts (and I say that with deepest respect) I think you are incisively nuts. And as we disagree profoundly in our world views, chances are you think I'm nuts too - which is just as it should be.


I appreciate your commitment to moral values. Sadly, I also think a reliance on them in a divisive world is unrealistic.

If I were a religious man, then I’d have to conclude that god was a joker. Poor old Eve! There she was, in the Garden of Eden with the apple tree, a vast eternity stretching out before her. How often, in all that length of time, do you think she wondered about that apple? One fine day, if only by the laws of chance, the coin was bound to come down tails and she was going to take a bite. It might take a year or a million years before it happened but sooner or later her curiosity was going to get the better of her and her expulsion from the garden was assured. (Why else give her curiosity anyway? No-one installs equipment that is never meant to function)

We are a lot less lucky than Eve. Dangle the same apples before everyone in society at the same time and very quickly eating apples will become the norm. And once the norm is established, eating apples will then become a positive value in at least one of society’s ethical systems.

But as I’m not a religious man. I tend to think more in terms of economics than magic fruit.

If you artificially lock people up into mutually antagonistic economic cages, as our current economic system does, then you can expect to see them exhibit less than co-operative behaviour. Self-seeking will become the social and economic norm. And once it is the norm, anti-social actions will come to be justified in terms of ‘looking-out-for-number-one’ ‘self-defence’ ‘individualism’, ‘personal freedom’ ‘good business practice’ ‘realism’ ‘Social Darwinism,’ ‘macho assertiveness,’ etc, etc. They will become a standard response to any situation – and in some cases, not unreasonably so.

Fortunately, it isn’t quite as bad as that; we do learn a level of co-operation through the family. And even our ruthlessly competitive society requires people to work together to outcompete business rivals The result is we grow up with confusing and conflicting sets of values.

That means every salesman is going to have a different balance of attitudes and personality traits. But our salesman is going to be subject to a process of economic selection. The guy whose own set of personal values will not let him put sales revenues before a well-developed social conscience will soon be looking for a different job. Either that, or his employer will rapidly go out of business. The outcome is that those blokes who can survive comfortably in a dog eat dog world are going to predominate.

But yes, I agree with you, absolutely! Government regulation will never adequately substitute for the exercise of genuine human co-operation and self-respect. What is more, government regulation is enacted with the same ruthless use of the cost-benefit analysis, as the salesman applies to his sales decisions. So I have no respect for it either. For that reason I’d never advocate regulation and I’d never advocate non-regulation. I have to live pragmatically in this world. I judge a thing by the benefit (or otherwise) that it brings to me, my family my friends and to ordinary working people everywhere.

And my judgement in this instance would be that since relying on a co-operative morality in a ruthlessly competitive world is a pipe dream, some kinds of government regulation in situations like this might just occasionally have beneficial results. If it saves lives, then I’d be for it.

But that’s only a practical least-worst approach to get me through the day. My real, and active belief is that we need to remove the material cause of our ‘screwed up values’ (and a lot else besides) and that means our current economic system.

[Shorts]

Wakarimsu! I like your thinking. And it makes sense. You don't make chocolate chip cookies using only one ingredient.




It reads to me, the key is balance, in every respect, both socially and economically. I don't think the ability to balance should hinder one's morality (but as you said, it would impact in specific measurable areas, like financial) . Frankly, for myself, understanding the twists and turns on decisions is key. And even if understood, they still must be accepted. Therein lies the line, not everyone is willing to accept the result as it is presented to them. It is the reaction to that result that is either positive, neutral or negative. I'm not real convinced that a reaction can really be neutral though. Seems like its influence would eventually surface, but maybe not...?. I haven't thought on it long enough to take a stab at it.


Well, my critical thinking skills are maxed for the moment. I've got holsters gluing so I'm going to go for a jog to get a workout done and pick up some small supplies from the store down the road.


Good talk! Its nice to have some Grey matter stimulation.


Right quick:

we do learn a level of co-operation through the family. And even our ruthlessly competitive society requires people to work together to outcompete business rivals The result is we grow up with confusing and conflicting sets of values.

I think there is a massive failure during the time in the family structure. I think in the last 10yrs at least there's been a very large looming influence that has incredibly stifled socially acceptable communication - the internet. The disconnect in personal fact-to-face interaction has caused a loss in basic human understanding. Yes, it has opened other opportunities and encouraged written communication, but it has callused personal interaction.


Edit edit:

Re: Boundaries

Whether the boundaries are legal, moral/ethical, financial or physical - boundaries exist in some form and will be enforced, either by the hand of the law or the laws themselves through consequences, reactions, results.... Physics is a real easy one

[sv-wolf]

Physics is a real easy one

LOL! I think that says it all. Too bad most things in life aren't physics.

Cheers Shorts! Good to talk!

[JC Viper]

I was at the cycle shop I usually go to and overheard what the sales guy said to a customer. Basically he was trying to set the customer up with a bike that the customer will be comfortable with instead of pitching a bigger bike. These guys let you sit on bikes, ask you how long you've been riding and steer you away from rides that may be too much for the customer. It had something to do with making the customer happy in the long run and it's also good for business to look out for the rider.