Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: 63alfred on October 14, 2014, 04:43:10 pm
-
Kevin Raber suggested that my observations on Luminous Landscape's recent reporting on the Photokina 2014 exhibition might find a home here. So here it is:
I recently was looking at a photography blog (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/) that had a series of articles on the Photokina 2014 exhibition in September in Cologne Germany. As one of the premier photographic trade-shows their coverage of this event was full of tantalizing new products of interest to the amateur as well as the professional photographer. Understandably, the major displays at the show and the most “eye-catching” vendors were those associated with digital gadgets and advanced digital image capturing technology. What caught my eye though, and what admittedly elicited my most visceral response was the picture they had of a small Kodak display (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/photokina___days_2__3.shtml about 3/4th way down the page). Under the single picture of Kodak’s booth was the note, “A Sad Story, Kodak Used To Occupy A Whole Hall.” I may only be an amateur photographer, but I have been a chemical engineer for over 30 years and the story behind Kodak’s (and Polaroid’s for that matter) rise and fall is far more complicated than simple corporate mis-management. It reveals to us some inherent problems unique to the United States economy, and alerts us to a path that we are proceeding down that may not be where we really want to go.
As of this year, 2014, Mark Zuckerburg age 30 of Facebook has a net worth of $33.1 billion. Larry Page and Sergey Brin both 41 of Google are worth $31.7 billion and 30 billion respectively. George Eastman had a net worth of $95 million in 1932 when he committed suicide with his famous note, “My work is done – Why wait? GE.” He was worth at the time about $26.8 billion in today’s dollars. Similar net worths, but that is where the similarities end. George Eastman invented, built, and created the infrastructure to create real things. Zuckerburg, Page, and Brin are simple Ad Men and Information Brokers, in other words, Grifters. Eastman created what he needed from scratch, the only thing he depended upon was maybe the reliability of the US postal service which could justifiably be depended upon as it is required my the US Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Clause). Zuckerburg et al. can only exist because of a vast amount of past and present infrastructure which they had no involvement in creating and or maintaining. Without electrical power there is no Facebook or Google. If Eastman could not get reliable electrical power for one of his plants, he would simply build a power plant himself! But most importantly beyond all the tremendous advancements in technology Eastman and his companies produced, he created an avenue for the common man to attain a comfortable middle class life working in one of his facilities. This in itself provided the important bedrock upon which the prosperity of this country has rested for much of the 20th century. Zuckerburg et al. provide no such foundation and it can be argued that their actions actually undermine the current foundations present. What does this have to do with Photokina 2014, please bear with me and read on.
It cannot be argued that the fall of Kodak as reflected by its tiny booth at Photokina 2014 was not the fault of gross mismanagement at this companies top. History shows this to be true, but this far from tells the whole story. It was also stated in the coverage of Photokina 2014 how well Fuji and Leica are doing reflected in their larges displays at the exhibition. First and foremost we must remember that Fuji and Leica are not US companies and this makes a huge difference as the fall of Kodak can be traced to the corporate outlook and economic pressures unique to the US as it can to anything else. Please allow me to elaborate.
Soon after I started my career in chemical engineering in 1983 I noticed a distinct fall in the status and need for engineers in America (I am not talking “software engineers” which are actually computer programers, I am talking about chemical, electrical, structural, civil, mechanical, nuclear, petroleum engineers). It was not until a number of years later and some historical research, something I had not time to do while starting my career and raising a family, that I came to a better understanding what was actually happening here. It all started with the evolution in the 1980’s of the “Greed is Good” outlook that culminated in the Savings and Loan Crisis perpetrated by Michael Milken and his ilk that almost brought this country to its knees. One of the hidden to the general public results of this was its disastrous effects on major manufacturing companies. Even companies not directly threatened by the Savings and Loan sharks felt the effects. These companies, some of which had spent 50 or even 100 years building up a “fully integrated” production capability quickly changed their mindset. Faced with the potential of a hostile takeover and selected sell-off of their once integrated components for short-term profits (or to simply pay off loans taken to purchase the firm in the first place) these once powerful firms entered into this self-destructive behavior on their own. To do so these companies transferred their leadership into the hands of managers of that mindset. The result was off-shoring and other decisions that created short-term gains to satisfy Wall Street while decimating these companies’ long-term viability. Frankly in addition to this these managers were so short-sighted that they simply made horrible business decisions like those made by Kodak.
These actions corresponded with and assisted in the “financialization” of the American economy (see: http://www.63alfred.com/whomakesit/index.htm) that has steadily increased since the 1970s reaching a point in about 1986 when the percent of GDP in the US involved with Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, Rental, and Leasing exceed that of Manufacturing. By the late 2000s the financial sector of our economy, as a percent of GDP, had reached about 21% while that associated with manufacturing has fallen to about 11%. I would contest that the small Kodak booth at Photokina 2014 was inevitable due to the evolution of economic pressures on businesses that has been allowed to fester in the US.
Fuji and Leica are Japanese and German companies respectively and although the Japanese economy may not have fully recovered from its downturn in the 1990s these counties still have a far different outlook on how the government, the economy, and companies interact. Because of what residents in Japan and Germany expect from their companies and how their respective governments respond to these public expectations, the pressures on these companies are much different and I would contest that this allows them to concentrate far more on the long-term viability of their operations than the short-term return of their shareholders. And that is why their booths at Photokina 2014 were so much larger that than of Kodak’s.
This is important because as we rely more and more in the US on an economy supported by the Facebook’s and the Google’s we are concentrating on short-term goals that really do not create lasting wealth in our economy and cannot sustain a middle class existence for the majority of our population.
Ironically, my old fashion, 20 year old 35mm film camera (with Kodak Ektar 100 film) can still take pictures that have a higher resolving capability than almost all current cell phone cameras (since cell phone cameras are the main mode of image capturing these days). Also my 30 year old medium format camera (with the same film) can easily exceed the resolving capabilities of most current digital SLRs and even approaches that of digital cameras costing many thousands or tens of thousands of dollars (http://63alfred.smugmug.com/Shootingfilm/Film/Film-vs-Digital/i-RtHFfc6/A). Again it seems that even as individuals we have abandoned quality for quantity, and long term durability for short term gratification.
-
Google ?
They stole the ad industry from the ad industry.. ;D
The real problem with companies like Google is they don't pay any tax.
So they come here and suck up all the ad revenue, but make no contribution to the society that supports them.
Apple is the same.
If I were in charge of Australia (you should thank your respective gods, or lack of, that I'm not :D) I would simply hit them with percentage of turnover tax and if they didn't like it - see you later.. 8)
Anyway, photography has always been an international business and IMHO, if Fuji are doing it well and hoovering up some sales over some American or German brand - good luck to them.
I say that, but seeing 'made in China' on a Nikon lens still gives me the shits. ;)
-
Thanks for your interesting perspective.
Your points are well made - but I think you should give more credit to the Facebook/Google people. Did Kodak not achieve so much because they made access to photography for the mass population? Facebook makes the sharing and dissemination of that photography possible in a previously unseen way. I'm not saying they invented it or are unique. But the mass population seem to get huge pleasure from uploading and sharing their family pictures this way. These people are successful because they fulfill a need - so in that way Kodak and Facebook are similar.
I agree they should all pay a lot more tax though.....
Jim
-
I agree with your views and comments, Alfred, David, Jim. I may now like some of the changes and developments which have taken place in recent years, but I can't can't stop changes. Maybe I should even try - it will only lead to frustation. I try to deal with changes I don't consider positive by trying not to participate.
My father enjoyed Oldsmobiles for over two decades. I bought and was really pleased with my Gremlin and AMX. Just for fun, I took some (slide film) shots with my old Retina SLR and Schneider lenses some years back. Excellent results!! I was any Army Brat and over the past years I visited some cities, where my father had been stationed. Crailsheim: post is gone, only some quarters remains; Robinson Barracks, Stuttgart: densely packed German homes where the PX and commissary once stood; Berlin: post is gone, housing remains. I now live in former US consulate members' quarters in Bonn. Almost like the old days, but the language around me is wrong, the car license plates aren't green, ... At times, I think bad and it saddens me, that so much has changed - often not for the better.
I recently completed an old-fashion style photo album of a friend's wedding. Actually pasted the photos in the album with adhesive corners. That was fun!! And I'll begin with a scrap book for myself soon (old fashion style).
Change will never cease. I now find it easier to deal with it, since I can easily ignore some of it. That works for me. A shame, that those changes Alfred wrote about impact millions of people and whole countries.
-
And those new and inventive American companies making lots of investment dollars in American stock portfolios are bad because...?
Dollars have always voted. Kodak was making piles of money off chemicals and other film-related products and lacked the foresightedness that investors had. That they've survived this long is remarkable. A small convention footprint is still a footprint.
-
The OP blames business for the current economic landscape when the problem is government policies including the federal reserve. People and business go where the money is. They establish business goals that complement government action. When the government raises taxes here, business flees to other countries. Likewise, foreign companies are not drawn to invest in America because taxes elsewhere are lower. The OP is blaming the victim of public policies. If America was smart. we'd drop all taxes for any foreign company that wishes to invest in America. We'll make-up the "lost" business taxes from the millions of new jobs created for those businesses in the form of additional payroll taxes from the newly hired. And think of all the new jobs there will be available for those currently out of work? Low or no taxes are good for business and low unemployment.
When the fed prints money to support government spending deficits, and the government taxes some industries and favors some over others, it distorts the marketplace. Bubbles are created like we had in real estate and the stock market recently. It happened a couple of decades ago with the Savings and Loan crisis when government tax policy induced people to build strip malls where they weren't required and stayed empty just for the tax write-offs. If the government creates a square economic hole, round companies will become square to fit in. Business create products based on distorted government economic practices instead of following the supply and demand of the marketplace.
Of course, business on their own create issues for themselves regardless of government practices. That has always happened and will continue to happen. So what's the OP's point on this? Should we ban digital and bring back film? Ban cars and bring back horse and buggies and buggy whips? Do away with the internet and eBooks, Facebook, Google so newspapers and libraries can do better. Is the New York Times the next Kodak? Oh, do you know I met my current wife of 21 years from a personal ad in The New York Magazine? They didn't have a list of likes and dislikes as eHarmony on the internet does. Oh, I also still shoot with film as well as digital.
-
I agree with the OP as far as short-term vs. long-term outlook is concerned. We humans aren't very good at long-term thinking or planning regardless of the context, but in the US the ubiquity of venture capital further encourages a short-term mentality. Put your money down, maximize profits now, then get out. What happens to companies after you leave? Hey, their problem…we're on to the next thing. IMO this is not a healthy way to go about it if you value a sane degree of corporate/economic/societal stability.
-Dave-
-
Dave, I agree.
Greed is out of control.
the top 1% own almost half the worlds wealth now.
The pay gap between CEO and their average worker is through the roof.
That same worker is taxed every pay, without fail while taxes for the mega rich are going down if they're payed at all.
Solution for the hungry ?
Eat a baby boomer.. ;)
That is all comrades.. ;D
-
That same worker is taxed every pay, without fail while taxes for the mega rich are going down if they're payed at all.
comrade Bill (Gates)
http://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/Why-Inequality-Matters-Capital-in-21st-Century-Review
suggests to tax consumption, not wealth... nice idea, I like it - when consumption represents 100% of what poor get and only may be 0.00001% of what he gets :D ... even he spins that as "a progressive tax on consumption" (not even thinking about technicalities of implementing such scheme - which shall benefits companies ripping off tax payers money in big federal/state IT wasteprojects)
-
The concept of taxing consumption is that it leaves the money (savings) not being consumed by either folks like me and you or the mega rich to be invested as capital. When their money or yours is invested in a company or let's say a 401K that invests in corporate stocks and bonds, that money is used to expand existing and create new businesses. That creates jobs and wealth for everyone. This non-consuming savings are dollars and dollar bills cannot be eaten. It has to be exchange for a product. At that point, tax the consumption. Savings and investments are just a number in a bank book or investment portfolio. That money has no hard value until it's exchanged and consumed.
If we tax savings and investments before they are used or during, we decrease investments and the resulting business and jobs those investments will create.
-
If we tax savings and investments before they are used or during, we decrease investments and the resulting business and jobs those investments will create.
nobody is taxing your principal only your gains, etc... and where do you think taxes are spent - they also spent to create some jobs :-) ... plus taxing consumption hits poor disproportionally, because again - they spent 100% of what they get to consume, I do not... so I have nothing against non taxing goods or services that those folks are getting so that they can consume more (= that way also stimulating the businesses) or may be some of them can save something too ... you (as Bill) want to in fact increase the disparity further by increasing your non taxed wealth, that's understandable (about wealth)...
-
The rich and people like you and me re-invest principals and gains. So that capital including the gains add to investments and growth of businesses and jobs. It doesn't matter if it's called principals or gains. The owner of those investments cannot take advantage of them until he sells the investment and consumes its value. Tax his consumption at that point. But leave the investments alone, gains as well as principal-they help everyone. Regarding those that are poor, tax rebates could be set up to offset the consumption tax for these people. In that way, consumption tax won't be regressive.
By the way, the non-rich have advantages of IRA's and retirement funds that can be saved and invested with no income tax being taken out until they cash out in retirement. It's really the same premise I'm suggesting for all investments.
Finally, the government and taxes don't create jobs. That's a myth. That's because they don't create anything that isn't taken from someone else in the form of taxes. All the government does is spend money for one group of people or industry that were taken from people and business elsewhere. If the government takes $1000 more from me in taxes and spends it somewhere else, they may have helped the other place but they hurt the place where I lived because I had $1000 less to spend here. You only see the jobs the government advertised as creating. What you don't see are the jobs that weren't created or lost elsewhere because of the government's transfer of money to the other place.
-
The rich and people like you and me re-invest principals and gains.
principal is already invested, gains are and while I like to pay less I consider that if we need taxes for something then it's fair to tax my gains rather then what minimum wage worker is buying...
By the way, the non-rich have advantages of IRA's and retirement funds that can be saved and invested with no income tax being taken out until they cash out in retirement. It's really the same premise I'm suggesting for all investments.
dear, you play with words... there are non rich and then there are people on a minimum wage... yes, they do have the right to contribute to IRA... and you have the right to be elected the POTUS... now what is the probability of that happening ;D ... they also can all be as rich as Buffet and Gates together... indeed ;D
Finally, the government and taxes don't create jobs. That's a myth.
I suggest you to google for the number of federal/state/municipal employees (including things like armed forces, etc).
That's because they don't create anything that isn't taken from someone else in the form of taxes.
right, but you still need somebody to do some of what they are doing... otherwise some prols come and kill you.
All the government does is spend money for one group of people or industry that were taken from people and business elsewhere.
and I consider it right to take those (whatever has to be taken - now we can discuss how to reduce excesses like funding Israel/Egypt, etc) money from wealth, not from consumption... unless there is some solution for poor to get that consumption tax back (again technicalities of implementing are costly).
-
nobody is taxing your principal only your gains, etc... and where do you think taxes are spent - they also spent to create some jobs :-) ... plus taxing consumption hits poor disproportionally, because again - they spent 100% of what they get to consume, I do not... so I have nothing against non taxing goods or services that those folks are getting so that they can consume more (= that way also stimulating the businesses) or may be some of them can save something too ... you (as Bill) want to in fact increase the disparity further by increasing your non taxed wealth, that's understandable (about wealth)...
+1
-
From the horse's mouth:
Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen on Friday said (http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/10/17/usa-fed-yellen-idINKCN0I620620141017) the growth of economic inequality in the United States was not in keeping with American values
Quotes relevant to a couple of issues raised in this thread:
Yellen in her data-heavy speech went far down a prescriptive road, saying public spending can narrow gaps in education quality and help level the economic playing field.
"income and wealth inequality are near their highest levels in the past hundred years, much higher than the average during that time span and probably higher than for much of American history before then."
Which raises the question: was America less capitalist before? Or, in other words, was America more "socialist" in the past than today?
-
Hi,
My take is that Kodak missed the train.
Kodak's motto was "You press the button, we do the rest", but with the digital revolution, there is very little and a very different rest.
Kodak made inroads in the new era, Photo CD was a great example, but Photo CD missed the fact that computers and the net was the new media.
One issue with Kodak was really that they made mediocrity a goal, PhotoCD for instance cropped images at will. Kodak could have made a major step forward, but they failed. Did they fail to see the future? Or did they try to shield their main market from the wave of change? I don't know! But they failed…
With Fuji, I think it is a bit different. I don't think Fuji survived on photography alone, diversification played a major role. I guess Fuji found the markets that were growing and successfully established itself in those markets.
Best regards
Erik
-
The largest problem, at least in my country (Canada), is that government has gotten too large and is slowing down the economy because it needs too much tax revenue to feed itself.
Or, rather, "itselves". We have a federal system, which means we have a federal Dept. of the Environment. Well, that might be a good thing. Somebody ought to be looking after the environment. But each province also has a Dept. of the Environment. My City Council's most active committee is an Environment Committee, and they're forever flying themselves off to far-flung places to find out how other cities handle The Environment.
All three levels of government are really good at coming up with reams of regulations to follow. When they don't expropriate industries completely (airports) or partially (delivering packages), the various governments regulate things within an inch of insanity--sometimes beyond, if the regulations contradict each other.
My little city can't stop congratulating itself on our waste disposal system. We don't just throw everything in a hole, oh no! We recycle what we can. Organics, glass, cardboard/paper. The poor suckers who live here have to sort everything, at the risk of being fined for non-compliance, but are told they're helping The Environment. So far so good (minus the fines), except somebody passed a regulation that says any given truck can only pick up one kind of waste... so we went from one set of diesel-belching garbage trucks to well, four (waste, organics, glass, cardboard/paper)--lots of which show up back the facility half-empty. Oh and as it turns out the organics aren't sufficiently clean, so we're spending buckets of cash to get get the end product up to different provincial and national standards. Oh, and the glass isn't recycled here exactly, we need to truck it out in one of those diesel things, and... ah well. But the government "created" all those jobs for the drivers of the trucks, and the enforcement officials, and so on--or so we're told.
It's just one example. I've ranted about the health system (and lack of a parallel system) in another thread. I could go on. If the government did less, and especially if it regulated less, people and businesses could do much more.
-
Kodak could have made a major step forward, but they failed. Did they fail to see the future? Or did they try to shield their main market from the wave of change? I don't know! But they failed…
they failed to diversify - there were so many markets that still alive today - printers, scanners, medical imaging, software, sensors, etc, etc... even cameras... the fact that they did not survive except as a brand name surely says that management failed... even if their sensor business still lived for a little longer as a Truesense Imaging.. and was now grabbed by On Semi = http://www.onsemi.com/site/pdf/ON-Semiconductor-Corporate-History.pdf
-
The largest problem, at least in my country (Canada), is that government has gotten too large and is slowing down the economy...
And yet, Canadian middle class is overtaking American middle class.
...If the government did less, and especially if it regulated less, people and businesses could do much more.
If we'd let "people and businesses" regulate themselves, we would still have slavery, child labor, 16-hour workdays, etc.
-
Hi,
I don't think it is the whole truth, but there is something to it…
Best regards
Erik
If we'd let "people and businesses" regulate themselves, we would still have slavery, child labor, 16-hour workdays, etc.
-
From the horse's mouth:
Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen on Friday said the growth of economic inequality in the United States was not in keeping with American values
Quotes relevant to a couple of issues raised in this thread:
Quote
Yellen in her data-heavy speech went far down a prescriptive road, saying public spending can narrow gaps in education quality and help level the economic playing field.
Quote
"income and wealth inequality are near their highest levels in the past hundred years, much higher than the average during that time span and probably higher than for much of American history before then."
Which raises the question: was America less capitalist before? Or, in other words, was America more "socialist" in the past than today?
First off, I didn’t know that Chairwoman Yellen was getting paid by us to be a social philosopher and education czar. I thought her job was to provide sound monetary policy regarding American dollars. I also didn't know it was the Fed chair's business to decide America social policy, how we spend our money and where it should be spent. She was elected to nothing. The people decide how we spend our money through our representatives in Congress. Who is she to decide on fiscal policies? The Constitution requires Congress to do that. She should not be using the Fed to institute her pet social policy beliefs regardless of how noble they may or may not be. It's none of her business. It's not what we're paying for her to do.
Congress should impeach and fire her for violating the Constitution in this way. But they won’t do that, neither the Democrats or the Republicans, because she is printing money to cover the deficits and debt that Congress is creating rather than increasing taxes to cover spending. Of course, senators and congressmen don't want to increase taxes because they want to be re-elected. So the insidious relationship between Congress and the Fed continues. Money is inflated by Yellen's Fed to cover debt. The value of our savings and salaries are diminished causing us all to be poorer than we use to be. THAT is the reason there is a larger gap between rich and poor. While the rich can pay off their debt with ever cheaper dollars, the poor and middle class are being squeezed by ever higher taxation (Federal, State, and Local), inflation, and stagnant wages.
-
First off, I didn’t know...
Now you know... that's why I posted it, for education purposes ;)
... a social philosopher and education czar. I thought her job was to provide sound monetary policy regarding American dollars. I also didn't know it was the Fed chair's business to decide America social policy, how we spend our money and where it should be spent. She was elected to nothing. The people decide how we spend our money through our representatives in Congress. Who is she to decide on fiscal policies? The Constitution requires Congress to do that. She should not be using the Fed to institute her pet social policy beliefs regardless of how noble they may or may not be. It's none of her business. It's not what we're paying for her to do.
One of many definitions of "sound monetary policy" (from Wikipedia - emphasis mine):
Monetary policy is the process by which the monetary authority of a country controls the supply of money, often targeting a rate of interest for the purpose of promoting economic growth and stability.[1][2] The official goals usually include relatively stable prices and low unemployment.
In other words, Yellen is only doing her job. We have reached a point in which economic inequality does impact economic growth, stability and employment, and she is simply pointing that out and warning that monetary policy can not solve it all alone.
-
But her policies of printing to pay for deficit spending and low interest rates are only creating economic growth for the rich and hurting the poor and middle class. That's exactly opposite what you and she claim you want to do to help the non-rich.
-
And yet, Canadian middle class is overtaking American middle class.
Right, Slobodan. And that's because the American government has gotten a lot larger than the Canadian government and is not only slowing down the economy, it's doing its best to bring the economy to a screeching halt.
-
If we'd let "people and businesses" regulate themselves, we would still have slavery, child labor, 16-hour workdays, etc.
+1
Big business feeds on greed; ethics and morals get in the way, which is why we have the global problems we have - everything from the government-supported military-industrial complex feeding into the billions spent on the military to the fossil fuel empires' fight against global climate change to industrial farming taking over small-holdings and family farms so they can sow their GMO seeds. Everything is done in the name of perceived efficiency, economy and progress completely ignoring the long term effects on people, society and the rocket ship Earth we live on.
Duh - it's all gonna run out one day, but long before that happens the wealthy who can still afford the scarce resources will have built walls to keep out those who can't. In fact some of those walls are already in place - think gated communities, the US-Mexico border and Palestine for starters.
Funny how "the West" worked tirelessly for decades to pull down the walls that kept people in (the Iron Curtain), only to erect walls to keep the unwanted out. Then, they turned around and gave all the business to a country - China - that actively represses their people, unless they are wealthy. Hmmmm, sounds like the direction America is headed...
-
Funny how "the West" worked tirelessly for decades to pull down the walls that kept people in (the Iron Curtain), only to erect walls to keep the unwanted out. Then, they turned around and gave all the business to a country - China - that actively represses their people, unless they are wealthy. Hmmmm, sounds like the direction America is headed...
Who is "they"? We the people are "they". Business only responds to supply and demand. We, the public, you and me, demand cheaper products. So business complies by producing overseas to reduce the cost. So who's really greedy. Isn't the public really the greedy ones demanding cheaper products made overseas rather than spending more of their hard-earned dollars on more expensive, but similar products made in America? Shouldn't "we" take responsibility for our actions rather than blaming others like business who fulfill our wishes?
-
... Big business feeds on greed... Then, they turned around and gave all the business to a country ...
[Swicthing to Isaac mode, i.e;, quoting ;)]
Lenin: "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them."
-
Who is "they"? We the people are "they". Business only responds to supply and demand. We, the public, you and me, demand cheaper products. So business complies by producing overseas to reduce the cost. So who's really greedy. Isn't the public really the greedy ones demanding cheaper products made overseas rather than spending more of their hard-earned dollars on more expensive, but similar products made in America? Shouldn't "we" take responsibility for our actions rather than blaming others like business who fulfill our wishes?
Right, Alan. "We" certainly should take responsibility for our actions rather than blaming others who fulfill our wishes," but, instead, we reelect an administration that trashes our economy in order to give "free stuff" to its voters. In the end, we, the people, always get the government we deserve.
-
"Red" China is Communist in name only. They left that past behind them. Chinese billionaires abound including much of the leaders. Actually, China makes the rope that they sell to us. What a switcheroo.
-
Who is "they"? We the people are "they". Business only responds to supply and demand. We, the public, you and me, demand cheaper products. So business complies by producing overseas to reduce the cost. So who's really greedy. Isn't the public really the greedy ones demanding cheaper products made overseas rather than spending more of their hard-earned dollars on more expensive, but similar products made in America? Shouldn't "we" take responsibility for our actions rather than blaming others like business who fulfill our wishes?
I take full responsibility for my actions, but not for those of the masses, who, as asses, simply respond to the artificially-created demand through advertising and the need to appear to be someone whom they are not. Despite our best attempts at education, people respond, almost as automatons, to these vices. I have never responded to the Wal-Mart ethic. Don't lump me in with that crowd!
We now have an economy that is absolutely dependent on consumption for the sake of consumption (for most people, shopping is now a hobby, and no longer a necessity) just when the world most needs a massive re-fit away from this mentality. If all our environmentally-aware efforts succeed, the current economy will plummet, not unlike petroleum prices are now doing and for exactly the same reasons: over-supply at the same time as reduced demand. We had better start building a different economy now so that the transition won't be as traumatic as it could be.
-
Right, Alan. "We" certainly should take responsibility for our actions rather than blaming others who fulfill our wishes," but, instead, we reelect an administration that trashes our economy in order to give "free stuff" to its voters. In the end, we, the people, always get the government we deserve.
Well, of course. They better not touch my tax deductions for my mortgage interest payments and local property taxes, free medical care, etc. Oh, wait a minute. Those aren't benefits for greedy businesses. When I lived in a rental, I always complained about those tax wrote-offs for home owners. But now that I'm landed gentry, nobody better touch them!
Funny thing. I just moved to a community in NJ where I have neighbor with 10 or 15 acres that has one cow and two chickens along with the house he lives in. I couldn't understand why anyone would do that until someone told me they a get tax deduction for the property and home because they are considered a farm.
-
I take full responsibility for my actions, but not for those of the masses, who, as asses, simply respond to the artificially-created demand through advertising and the need to appear to be someone whom they are not. Despite our best attempts at education, people respond, almost as automatons, to these vices. I have never responded to the Wal-Mart ethic. Don't lump me in with that crowd!
We now have an economy that is absolutely dependent on consumption for the sake of consumption (for most people, shopping is now a hobby, and no longer a necessity) just when the world most needs a massive re-fit away from this mentality. If all our environmentally-aware efforts succeed, the current economy will plummet, not unlike petroleum prices are now doing and for exactly the same reasons: over-supply at the same time as reduced demand. We had better start building a different economy now so that the transition won't be as traumatic as it could be.
People who shop in Walmart are folks who generally don't buy stuff to just buy stuff. There are many people struggling to make ends meet for necessities to take care of their families; people who have to work two jobs just to make ends meet. You are very cavalier to tell people they shouldn't buy the things they need to support their children and take care of them? Lower prices for them means survival.
-
Hear, hear.
-
Dear me, it's troubling to see people arguing for bigger government and more government regulation. Nearly everywhere we tried that (Soviet Union, Mao's China, much of S. America) it's failed. On occasion it succeeds (say, Norway) success is a transient thing based on an unusual factor (in Norway's case, oil).
Just as Kodak got complacent, much of America is becoming complacent as the government gets larger and larger, destroying more and more of the economy to feed itself. Education is an important issue--far too important, I claim, to have at least three levels of government (county, state, national) gorging at the the trough. And yet, there it is. (Canada's standardized test scores are a bit higher, but the overall situation isn't much better.)
By the time people figure it out, it'll be too late. Many of us won't live long enough to have to worry about it for ourselves. Just as well for me, but I wonder how much our descendants are going to enjoy the next global dynasty. There's only one religion growing in this world. It starts with an "I". I'm not sure who pointed it out first, but it ends with a "SLAM".
-
... On occasion it succeeds (say, Norway) success is a transient thing based on an unusual factor (in Norway's case, oil)...
For the record, it is not just "unusual factor" Norway, but the whole Scandinavia and Finland. They happen to have a high standard of living, the best education in the world, and also managed to have the happiest people on Earth and best quality of life. And yes, they also happen to have the highest level of government involvement and highest taxation.
-
Yes,
And that has not been without bad effects. That system failed in Sweden 1995, where we had a great financial crisis. For a short time interests rates went to 500%. But, we survived that crisis. Now Sweden is much more like traditional west European market economy. Taxes are somewhat lower.
We have big problems with education and health care, to an extent probably because of the change 1995 when the austerity measures applied were severe. But still the country does well, and seems to do well in the international ratings, too.
Regarding the other nordic countries, Norway is doing well on it's oil, Danmark has always been thriving. Denmark has always been strong on innovation, companies like Ortofon, B&O, Imacon and Phase One. Finland was on the forefront of change, quite successfully.
The financial crisis hit Iceland very hard, but I also think they do a decent recovery.
One thing I feel in common in these countries is that people feel they share a responsibility.
Best regards
Erik
… And yes, they also happen to have the highest level of government involvement and highest taxation.
-
...One thing I feel in common in these countries is that people feel they share a responsibility.
Yes.
Compare that with the US, where the sheer disdain for those less fortunate than us is quite staggering. Where turning self-interest into selfish-interest has become an art form, a religion in itself, and a political battle cry.
-
Ah, yes! You must be talking about Enron, Tesla, and the other current and recent rent-seekers. For them selfish-interest has become an art form, a religion in itself, and a political battle cry.
-
Just as Kodak got complacent, much of America is becoming complacent as the government gets larger and larger, destroying more and more of the economy to feed itself.
Just to get things back on track regarding photography, I don't think Kodak's biggest problem was complacency as much as it was arrogance and being totally and completely unprepared for the digital revolution. Kodak had no clue that it was going to happens so darn fast.
Kodak literally owned the digital industry in the late 80's and early 90's but other companies advanced digital capture and image processing so fast that Kodak couldn't react in time. Use of film fell so fast that Kodak couldn't ramp up their digital offerings fast enough. Kodak still has tons of IP that makes it still valuable but their patent applications also fell off rapidly as they cut way back on R&D.
Kodak's digital downfall really was precipitated when Nikon left the Kodak/Nikon/Canon triad where Kodak made the chips and Nikon and Canon made the cameras. Canon started making their own chips and Nikon developed a partnership with Sony for their chips.
That's not to say Kodak didn't screw up a lot in other areas...I feel bad for the legions of imaging scientists and technical research people in Rochester that lost their jobs...
-
Hi,
For me it was the Photo CD that was a real clue. Photo CD was a great invention, but Kodak presented it as a plaything to show arbitrarily clipped images on television.
For me, Photo CD was the entry to the digital revolution, but I had only a single one made, because I felt it was to limited. But, Photo CD made me go into scanning and image processing.
Best regards
Erik
Just to get things back on track regarding photography, I don't think Kodak's biggest problem was complacency as much as it was arrogance and being totally and completely unprepared for the digital revolution. Kodak had no clue that it was going to happens so darn fast.
Kodak literally owned the digital industry in the late 80's and early 90's but other companies advanced digital capture and image processing so fast that Kodak couldn't react in time. Use of film fell so fast that Kodak couldn't ramp up their digital offerings fast enough. Kodak still has tons of IP that makes it still valuable but their patent applications also fell off rapidly as they cut way back on R&D.
Kodak's digital downfall really was precipitated when Nikon left the Kodak/Nikon/Canon triad where Kodak made the chips and Nikon and Canon made the cameras. Canon started making their own chips and Nikon developed a partnership with Sony for their chips.
That's not to say Kodak didn't screw up a lot in other areas...I feel bad for the legions of imaging scientists and technical research people in Rochester that lost their jobs...
-
Kodak stuck its head in the sand because it had a huge industry in film to protect. Although they discovered digital imaging and had all the patents, they really wished digital would just go away.
-
Ah, yes! You must be talking about Enron, Tesla, and the other current and recent rent-seekers...
Huh!?
-
Come on, Slobodan, you, of all people, must know what rent-seeking is. It's a standard term in economics. You can check it out here: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentSeeking.html
-
My "huh!?" was meant as "what that has to do with Enron, Tesla or what I was talking about?" Especially what I was talking about.
-
For me it was the Photo CD that was a real clue. Photo CD was a great invention, but Kodak presented it as a plaything to show arbitrarily clipped images on television.
For me, Photo CD was the entry to the digital revolution, but I had only a single one made, because I felt it was too limited. But, Photo CD made me go into scanning and image processing.
I was already scanning & processing when Photo CD came along, but for a brief time I hoped it would be a superior solution re. scanning. My first disc relieved me of that hope. :-\ Kodak might've done very well in the electronic era if they'd taken the tech and its capabilities more seriously.
– – –
IMO trying to understand the genuine complexities of human decision making is more productive than political/dogmatic sloganeering. The folks at Kodak made many bad decisions. How and why? No ideological recitation is capable of answering these questions.
-Dave-
-
... The folks at Kodak made many bad decisions. How and why?..
From my perspective (I spent about two years with them), several factors. One would be: being an old company, there was a lot of fossilized bureaucracy. Then short-termism: obsession with quarterly results and "my" bonus - i.e., hasty decisions were made that look good in one quarter and got that manager a bonus for that quarter (or year-end), while consequences would be felt in the next period(s). By the time the mistake shows up, the manager might have been rotated through several other departments - there was an obsession with inter-departmental rotation, the consequence of which was that a lot of inexperienced and unqualified people got to manage things they did not fully understand. Again, being an old company, there was a lot of the "old boy club" mentality, "that's the way we do things at Kodak."
The thing that surprised me the most was that I was the only one among the management with a decent understanding of... wait... photography. Almost all others were typical salesmen and marketeers, whose knowledge of photography did not exceed the disposable cameras Kodak was peddling at the time. I am, of course, not talking about research and development departments. So, when I told my boss, a country manager (an American), back in 1999 that digital would take over in five years, he brushed it off as a distant future. Had he and others at his level (pretty high in Kodak's hierarchy) had a bit more advanced understanding of photography, he would have seen the same thing I did. Then again, when you are obsessed with this quarter results only, you develop a myopic view of the future, and can't see even the next quarter, let alone the next five years.
-
My father was a foreman at Kodak's Chicago film processing lab for 40+years. During that time Kodak was way ahead in cutting edge technology. In the 1940s they developed "V" mail for the transmittal of WWII GI letters to and from Europe and the Pacific war zones. Due to its bulk, it was impossible to ship regular mail back and forth across the oceans without displacing war materiel. So Kodak shot copies of the letters onto 16 mm negative film, then flew the much more compact 16mm film reels to Kodak mini-labs where each letter was printed then delivered to the GIs by the military.
I believe by the 1950s the Kodak labs began to computerize their order processing, using giant tube-powered computers in special air conditioned rooms. These were mammoth punch-card-driven computers than kept track of thousands of orders per day from Walgreens and other retailers across the U.S. I think they were among the first companies to take advantage of computers for day-to-day operations.
As a budding amateur photographer in 1982 I was excited to be one of the first to buy the new Kodak Disk camera and one of the first to be massively disappointed with its poor quality. Although he never said so, I know my father was mortified with the results from that camera and never shot more than a few "disks" before going back to his 35mm. Many of Kodak's missteps began around that era. Others have recounted the history of mismanagement concerning the digital technology that they squandered and the trends toward digital that they misread.
Kodak. RIP.
-
I think a lot of "big" companies have learned from their mistakes, sometimes too late however.
You can add SONY to the list. Think back to the BETA vs VHS time. Clearly, at the time, BETA was a far better system but SONY was too pigheaded to let others use BETA and the VHS camp did a much better marketing job and went to a number of makers. In the end SONY too had to sign on for VHS.
Martin