Americas - The Blog

Agreed! Canada And USA is an example to people who says that multiethinic countries cannot work! A good lesson! Our continent is made up by all races and belongs to everyone despite their skin color….

I’d offer that Canada is at least as diverse as Brazil and/or the US….we’ve been studying Brazil for years up here in schools BECAUSE of this comparitive diversity….

Nice try. Keep it up check out esteembpo + com for social media marketing. uiikj

Please now check out our new blogspot. Jeff has done a great job.
AlGoreForever(.)blogspot(.)com
Your youtubes should be on it.
Send your youtubes to our other account on youtube.
GodLovesJeffFisher
Have a blessed Sunday.
Mary Elizabeth Gore
Tipper
For more updates aways check out the youtube Jeff Fisher addresses the world and the reports of Tom Heneghan on myspace

maryelizabethtippergore gmail
presidentalbertarnoldgorejr gmail
gorefisherpeacemakers gmail
BransonetFisher yahoo

USA’s racial minorities are 8x higher. Brazil only has 9 major races… most of whom white.

Brazil is only really diverse between Western-Euros vs. S. American Blacks. Compared to USA’s White Euros, Hispanics, African-Americans, and Asians who make a higher proportion in politics and etc. then in Brazil.

Brazil is only diverse socially, in everything else it fails.

that’s possible they do a lot of aid work in Africa

My mom says there’s a lot of black people in China.

it’s destined to fail. It is the fatal flaw of humanity.

flex hours.. a good system if nobody abuses it.

Yes, we do! Also Brazil is home for the biggest japanese community outside Japan! Just USA is as diverse as Brazil…

The principle of using peer pressure is pretty sound. instead of wasting their own money on hiring supervisors and so on, the company relies on the workers themselves to keep an eye on their colleagues.

what a hot girl on the phone

i did not know there were chinese people in brazil

I apologise for assuming wrongly however people who usually defend something on the grounds that it ‘works’ usually beg the question in regards to the values underpinning the system. Various forms of socialism were made to work and achieve some egalitarian goals while still not being desirable. As for not being ‘ideological’, when people like Alex989Y spout nonsense its vital to put the other side of the arguement. Lest other get drawn to the dark side.Its about truth reached reasoned arguement.

Did I ever claim to be “quite exempt from any intellectual influence”? No. That is an assumption by you. I am, in fact, a socialist. I simply recognized that this is not socialism, or capitalism, PURELY. And for one to quote Keynes as above, I find it comical that you seem blind to the fact that while this may be capitalism in the strictest sense, it bears heavy socialist influence (there’s “intellectual influence” for you). My point is to stop being so ideological, that’s it.

“What ‘works’ is implicitly value laden. ‘Works’ works for what? There is no impartial standard from which to view.”

No, nor is there truly ever impartiality for anything. One is never above any and all influence. You should know that, since you are so into scrutinizing simple wording when you clearly understand the point. It “works” because the firm still stands, it accomplishes its goals, and the workers are happy with it. Are you really so daft as to need that spelled out for you??

What “works” is implicitly value laden. “Works” works for what? There is no impartial standard from which to view. As Keynes pointed out “Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist” or philosopher for that matter.
That is why ideas matter. Uncontested ideas today become common sense tomorrow.
If we do not challenge ideas then how many dangerous or just wrong ideas become accepted just by default?

I was speaking more in the abstract; my point was that we need to stop being so ideological. If it works, it works. That’s the end of it. Why fight over whether or not it fits your rigid ideology, or supports your narrow views? I suppose it’s simply a tendency of us humans to give everything a taxonomy, but why, when it only divides? When something like this helps your position, you say “Ah ha! Told you!” Then your opponents denounce it for that reason alone. It’s antithetical to progress.

It’s private ownership of the means of production, being operated for a profit. That by definition is capitalism.

I agree. But this is certainly not really capitalism, either. We have no fully capitalist nations, and very few fully socialist ones (which are, of course, dreadful nightmares.) Nearly every economy is mixed, but they may lean one way or the other. Some may see this Semco experiment as a socialistic shift, others maybe not. But I don’t think we should be so ideological about this. If it works and is good, great. I don’t see it as “cutting edge capitalism” or socialism, just a really good idea.

This isn’t socialism. You notice how nether the workers nor the government owns the company. The company isn’t compelled to do this. And the division of labour between risk taking capitalist and salaried workers remains. This IS a capitalist company. Simply introducing a innovitive incentive stucture doen’t change that fact.

Love this video and documentary!!!

What kind of company is this, or rather, what type of industry is this company in?

thank you from posting this, it was a great help from my project

Brilliant! It is the essence of captialism of ownership, responsibiltiy and reward.