🚀 go-pugleaf

Anonymous responds to Robert Ford:

If it weren't for detractors and instigators like you, this
thread would have reached its logical retirement days ago.

You and the others must be adherents to the "Protocols of
the Elders of Zion" what with all the attempted "wearing out"
you are trying to impose upon me.

Anyway...

In article <32cd90e3...@news.demon.co.uk>,
rob...@fordrjk.demon.co.uk (Robert Ford) wrote:

> But you still haven't said what competitiveness is...

OK, in the economic arena, it is successfully entering a
market by selling a product or service that is accepted
well by the targeted customer base while having a profitable
endeavor and while adhering to the highest standards
of quality, reliability, and ethics.  Internally (that
is, within the organization) competitiveness involves
the leadership, coordination, and talent to profitably
produce the products or services to be sold while not
alienating, exploiting, or cheating the workers in any way.

Competitiveness also means holding one's own (i.e.
market share) in the face of market challenges, that is,
other players in the same market who wish to prevail over
your efforts.

Of course, more can be said about competitiveness, but
posting volumes to USENET is not my objective.


> A cheap jibe - unworthy of your undoubted inteligence. Just say why
> women can't succeed in such a venture just as well as men.

I never intimated that women can't succeed in any venture as well
as men.  In fact, I said that women are generally good at launching
enterprises.  What I did state is that if women are so good, why
do they need protections which are afforded by law?

Also, at one point in the past, I stressed that the social dynamics
of a woman owning an enterprise and answering to the marketplace
are very different from the social dynamics of a woman working
for someone else while under the protection of the equal employment
opportunity laws.


> The point is . . .? You said that men are, by nature, better able to
> compete, and quoted a boxing example. I point out a contradiction to
> your example and you say I'm out of sync. I suppose if I pointed out
> David and Goliath that would be more suitable?

You missed the point of my example.  I WAS NOT TRYING TO SAY
THAT MEN MAKE BETTER BOXERS!

The point of my boxing example was to very narrowly demonstrate
that a more competitive boxer, by a just small margin, will
almost always prevail over the lesser competitor, as is the case
in economic competition.  Your example of Billie Jean King and
Bobby Riggs, while not contradicting the my original example,
took the minds of the readers on another tangent thereby
obfuscating the point that I was simply trying to make.


> They are rare because of the scarcity of top female managers. This is
> because prejudiced men don't appoint females to top positions - simply
> because they're female, not because of their ability.

The reason there is a scarcity of top female managers is because
as a general rule, females are NOT competitive as managers.

If you want specifics, please refer to a past USENET posting
entitled:  Females are This, That, and the Other Thing in
the Deja News archives: http://www.dejanews.com/forms/dnq.html


> Also, you can't really have it both ways.You said that the US is doing
> terribly because of equal opportunities, etc. How can this be, when
> the vast majority of your Congress is male?

Interesting you should bring this up.  This was just addressed
in another posting.

In article <1997010212...@mailmasher.com>,
<whos...@mailmasher.com> wrote:

 |: First-rate people hire first-rate people, second-rate
 |: people hire third-rate people.  This maxim applies to
 |: the electorate and its choice of politicians. 
 |: 
 |: Our politicians are little more than white, third-
 |: rate puppets of the people with the real power over
 |: this country.  If you know your scriptures, you would
 |: know that it is the Evil One who is in control of this
 |: world.

Also, I would like to stress that our current social norms
and framework are reducing everyone, including white male 
politicians, to a multway tie for last place.
 

Back to what Ford wrote:

> What you are seeing, same as here, (and I am regrettably forced to
> agree with you) is the effects of short-sighted policies regarding
> trade and multi-national companies. You, as we, have thought it
> beneficial (by you I mean the US Government, not yourself) that
> foreign companies build plants and factories which - in the short term
> - create employment. Our car industry has been all but destroyed as
> the result of such policies, just as yours is being. This applies also
> to consumer electronics, 'white goods' and many other industries. But
> this really cannot be laid at the door of the Government, rather the
> whole country is to blame. If you see a VCR in a shop for $299, and
> one next to it for $199, which are you going to buy, assuming they are
> functionally equivalent? Our motorcycle industry, which led the world,
> was killed by the Japs in the late 60s, early 70s. There were
> accusations of 'dumping' - selling at less that cost price, which were
> unfounded, since the truth was just that they could make better bikes
> than us, and cheaper.

This was all addressed in the Treatise on the Downward Wage
Equalizing Effects of Equal Employment Opportunity which is
available at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3982/
and in a past USENET posting, Re: FORCE, FRAUD AND THE CPI
by nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) dated 12/07/96.


> However, in the long term, all this will balance out.

NO, IT WON'T.  There is a section in the treatise which explains
how all countries involved in global competition will be equalized
right down to the economically lowest country in the world
(per WTO and GATT) just as equal employment opportunity is
downwardly equalizing wages to the perceived value of the least
preferred job candidate (within job category).


> The real winning is in product excellence, innovation and
> good design.

NOT SO.  Read the treatise!  Better yet, for now, take a look at
what is going on in global competition, and you will see that
the greatest emphasis is on price, price, and price competition
pretty much to exclusion of all else.


> But this still has nothing to do with male v female superiority,
> or otherwise.

I beg to differ.  Please refer to the past posting entitled
Females Lead US to Last Place also in the Deja News archives.

Robert Ford, I have my doubts that you are sincerely interested
in discussing or learning anything.  I feel that you are just
baiting me and attempting to wear me down.  Gee, and people call
me a troll!