[quote] hspder wrote:
No they’re not – they are found within the framework of intelligence. [/quote]
– See my other posts. Capitalism provides a framework of competition. The ethical business models I have described are created by optimizing the framework.
[quote] hspder wrote:
You’re distorting my statements. 50.000001% would constitute most. And the fact that a CEO is not lazy doesn’t mean his income is justified by his work; much less if you compare it to a minimum wage worker that might actually be producing more wealth. [/quote]
–I do not understand this. Why do you think a hard working ethical CEO shouldn’t be paid what he/she is worth? Everyone should be paid what they are worth. In what I’m describing, the min wage worker is performing a function that carries a min weight and is paid accordingly.
[quote]IagoMB wrote:
hspder wrote:
No they’re not – they are found within the framework of intelligence.
– See my other posts. Capitalism provides a framework of competition. The ethical business models I have described are created by optimizing the framework.[/quote]
I know. My point is that optimization requires a level of intelligence most people do not have!
[quote]IagoMB wrote:
hspder wrote:
You’re distorting my statements. 50.000001% would constitute most. And the fact that a CEO is not lazy doesn’t mean his income is justified by his work; much less if you compare it to a minimum wage worker that might actually be producing more wealth.
–I do not understand this. Why do you think a hard working ethical CEO shouldn’t be paid what he/she is worth? Everyone should be paid what they are worth. In what I’m describing, the min wage worker is performing a function that carries a min weight and is paid accordingly. [/quote]
I also believe everyone should be paid what they are worth. We agree on that.
Apparently were we disagree is if people are, indeed, being paid what they are worth.
You believe that most CEOs are worth their salaries; I believe they aren’t. I can’t possibly, in all honesty, believe that the CEOs in the Silicon Valley that fly around in private jets and are being paid in the hundreds of millions of dollars a year (besides their stock options which may be worth even more than that) are producing that much wealth, directly or indirectly. You just look at their company’s revenues (and I’m talking gross revenues, not bottom-line net income) and it just doesn’t make sense.
On the other hand, I can’t possibly belive that the farm workers that are now the backbone of California’s economical growth are really only creating $10/hour in wealth.
[quote]hspder wrote:
IagoMB wrote:
hspder wrote:
No they’re not – they are found within the framework of intelligence.
– See my other posts. Capitalism provides a framework of competition. The ethical business models I have described are created by optimizing the framework.
I know. My point is that optimization requires a level of intelligence most people do not have![/quote]
Which is why a level of intelligence is needed for a CEO. It requires a level of leadership most people do not have.
[quote]hspder wrote:
IagoMB wrote:
hspder wrote:
You’re distorting my statements. 50.000001% would constitute most. And the fact that a CEO is not lazy doesn’t mean his income is justified by his work; much less if you compare it to a minimum wage worker that might actually be producing more wealth.
–I do not understand this. Why do you think a hard working ethical CEO shouldn’t be paid what he/she is worth? Everyone should be paid what they are worth. In what I’m describing, the min wage worker is performing a function that carries a min weight and is paid accordingly.
I also believe everyone should be paid what they are worth. We agree on that.
Apparently were we disagree is if people are, indeed, being paid what they are worth.
You believe that most CEOs are worth their salaries; I believe they aren’t. I can’t possibly, in all honesty, believe that the CEOs in the Silicon Valley that fly around in private jets and are being paid in the hundreds of millions of dollars a year (besides their stock options which may be worth even more than that) are producing that much wealth, directly or indirectly. You just look at their company’s revenues (and I’m talking gross revenues, not bottom-line net income) and it just doesn’t make sense.
On the other hand, I can’t possibly belive that the farm workers that are now the backbone of California’s economical growth are really only creating $10/hour in wealth.
[/quote]
Then this is all about unethical people and not capitalism. I expained capitalism’s role with ethics in a post to vroom. I think we’re all on the same dock.
[quote]Ross Hunt wrote:
Could it be the case that our nation has become too ‘individualistic’ (i.e., too indifferent and lackluster about politics) for them to be suited for any but a socialist government?
But the question that interests me more is this one, the one that Tocqueville seems to dodge and that I suspect that you have more interest in: What is the purpose of society? Towards what end do we deem a laissez-faire democracy good or useful and socialism bad or inefficieent?[/quote]
I don’t have the time to address this with the length it deserves, so forgive me.
Your first question is reminiscent of “Bowling Alone,” which you may or may not have read. It does seem that we have fewer “Associations” than we used to, and that this is politically harmful. I would argue that the extent to which the government enables our isolation encourages us toward it even further. The scenario is that officials realize that things are “easier” if they do things themselves (I’m not necessarily ascribing this to anything other than good intentions, although those are certainly not the only roots). Citizens become accustomed to this convenience, and as such, expect more of the same. There is therefore less reason to associate, because all major issues are carried out transparently; it’s essentially the state acting out the infantile narcissistic fantasy of maternal introjection.
As far as the purpose of society and law (which are two separate questions): if you want to know what de Tocqueville thought, I would go back to the writers to whom he attributed his greatest debts - Pascal, Montesqieu, Rousseau, and Constant. Keep in mind that de Tocqueville probably has a theistic view of society, with Social Contract thrown in as well as “Principals of Law Applicable to all Governments” (Constant).
Thanks for your reply. I haven’t read Constant; I may have to take a look at his work.
But I was really more interested in your opinion; what does ‘utopian’ mean? Is there such a thing as a utopian society? If there is, what would it look like?
It is my impression that the political always involves violence and injustice. By this I do not mean merely that it is necessary for citizens to be ‘forced to be free,’ although that formulation is complex enough by itself; more than that, I mean that every society necessarily elevates one substratum of itself at the expense of another. Aristocracy elevates the few at the expense of the many; democracy elevates the many of the expense of the few, and so on…
it seems to me that if a ‘utopian’ society is an ‘ideal’ society, one must first specify what idea of ‘ideal’ one is talking about. One must first ask: What is valued most highly? Equality? Beauty? Some idea of holiness? Martial virtue? Knowledge?..
Absolutely. GWB and I have a great deal in common. A short list:
We both poop.
We both worry about how our children will be doing in a few years.
We both have to take care of ourselves if we don’t want to be fat, or get cancer, or whatever.
We both look out at the world and all of its problems, and feel like there is something we as a people should be doing about it.
We both have held a door for a lady.
We both need food and air on a regular basis.
We both wear clothes in public.
We both get nervous sometimes for a bit when speaking in public.
We both enjoy praise for our efforts.
Shall I go on? There are many fuckloads of things which are similar between us than the few things that separate us. And when I say “us”, I mean all of us as Americans or Human Beings.
The fact that you mentally isolate yourself from the people in government is a function of your disapproval of them or the job that they choose to do.
That’s YOUR problem.
“We’re all the same on the inside.” That’s what my dad used to say when he cut some poor dude open to get a bullet out of him or whatever.
Make sense?
[/quote]
hahaha yes, you both poop, breath, and so forth.
you are both people, this is true.
what I am saying is that these are the people who control this country.
big business, the filthy rich;
under any system these people are still on top. they will never go hungry, never worry about paying their children’s tuition, never worry about not being comfortable. if there is an economic melt down (theoretically, just hear me out on this one) it is likely that the common man will suffer.
President Bush or many other civil servants (ie congressmen) dont have to sleep in the street if things go bad.
Therefore you ARE NOT the same as them.
yes, you are both people, you both have feelings and emotions, you both bleed red blood, you both might even walk upright. but when push comes to shove, there is a difference.
class distinction is real my friend. the beauty about America is that you are not bound to your class (capitalism).
Capitalism is the only way to structure the economy.
Some government control is absolutely necessary. Too much government control is bad for an economy.
Where to draw the line is the only debate.
Regarding CEO’s, I have have faith in the ones that built and grew their companies. There are far too many incompetent ones out there that did not build the companies.
My unfortunate experiences have been with the incompetent ones. Their greed and lack of understanding of the companies true mission often hurt their companies and employees.
I do not trust corporate CEO’s anymore than I trust politicians. They are often cut from the same cloth.
[quote]Ross Hunt wrote:
But I was really more interested in your opinion; what does ‘utopian’ mean? Is there such a thing as a utopian society? If there is, what would it look like?[/quote]
Utopian, you probably already know, literally means “no place” in neo-Latin, from greek u- “no” topos- “place.” In a way, we’re really talking about eudaemonia - the good land, rather than utopia, and that seems like a place that no political system will every duplicate. If you are asking if I think there IS such a thing as a utopian society, if I believe that it is extant, than no, I do not. If you are asking if I believe in noetic heterogeneity, I’ll say that yes, I believe it is possible.
What do you mean by “the political?” Foundation? Everyday political action?
Who does the Constitution elevate? In answering that question, ask yourself not what politics look like now, but what things looked like to the founders.
[quote]
it seems to me that if a ‘utopian’ society is an ‘ideal’ society, one must first specify what idea of ‘ideal’ one is talking about. One must first ask: What is valued most highly? Equality? Beauty? Some idea of holiness? Martial virtue? Knowledge?..[/quote]
You sound very much like Montesquieu right now, and you’re also treading on a dangerous, slippery relativist slope. One must indeed ask that question, but only to evaluate whether or not what is valued is valued justly. Just because a thing is valued does not mean that the person valuing it is correct in doing so. We may value killing, for example, or lead, or a variety of other things. A society constructed on the ideals of killing or cultivating lead would be a poor one. Our goal ought to be to learn what the “best life” is, and to pursue that. To that end we turn to the classics. Otherwise, we wind up in that quagmire of relativism that is inimical to political philosophy as philosophy, rather than as an exercise in probability or historical analysis.
You have lowered your sights, as it were, by focusing on the purposes of organization rather than on what is the best life; indeed, the central question to any form of government is this: What is the best life, and how does this form of government act to ensure it? Simply put, isn’t the point of life to be happy? Not satisfied, mind you, but happy? And to this end, what does our present system, or any system of the past, do for us in this regard? Does it impair or increase our happiness, or our means to improving it? And then ask yourself what happiness is, and whether or not many citizens today actually pursue it, or if they pursue satisfaction.
Just a couple of updates on some of my earlier points:
Yahoo!, one of the anchors of the Silicon Valley has announced that its CEO has earned over US$110,000,000 last year. That’s 110 million US dollars, yes. To give you an idea of how much that is in relation to the company’s earnings, and its stock value, it’s actualy $8 per stock; so, if you’re a Yahoo stockholder, and you have, say 1,000 Yahoo stocks, you’ve paid the company’s CEO $8,000 last year.
The Board of Directors seems to be happy with this and has no intention of firing the guy. So, a direct example of greed being handsomely compensated, at the expense of stockholders.
A new study by a San Francisco non-profit organization shows that middle-class and lower-middle-class Americans contribute twice as high of a percentage of their disposable income (i.e., what remains of their income after paying taxes, housing, car, food, loans and other bills, etc.) to charity than upper-middle-class and high-class (rich) Americans. So, middle-class Americans are in fact more generous (twice as much, in fact) than the rich.
So rich people are, in fact, greedier than middle and lower class people, and they could afford to pay more taxes.
Bottom line: I’m sorry, guys, but the published numbers give credence to my claim that CEOs can get away with being greedy to the point of hurting the company (and its shareholders) and that rich people in this country in general are greedy too and could be giving much more than they are – but they won’t unless they’re forced to (by the way of taxes).
So rich people are, in fact, greedier than middle and lower class people, and they could afford to pay more taxes. [/quote]
I have no idea how you can make a sweeping generalization like that. What do you mean by “hurting the company” and how does it? Also, why should anyone be forced to do anything that is voluntary? Are you arguing for forced ethics? None of this is about capitalism.
[quote]IagoMB wrote:
hspder wrote:
So rich people are, in fact, greedier than middle and lower class people, and they could afford to pay more taxes.
I have no idea how you can make a sweeping generalization like that.[/quote]
Middle-class and lower-middle-class people are contributing twice as much of their disposable income to charity. To put it another way, the upper-middle-class and rich people are either keeping a bigger slice of their disposable income or spending it.
Note I didn’t say “every single rich person is…”. Of course there will be rich people who make very generous contributions to charity. And since charitable contributions are tax-deductible, those generous people would get generous tax breaks even with a tax increase.
[quote]IagoMB wrote:
What do you mean by “hurting the company” and how does it?[/quote]
1/8th of the company’s revenue is going to the CEO, rather than being re-invested or adding value to the company’s stock. How can that not be hurting the company? It’s hurting all the stakeholders (stockholders, employees, …) – except the CEO…
[quote]IagoMB wrote:
Also, why should anyone be forced to do anything that is voluntary? Are you arguing for forced ethics?[/quote]
No, I’m arguing for higher taxes for the rich, which, apparently, can afford higher taxes. And possibly for some legislation to curb CEO greediness.
[quote]IagoMB wrote:
None of this is about capitalism.[/quote]
It’s not. I never said it was. It’s about greedy human nature, how it can adversely affect a capitalist economy, and how we need to do something to curb it – more than what we’re doing right now.
I apologize for expanding this beyond belief, and any future response will be a new post without quotes.
[quote]hspder wrote:
Vroom and I are turning blue from repeating this, but here it goes again:
We’re not blaming the system for the reprehensible people’s existance; we’re “blaming” capitalism for not doing a good job at dealing with reprehensible business behaviors.
If I have to repeat this once again, I swear my head will explode. [/quote]
Cool, I should get you to repeat it again and again.
Seriously where exactly is capitalism not dealing with this? If you are a crook, you get a bad name, and people don’t want to do business with you. If you sell crap, and your competitor sells solid products, who will be in business 10 years down the road.
I have seen companies where the people thought they could just screw the customers, and they always fail. Others get caught.
Are people getting away with it? Yeah, just look at all the advertisements in the BB mags. But they need to keep finding new customers, where the business that keeps its customers is the one that succeeds. Customer loyalty is an important part of business, and that is where the crooks loose out.
Don’t base your opinion of business people on seeing people getting arrested on the news. That is actually proof that they are not getting away with it.
The smartest really know that what is good for everyone is good for the company. Most of the successful business people started their business not because they wanted to get rich, but because they loved what they do.
Our difference here is that you see criminals everywhere while I see them failing, and the successful ones mostly honest.
[quote]The Mage wrote: No I don’t think you are implying I am evil, and yes I am a capitalist. But I do not believe in capitalism just because I am selfish. In fact I believe that capitalism works best if you are not selfish. In fact I believe socialism is a hell of a lot more selfish then capitalism is. The results of hard and intelligent work are taken away and given to those that don’t, so hard intelligent work is punished while not lazy and stupid is rewarded. This is why capitalism is so superior to socialism.
What you wrote is the definition of a contradiction: do you actually know what selfishness is?
I mean you clearly state that what you hate about socialism is that “your property” is “taken away”. If that bothers you, aren’t you being selfish? [/quote]
If a guy asks to fuck your wife, and you say no, are you being selfish? How is it selfish to not want people to take your stuff? Bob works hard, and Jo doesn’t, so Jo is entitled to Bob’s stuff. That is called socialism.
You are good at putting words into my mouth. I agree with taxation, to a point. We do need money to run the government. What is dislike is the attempt at “leveling the playing field”, which is actually nothing of the sort. It is taking from one person, punishing them for working, and giving to another for not working, therefore rewarding them.
Let’s say you have two sons, and you tell them each to mow half the lawn, and they would get $5 apiece. But one son decides he will play video games instead, while the other decides that he doesn’t want to leave the job half done, and mows the whole lawn. Knowing this, is it right to give both sons $5?
And if you do, will that son work so hard again? And the other son who was rewarded for not working, why should he ever expect to have to?
Socialism is not an economic system, it is a lesson in codependence.
[quote]I’ll give you an example right here in California. As has been discussed in the “Minutemen” thread, most of the grunt work that is done in this State – from farming to janitorial to hospitality – is done by Mexican immigrants that receive minimum wage – or less. They’re the backbone of this state’s economy and if they all went home tomorrow the State would collapse overnight.
They are EXTREMELY hard working people. The get $10/hour, which is barely enough to survive.
At the same time, their bosses, that did nothing more than help them come into this country (sometimes illegally), sit around and look at them work all day – and make MILLIONS a year.
Now tell me, is this fair? Are the hard working people getting the income they deserve? Are the lazy bastards not getting any income? On the contrary – the lazy get richer while the working barely survive. [/quote]
So you are for illegal immigration, no wait, you are against it, no wait… Now I don’t know if you are for it or not.
Yes, this is capitalism at work. As long as they have access to cheap labor, they have no need to pay a decent wage. If the ILLEGAL (I notice you left out this word,) immigrants went away, they would be forced to pay enough to get legal work.
If all the ILLEGAL aliens went away, maybe we would have enough jobs for all those people who lost them to all that outsourcing I keep hearing about. Oh wait, Americans won’t do that work, probably because they are too lazy.
What I keep hearing is that we need to make sure the poor get money because they cannot work, and then bring in the ILLEGAL immigrants in to do the jobs that Americans are unwilling to do because getting welfare checks is easier then working in the fields.
[quote]The Mage wrote: I don’t see this as being self destructive, but the path of least resistance. Organisms tend to take the easy way, and lifting weights is hard, and watching tv is easy.
Other organisms are not self-aware. We have no excuse. [/quote]
That’s my point.
[quote]The Mage wrote: I see the government as the referee. The guy who is supposed to keep the rules of the game. I don’t think the referee should be able to take the ball away from one team and give it to the other in a middle of a play just because one team is scoring more then the other is.
That’s an exageration. I know a lot of very rich people in The Netherlands and Germany. I saw more luxury cars over there than I see here. Yes, they pay 60% income tax, but they still have plenty left to show off. [/quote]
Just because a person has a luxury car does not mean they are rich. Read the Millionaire Next Door. It has some interesting statistics.
And just because a person has plenty still is no justification for taking from them just to give to another.
[quote]The Mage wrote: But you are defining an action by the results, and in a way that makes it seem like it is worse then it actually is. In actuality over half of Americans own stock. That is over half of the population is in ownership of the capitol. The largest percentage is in the top 10% of course, but everyone can benefit. Or choose not to.
Everyone can benefit? Do you have any idea how dangerous is the fact that half of the population owns stock, without having the buffer to afford loosing all of its value? How much that distorts the value of the stock, and how potentially explosive that is? [/quote]
Ahh yeah, dangerous. If it is so dangerous, remember that practically all the rich are really teetering there. I assume you know that the stock market has gone up over 90% of any 5 year period in the past century. (I think it might actually be 96%, but don’t quote me on that.)
[quote]Seems you were not paying attention in Macro-economy class…
People like to gamble; they are careless, greedy and irresponsible. That’s human nature. Playing with the stock market without knowing what you’re doing puts EVERYONE in danger. [/quote]
That is why you don’t play, you invest. This stuff should be taught in school.
This also shows the difference between liberal and conservative thought. You are under the impression that people are incapable and ignorant, and need big brother to take care of them. (Also makes me wonder where to find smart people to manage all the money for the dumb people when all people are dumb.)
Whereas I believe that given a chance, and some intelligence, plus the school of hard knocks (which the left seems to be trying to do away with) people can achieve a lot more then you give them credit for.
[quote]Want proof how careless, greedy and irresponsible people are?
Yesterday it was in the news that in California 60% of new mortgages are interest-only. SIXTY percent. That means that 60% of people in California buying new homes these days are opening themselves up for financial catastrophe, and the banks are gambling with them.
Why are people doing this? Because they are careless – they don’t care about the potential disaster that an interest-only mortgage can create; they are greedy – they are seduced by the fact that an interest-only mortgage will allow them to buy a bigger house to show off to their friends; and they are irresponsible, because they fail to understand the consequences to the economy if there’s a flurry of foreclosures where the banks cannot recover the equity. [/quote]
Sounds like you are listening to Dave Ramsey.
But while this may not be a good idea, what percentage will pay more then just the interest? What percentage will stock away cash to pay for mortgage at the end of the loan? How many of these people actually have the entire mortgage already and just want the loan anyway? And considering most people move before the loan is due, I don’t think the default rate will be much higher then if the same people got regular mortgages.
The whole state? Including the Illegal immigrants? I actually do expect there to be a whole slew of foreclosures once the interest rates start to climb. There was also a lot of ignorance with ARM mortgages. This happens a lot, and will happen again. But some will make money off of this. Could be you.
And no you don’t need to take advantage of the people loosing their houses. The banks will have to dispose of those houses, and will negotiate real good deals, so you could soak the bank. Or you could give people more money then they would have gotten if they went into foreclosure, thereby actually helping them out, and making money in the process.
I am sure you will twist this into something it is not, but you have a right to make money when helping others.
Oh no, your saying we are headed to another Great Depression?
Ooh, had me worried for a second there. I am sure you know that a lot of laws were changed because of the Great Depression. No more 10% margin accounts, banks no longer allowed to invest in the stock market, and worst of all, no longer able to just decide to call a mortgage due whenever they felt like it. That last part had more to do with it then anything.
[quote]The Mage wrote: This actually brings up another related subject. Social Security. So many of the rich are benefiting off of the stock market, yet when the idea of letting people put a portion of Social Security in the market, many on the left go crazy. It seems to me that the left wants to prevent people from making it.
While I’ll admit that many people in the left are against putting a portion of SS in the market for political reasons, I can tell you there’s a very strong macro-economic rationale against it. All macro-economists I know are against it. [/quote]
What is the reason? Tons of money flowing into the stock market artificially inflating it? Followed by a crash of the market, which happens about once a decade, more or less.
Yet the market always goes up right after, and interestingly there is generally a second smaller drop again later. The intelligent will not take their money out of the market, but put it in. Everyone should be taught not to take their money out, but put it in. (Stock sale.)
[quote]The Mage wrote: Regardless of how honest or dishonest the owner or CEO of a business is, if they have 100 employees, I guarantee at least one of them lacks a moral code. (Actually I believe the number is higher.) So it is easier to find an employee who lacks moral code then it is to find an owner who does just because the larger number of people involved.
That would only be true if the CEOs were picked at random off the general population. I submit to you the fact that most CEOs in the Silicon Valley are profoundly unethical people and completely lack a moral code; they actually got there because of those characteristics. Does that mean that all CEOs are that bad (in other industries)? No. My point is that you cannot assume what you said, because there are industries where lack of ethics is handsomely rewarded. [/quote]
Ok, you submitted the fact, but… uh… where is the fact? Where is your proof of this fact? Just to say it is not a fact. I submit that in the long run the honest CEO would have been more prosperous then the unethical one. I do not say that there are not unethical people, but they will never do as well as if they were ethical.
I believe that Las Vegas has a lot of unethical people running the casinos. Guess what, management keeps turning over, repeatedly. Just happened recently in big casino, most of management gone. (Heard this from a moderately known magician who lives there.)
I am sure you know all about time shares, as everybody does. I think that the people who thought it up actually believed it was a good idea, and benefited people. But it is a lot harder for them to find people, and in fact try not to tell people that they are going to be told about a time share. This happened to me, where I was fooled into listening to a time share presentation.
I kind of hit them in the stomach when I told them I didn’t see any reason to spend money on a time share when people give them away for free. The younger trainee looked at her supervisor when I said that and he had to nod yes, with a very distraught look, knowing he had no chance at a sale with me.
INTERMISSION
Place dancing candy here
INTERMISSION OVER
[quote]The Mage wrote: Ok, I have bookmarked it, and will read the whole thing later tonight. But I looked at the left box, and what I see is a kind of moral code that will benefit business. Exactly what I have been talking about.
Yes it is. It’s a moral code against competition – and you defended competition. And you’re not alone. Only about 10% of my students will accept the rationale behind the paper without a LOT of resistance. [/quote]
Isn’t the paper “The Perils of internal competition”? Yes, makes full sense that there should be little or no competition within a corporation. They are supposed to be working toward the same goal. But the competition that is good is the one where you compete with other companies.
Back to sports analogy, you want a team to work together to win. You know, the no I in team phrase? Annoying to hear, but true nonetheless. But how good is it for a team to work with the other team? Not so good.
I cannot remember if I posted this before, but Harley Davidson was in financial trouble about 20 years ago, and the government actually put protections in place against foreign bikes. When they got back on their feet, they actually asked the government to remove those restrictions. They realized that the competition forces them to produce a good product. Now I think there is a 2 year wait to get one.
See, again you only see the worst in people. Most people are decent, and fairly intelligent. What you are doing is projecting a view on the population. Although the view is based on real people, those people are actually the most visible. Like when you drive a car. You don’t notice the hundreds of people driving normally, you see the idiot driving exactly like that.
Do you think that you chose the worst possible choice with the worst possible consequence to others? Or are you better then the regular population? Should big brother be watching over your shoulder? If so, I assume you would then be for the patriot act. If not would that by hypocrisy?
[quote]The Mage wrote: If I owned a business, part of the employee’s income would derive from the success of the company. A direct percentage of the profits given to the employees, therefore enticing them to help the company succeed, while benefiting the employees directly.
Many Silicon Valley companies attempted to do that in the turn of the century. Do you know what happened? The stockholders started complaining – hard – that “their” profits were being given away to the workers and they stopped it.
Greediness and stupidity at its best. [/quote]
Yes, you are right, and it probably cost them a lot of profit. Hey, maybe those shareholders should get some reimbursement from the government, you know, taken from the more successful companies.
[quote] Have you realized that the ethanol and biodiesel industries are in the hands of the same oil companies, as will hydrogen? Just go to, say, www.shell.com and see for yourself.
This is because they are realizing they have no choice. But then the farmers will be benefiting instead of OPEC. Also regardless it does affect supply and demand. The supply of oil will go up, and the market will respond.
Do you see people running around and buying biodiesel vehicles? Nope. And even though OPEC will be out of the picture, the oil companies – like Shell – will still be in the picture working as a Cartel, not in competition.
Wake up and smell the coffee: Oil Prices will NEVER slide, unless the Government establishes them. They will, in fact, keep increaseing until there’s no more Oil to sell. [/quote]
First of all any vehicle that runs on diesel can run on biodiesel, including every Mac Truck in this country. Second as long as it is more expensive then diesel, people won’t buy it. I only buy ethanol blend if it is 2 cents per dollar cheaper then regular myself. Why? Because of the lower energy it produces, so it must be about 2% less. Here it is 10 cents less, which is more like 5%, so I am coming out ahead, and buying less gas.
Right now it looks like gas will be cheaper in May, but climb back up in June. But as far as never going down, this is just blind to the market. Prices go up, they go down. They are still below the high of the early 80’s if you adjust for inflation, and have stayed relatively stable for a good 13 years.
[quote]Now, tell me, what can break the Cartel? Is there anything within capitalist theories that can prevent something like this from happening?
Yes, competition. Somebody will come along and create a way to break up the system. Why? Because there is profit in it.
Ah, you’re using the old Micro-economic rationale. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work anymore – the OPEC and the oil companies realized that if they start competing, their bottom line decreases. Why? For two reasons: first of all, because the demand for oil is highly elastic, i.e., people will not buy that much less when the price increases; two, because people are lazy bastards and they will NOT drive 5 miles out of their way to buy gas $.10 cheaper. [/quote]
So it used to be true, but is no longer true, and you say it is because of lack of competition. Wait, I thought you were against competition. Aren’t you seeing the result of these oil countries and companies working together? So now you are for competition, right?
Oh yeah, driving 5 miles out of your way to save 10 cents. Apparently you haven’t done the math here. A 5 mile trip is 10 round. (I have seen this here.) If you get 30 miles to the gallon, you will use a third of a gallon in this trip, or 71 cents based on the $2.13 I just paid. Now that means you have to get 7 gallons just to recoup your expense, and then if you have a 20 gallon tank, you just drove 10 miles to save $1.29. And you also decreased the world supply by that third of a gallon. And this does not take your time into account. If you are lucky, a total 15 minute round trip.
[quote]The Mage wrote: The oil companies know that they have to compete which is why they are getting into things like alternative fuels. If they don’t, they will lose out.
You seem to sugarcoat it very nicely… They’re making sure they keep the hold on the market for every fuel, and then purposedely delaying the deployment of such altnernative fuels to maximize their bottom line – even if it hurts our economy. [/quote]
No I am not sugarcoating anything. If they do nothing, they will lose out because somebody will come along who makes it work. You just assume they are delaying it, but I really don’t think they can, even if they want to. They hold the cards with oil, but not corn, or sugar, or anything people can make ethanol out of.
Do I think they manipulate the market? Yes, absolutely. But watching what they do (like actually supporting environmentalists,) it shows that they need to do things to influence the market, not just raise prices. If there is a sudden deluge in oil, the prices will go down regardless of what they do.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
This is also why when Microsoft seems to have the monopoly on computer systems, they still write software for Linux and Apple.
Microsoft does not write software for Linux. Show me one piece of Microosoft software that runs on Linux. [/quote]
believe it or not they wrote a version of Linux that worked with Windows. (Never released.) I cannot remember the article I read a few years back, but they actually were working on software for Linux.
Here is an article that I think preceded that article. And yes they do not want Linux to succeed, of course.
[quote]They do have Microsoft Office for Apple because they have an agreement with Apple; however, they do keep it behind the PC (Windows-based) version, on purpose.
The Mage wrote: Really all it takes is some kid to write a new program to put Windows out of business.
I hope you are joking… [/quote]
No, it is the way the industry has developed. There is some nerd out there who could write a whole new program that makes Windows obsolete, which they will immediately attempt to steal. Or it could be a group of disgruntled former Microsoft employees, or just regular software vendors working together.
Yes, they have the power right now, but not forever. You need to see possibilities, not just walls.
[quote]Do you really think that if the government wasn’t involved, the prices would fall? How so? Why would they?
Competition. Just look at the supplement industry without all the regulation. The prices are falling, while this is not happening with the drug industry. This is an easy comparison.
No it’s not – it’s completely different. First of all, the cost of developing a new pharmaceutical drug is much higher than one of a supplement, so the incentive to lower prices is much smaller; then, the marketing strategies and budgets are completely different; finally, most parmaceutical drugs are not elective: you have to take them, so people will buy them even if they are horribly expensive.
You can also see it from another angle: why is it that even though Biotest supps are clearly the best in the market, people still buy crap? Where do you see Biotest’s hard work being handsomely rewarded, and the other companies lazy asses’ being kicked into bankrupcy? [/quote]
Yeah, Biotest is going down the tubes isn’t it. They have Hot Rox and Fahrenheit at Wal-Mart now, and their new commercial going on television. Bioitest is exactly what I am talking about. Their hard work is being rewarded. Testosterone has been around for less then a decade. I have seen the bs posted on other websites about T-nation and the supps. Other companies are scared, otherwise they would not attack so hard.
This little upstart of a company is starting to kick the big guys asses.
And yes it does take a lot more money to bring drugs to the market then supplements, but my wife still found that Fahrenheit works better then one of the drugs she was taking. (Because of the vasodilatory effects.)
[quote]The Mage wrote: Ah yes, wealth distribution. Again this sounds like socialist ideals, which embody stealing.
Again, you say that slight re-distribution of wealth (through high tax brackets for the extremely rich) is akin to stealing, and you don’t think you’re selfish and greedy? Interesting. [/quote]
Slight? What do you define as slight? 15%? I support 15% taxes, but not redistribution. Taking from one just to give to another is stealing. If I take your tv and give it to my brother, that is stealing. I want taxes to run the government, not to give to people able, but unwilling to work.
[quote]And yes, I am a Socialist. Not a Communist, but a (centrist) Socialist. For a more detailed explanation of my ideals:
The socialist doctrine I believe in demands state ownership and control of the fundamental means of production and distribution of wealth, to be achieved by reconstruction of the existing capitalist or other political system of a country through peaceful, democratic, and parliamentary means. The doctrine specifically advocates nationalization of natural resources, basic industries, banking and credit facilities, and public utilities. It places special emphasis on the nationalization of monopolized branches of industry and trade, viewing monopolies as inimical to the public welfare. It also advocates state ownership of corporations in which the ownership function has passed from stockholders to managerial personnel. Smaller and less vital enterprises would be left under private ownership, and privately held cooperatives would be encouraged.
Note that I am NOT for the total abolition of the capitalist system and of private profit. I just think capitalism needs to live under an overall system that protects citizens from each other’s natural greed and selfishness. [/quote]
In other words big brother. The evils of the human are so bad that man must be controlled by the government.
Sorry, but it won’t work. Funny thing is I was thinking this in high school, and have since lost my shallow thoughts on economic issues.
[quote]The Mage wrote: But anyway, the real way to distribute wealth is by earning it. We cannot blame the rich for the poor, and in fact by them investing money, they create jobs, and these people spend, and hopefully invest, which gets back to the rich who invest to create even more jobs.
It’s not that simple. Rich are not the perfect, moral, ethical people you make them out to be. There are several rich people that are greedy, selfish and immoral and will not “give back to the community” or even re-invest their earnings in creating more jobs; on the contrary: most rich people will try to maximize their profits by having the least possible amount of workers for the least possible amount of money, even if that means they live in third-world conditions. [/quote]
I never said that the Rich are perfect. But they are not the evil people you make them out to be.
I cannot believe you don’t know what happens to profit. It is reinvested, or spent. The rich didn’t get that way by putting money in mattresses. And that money flows to and through other people, which benefits the economy, and all the working people.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
I believe there has been a creation of over a million millionaires in the last year. (8.2 million US households.) Some of those were returning to millionaire status, but is the highest number ever.
I wonder how many more people are living in poverty for each millionaire created. [/quote]
That is an illogical assumption. You are equating people going into poverty just because another becomes wealthy.
Anyway poverty is a very hard thing to define. Just throwing numbers out is hard. And what people define as poverty is different then it was years ago. Even inflation is not as real as many think. Televisions have really not gone up in price in years, if you take out all the improvements. But how can you compare today’s plasma HDTV to the black and white set I watched as a kid, or the big tube attached to that antenna on our roof.
[quote]The Mage wrote: There could be a lot more rich people then there are right now. Just the action of using tons of credit cards, and wasting money is keeping many people from becoming rich.
People will waste money and use credit as long as people exist. We can’t hope that everyone is enlightened. And you’re contradicting yourself again: if people are not rich because they are too stupid to spend their money wisely and use their credit wisely, why give them the opportunity to hang themselves in the stock market, where the knowledge needed and the stakes are much higher? [/quote]
Actually no I am not contradicting myself. I believe that if people were more intelligent, which is entirely possible, more people would succeed. Similarly I do not think people should drink too much, but I don’t believe in making alcohol illegal.
Just because a lot of people will not become as big as many bodybuilders, should all weights be taken away? If some cannot run as fast as others, should we take away running shoes and running tracks? You seem to want to punish success, and that is the mistake.
I would rather try to teach people how to become rich, or at least just comfortable, instead of just taking from the rich. You talked earlier about zero sum games. And you are treating this like a zero sum game. But it is not. Wealth is created, and it is a mistake to think that those little green pieces of paper are the wealth. They are not.
[quote]But I get it: in a Capitalism system, to live comfortably you’ll just have to avoid using credit at all costs, and put most of your “disposable” income in high-yield investments, while keeping a large cushion (say, two year’s worth of net income) in safe, low-yield, investments, just in case something happens (you get fired, a depression comes, etc.).
Sounds simple, right? Then why doesn’t everybody do it? [/quote]
Because nobody really tells them. I grew up with parents who told me to get credit cards, and started arguing with me when I sent from a new car to a used car. “You are trading down.” Listening to their advice was a mistake, but they were my parents, and they agreed with everyone I knew.
I am a student of the school of hard knocks.
[quote]My point is that people are too ignorant to invest wisely. They’d rather direct all their income into paying interest – for their interest-only mortage and 22% interest credit cards. Which not only hurts them, it hurts all of us, and the whole economy.
It’s actually pretty funny seing pastors tell their congregation to burn their credit cards and then have a $20 million mortgage on the church and asking the same congregation to pay for it.
The fact that capitalism ALLOWS this asinine behavior is my problem; I’m more than willing to accept that if we all knew what we’re doing and made the right choices all the time, Capitalism would work great and we’d all be happy people. But the fact is – people do NOT know what they’re doing. And Capitalism, by allowing them to hurt others due to their shortcomings, is flawed.[/quote]
But by not allowing people to do or think certain ways is tantamount to slavery. Your whole philosophy is based on the lowest common denominator. That people are idiots incapable of learning.
We should not have to base our lives and government on the dumbest of the dumb.
My philosophy is one of intelligence. I could learn, and so can others. We need to work at eliminating ignorance, and sorry but I think you are spreading the worst type of ignorance. That a person is not responsible for their own life. That if you fail, you can blame somebody else. That all the solutions are out there, not in here.
I don’t walk around seeing nothing but ignorance and evil. I see potential, everywhere.
China became the perfects socialist country when thy made their law that all people will make the same amount regardless of what they did, how much they worked, or even if they worked. One third of the country immediately quit their jobs.
Everything you are worried about is actually fed by socialism. If success is not rewarded, then why succeed? If there is no drawback to failure, there is no reason to avoid it.
[quote]
1/8th of the company’s revenue is going to the CEO, rather than being re-invested or adding value to the company’s stock. How can that not be hurting the company? It’s hurting all the stakeholders (stockholders, employees, …) – except the CEO… [/quote]
Off the top of my head; the market allows it. If the price of the stock is not going down, the company is financially sound, employees are paid market value for their work including any bonuses and the company “investing” in its employee’s future, there is nothing wrong with it.
[quote]
No, I’m arguing for higher taxes for the rich, which, apparently, can afford higher taxes. And possibly for some legislation to curb CEO greediness. [/quote]
I’m not going to support taxing someone more because they do not voluntarily give to charity.
[quote]
It’s about greedy human nature, how it can adversely affect a capitalist economy, and how we need to do something to curb it – more than what we’re doing right now. [/quote]
I agree. Teach and coach ethics in capitalism to show that the ethical person will go farther and accomplish more for everyone in a capitalist economy.
We seem to be somewhat in agreement here, although I would not like to characterize the question of whether or not certain activity is conducicive to happiness as a question of ‘justice.’ Is there, after all, a ‘just as such’ transcending particular cities, or does the just essentially play handmaiden to whatever set of values reign in a particular city? Some of Socrates’s more hostile interlocutors ask this question in a rather simple way -
‘Isn’t what is called just simply that which is to the advantage of those in power?’
-But there is a more enlightened and persuasive version of this question:
‘If justice consists in all the members of a city each doing what he is supposed to, does not justice vary from city to city as ideas of the good or the beautiful vary from city to city?’
We should look to the beautiful and the good rather than to the just to appraise human things, because the just is the servant of the beautiful and the good.
It is clear that all ideas of the beautiful and the good are not of equal stature, but is this necessarily to imply that there is only Beautiful, only one Good?
[quote]The Mage wrote:
I apologize for expanding this beyond belief, and any future response will be a new post without quotes.[/quote]
If I respond to your post point-by-point it will be even bigger, and I don’t think I will change your mind by anything I say, so I’ll clarify my positions on the two points I seem to have confused you on (sorry for that):
I am for competition between companies but against internal competition – as you seem to be too.
I actually believe that there isn’t ENOUGH competition betwen companies – I believe that a Free Market does not automatically mean there will be competition, because Cartels will form, and hence I believe in stronger anti-trust laws (which are a socialist construct to make sure there IS competition between companies)
I’m against illegal immigration; however I use the kind of salaries that illegal immigrants get as an example of people not getting a compensation that is adequate for the wealth they produce. That doesn’t mean I think they should be working without a work permit; they shouldn’t. The fact that people give them a job and get away with it just gives more credence to the theory that lack of ethics is sustainable and rewarded.
If the stockholders have no problem with paying the CEO 110 Million dollars a year, then they must have faith that he is doing a good job. I don’t really see how this is a negative; he isn’t holding the company hostage. If you employ me, and I tell you that my minimum salary must be 500K a year, and you agree to it, then questions of “greed” don’t enter into it. Obviously you’ve determined that whatever services I am rendering to you warrant that kind of salary. At whatever point my services do NOT warrant or yield such a salary, I assume that I will be relieved of duty.
[quote]Ross Hunt wrote:
We seem to be somewhat in agreement here, although I would not like to characterize the question of whether or not certain activity is conducicive to happiness as a question of ‘justice.’ Is there, after all, a ‘just as such’ transcending particular cities, or does the just essentially play handmaiden to whatever set of values reign in a particular city? Some of Socrates’s more hostile interlocutors ask this question in a rather simple way -
‘Isn’t what is called just simply that which is to the advantage of those in power?’
[/quote]
This is indeed how Thrasymachus raises the question to Socrates, that justice is the advantage of the stronger.
But if we agree that there is some underlying commonality to what we call city, justice, and humanity, then there must also be commonality to what is good for all of them. Indeed, we cannot reasonably hold that the best city may be implemented for any people at any time; but rather that we may measure any system by this standard, perhaps anticipating and guiding current cities to more perfectly match this model.
This sounds like Aristotle. But it does not necessarily mean that the beautiful and good varies. Beautiful, in this context, doesn’t mean subjective beauty.
[quote]
It is clear that all ideas of the beautiful and the good are not of equal stature, but is this necessarily to imply that there is only Beautiful, only one Good?[/quote]
I think we must contend with the possibility that there is an underlying order, which implies some eidos, or form, that is radically unhistorical.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
If the stockholders have no problem with paying the CEO 110 Million dollars a year, then they must have faith that he is doing a good job. I don’t really see how this is a negative; he isn’t holding the company hostage. If you employ me, and I tell you that my minimum salary must be 500K a year, and you agree to it, then questions of “greed” don’t enter into it. Obviously you’ve determined that whatever services I am rendering to you warrant that kind of salary. At whatever point my services do NOT warrant or yield such a salary, I assume that I will be relieved of duty.[/quote]
I wish it would be that simple. There have been many cases – Disney being possibly the most visible one – where stockholders tried to relieve of duty corrupt and/or imbecile CEOs – and failed. Remember: a majority is just 50% + 1. It’s not easy for the remaining 50% - 1 that is getting screwed over to do anything. There are lot of politics involved, and usually corrupt CEOs will somehow buy off the biggest stockholders, and screw the small ones and the employees in the process.
Of course, there is an easy way for stockholders to punish the corrupt CEO’s (and the one I use): sell your stock. If the 50% - 1 people sold all their stock and nobody else bought it, I can assure you that the CEO would eventually be fired…
Suffice to say, I personally don’t own ANY tech stocks. But since that might mean you’d loose money, most people won’t do that; because for most people, money IS more important than ethics and justice.
How many people do you see picking their stock based on the ethics of the company, rather than the perceived potential (short term) gains? Not many. That’s quite unfortunate, including for them – if everybody picked the companies that show the best track record on ethics, rather than using speculative pseudo-Math everybody would be better off, even economically.
The fact is, they don’t.
And, of course, there are the other stakeholders: the employees, who can’t just leave their jobs: they can’t afford to.
[quote] The Mage wrote:
I apologize for expanding this beyond belief, and any future response will be a new post without quotes.
hspder wrote:
If I respond to your post point-by-point it will be even bigger, and I don’t think I will change your mind by anything I say, so I’ll clarify my positions on the two points I seem to have confused you on (sorry for that): [/quote]
In attempting to respond I may have gone overboard. I always edit in word, and it listed the post was a total 14 pages long.
Problem is that when taken beyond a certain point, people just quit reading. In fact I doubt there were very many, if any, who actually read my whole post. I need to be more concise.
In fact I don’t think anyone even caught the joke in about the middle.
I really doubt we are as far apart as we seem. I believe everyone debating here really wants the same thing, a better world. Some think it is an end result, whereas I see it as a never-ending process of improvement.
Now unfortunately internal competition may be best reduced, but is impossible to truly eliminate, but a team that can work together will be more efficient then one that is working against itself.
Again I am not saying eliminate all socialism, and open free capitalism without rules. The problem is finding the right balance between the two.
An employee is worth whatever the market will pay. As long as there are a large group of illegals willing to work for small pay, that is what they will be paid. If a person wants more money, they need to improve their value to the market.