Perspective on quality of life and NASA.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-08-2012, 06:42 PM
RE: Perspective on quality of life and NASA.
(05-08-2012 04:44 AM)Red Celt Wrote:  If you think that left-leaning views are all about jealousy, then you're totally failing to understand the left... which includes many who are economically comfortable. They just tend to care about people other than themselves.

No I don't think that about all left-leaning views. I was just agreeing that LabMonster seems to just have a beef with the wealthy.

I don't accept the assertion that the left is more caring about others. The differences tend to be the "how" one goes about helping others. See this study from Rice University for some more on that http://news.rice.edu/2012/05/31/liberals...le-giving/

(05-08-2012 04:44 AM)Red Celt Wrote:  You didn't mention the acquisition process, but tell me... how do you know that the money wasn't stolen? How do you know that the money was gathered in any ethical sense whatsoever? Greedy people let very few things get in the way of their greed.

OK I'll be turning into Satan here in a minute so you'll want to have firm grip on a crucifix or other anti-Satan device. First, I've been completely confused about what 2 trillion dollars you guys are talking about. Today on NPR I heard some chatter about 2 trillion dollars that major companies are currently "sitting on" and not hiring anyone, so I'm going to assume that that is the money being discussed. So here's my position:

1. Corporations are not inherently evil, any more than people are in general. If they have money I do not assume they got it illegally. If an oil company is making a shitload of money selling oil, I do not consider that to be illegal, immoral or unethical. I'm grateful that they risk their own money looking for oil, that I can buy fuel relatively cheaply to heat my home and not freeze to death.

2. It's their money and they can do whatever they want with it. There may be many politicians who wish they'd spend it on personnel, but that's just politicians wanting problems to go away without fixing the real problem. The real problem is uncertainty. Any smart person with money does not want to invest it when the future is uncertain.

3. Greed is good. You can call me Lucifer or Luke for short. Greed makes people work hard to create new great things that will make them a billionaire. I'm all for it because I get the benefit without any risk. Just don't ask me to pay for all those who try and fail.

4. When it is said that these companies are "sitting on" 2 trillion dollars, it means they are not spending/investing it. But it isn't sitting in a warehouse either. It's in the banking system where it gets invested by banks for others to use.

(05-08-2012 04:44 AM)Red Celt Wrote:  If you can see a problem with a burglar keeping stolen property, you should also have a problem with a businessman who asset-stripped several businesses purely for the purpose of getting richer. In his wake, there will be others who have suffered bankruptcies, marriage breakdowns and suicides. This isn't airy-fairy leftist nonsense. Business deals don't involve ethics (unless the company PR sees a way of increasing market share by being publically charitable) if they get in the way of profits.

If the businessman in question owns the business, it is his or hers to do with what they like. I don't like anyone telling me what to do with things that I own, and I don't feel I have the right to tell them what they can or cannot do with what they own.

If he buys a business because he thinks the parts are worth more than the whole then I see nothing illegal, immoral or unethical about selling it off in parts.

Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and fame...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2012, 07:10 PM
RE: Perspective on quality of life and NASA.
(05-08-2012 05:38 PM)Red Celt Wrote:  
(05-08-2012 12:58 PM)LabMonster13 Wrote:  I created a post making suggestions for living in a world that has better equality for everyone. I did this on an atheist forum because it seems to me to be the safest place to do so. I am disheartened to see that most would rather be resistant to ideas about equality for everyone, make accusations and discredit me because I had a poorly written op.

There is an important point that you need to accept: all we have in common is atheism (apart from the theists). Atheism doesn't have an all-encompassing belief system, apart from the one that is encapsulated by that one word.

So don't expect any of your views to remain unchallenged.

Also, there are a lot of morons in the world... and most of them have internet access. Drinking Beverage

I never mind my ideas being challenged, that is not the point. I am bothered by the hostility in tones to ideas of equality. But thank you for your perspective. It gives me things to ponder.

"No matter how old or young everyone is worth it, everyone can learn and no one is beneath you unless they claim to be above you." -Myself
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2012, 07:11 PM
RE: Perspective on quality of life and NASA.
(05-08-2012 06:42 PM)Jeff Wrote:  I don't accept the assertion that the left is more caring about others. The differences tend to be the "how" one goes about helping others. See this study from Rice University for some more on that http://news.rice.edu/2012/05/31/liberals...le-giving/

I kept reading that article, waiting for it to back up your point... and it never did. All it showed was the differences in values that people of differing political views adhered to. And? There were questions, not actual donations... no recording of the levels of donations from those of each party.

Of course you don't accept that the left is more caring for others. Because that would mean that the right are horrible people. And you're on the right. And you're not horrible. So it can't be true.

Revisit that concept when you repeat the "greed is good" mantra. Greed is good... more more more for me me me... I wants it... my precious... it's mine, all mine... nobody else's... and, yet, you think that the right are just as caring about others as the left? Whatever helps you get to sleep at night, but you contradict yourself. If greed is good, then giving must be bad, because it is the opposite of greed.

(05-08-2012 06:42 PM)Jeff Wrote:  OK I'll be turning into Satan here in a minute so you'll want to have firm grip on a crucifix or other anti-Satan device. First, I've been completely confused about what 2 trillion dollars you guys are talking about.

I'm not talking about any 2 trillion. I got into the thread because of your claim that ownership trumps everything else. Which you repeated:-

(05-08-2012 06:42 PM)Jeff Wrote:  If he buys a business because he thinks the parts are worth more than the whole then I see nothing illegal, immoral or unethical about selling it off in parts.

If you can't see the problem with that statement then you and I are too far removed from any possible middle-ground to make any discussion worthwhile. As is anyone else who has ever sat in on an ethics class.

So it's a case of agree-to-disagree.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Red Celt's post
05-08-2012, 07:41 PM
RE: Perspective on quality of life and NASA.
(05-08-2012 07:11 PM)Red Celt Wrote:  I kept reading that article, waiting for it to back up your point... and it never did. All it showed was the differences in values that people of differing political views adhered to. And?

Here's the line I was thinking of, that addresses "caring" - "“We found that while both Republicans and Democrats tend to equally value justice and caring for the vulnerable, Republicans place a much higher value on issues of purity and respect for authority,” said Karen Page Winterich, study co-author and assistant professor of marketing at Pennsylvania State University. "

(05-08-2012 07:11 PM)Red Celt Wrote:  There were questions, not actual donations... no recording of the levels of donations from those of each party.

Here's a study http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...l_giv.html out of Syracuse University that addresses charitable giving by party, with the following findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

(05-08-2012 07:11 PM)Red Celt Wrote:  Of course you don't accept that the left is more caring for others. Because that would mean that the right are horrible people. And you're on the right. And you're not horrible. So it can't be true.

I'm pretty horrible when it comes to donating money. I'm in our local Rotary Club and do a lot of do-gooding, but not much else.

(05-08-2012 07:11 PM)Red Celt Wrote:  Revisit that concept when you repeat the "greed is good" mantra. Greed is good... more more more for me me me... I wants it... my precious... it's mine, all mine... nobody else's... and, yet, you think that the right are just as caring about others as the left? Whatever helps you get to sleep at night, but you contradict yourself. If greed is good, then giving must be bad, because it is the opposite of greed.

No I don't think I'm personally as caring, just that the "left" on the whole is not more caring than the "right." When you say "it's all mine" you make the mistake of treating the "it" as fixed. It isn't. Greedy investors/entrepreneurs/inventors etc often make the "it" bigger. They create wealth. It's not a matter of taking it from others.

(05-08-2012 06:42 PM)Jeff Wrote:  If he buys a business because he thinks the parts are worth more than the whole then I see nothing illegal, immoral or unethical about selling it off in parts.

(05-08-2012 07:11 PM)Red Celt Wrote:  If you can't see the problem with that statement then you and I are too far removed from any possible middle-ground to make any discussion worthwhile. As is anyone else who has ever sat in on an ethics class.

You have no right to another man's property. He has no obligation to act according to your will. He is not your slave. Those are my ethics.

(05-08-2012 07:11 PM)Red Celt Wrote:  So it's a case of agree-to-disagree.

As you wish.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2012, 08:03 PM
RE: Perspective on quality of life and NASA.
I just don't get the obsession that some (right-centred) people have over the concept of the ownership of property.

[Image: property.jpg]

Your lifetime is so short, yet the key thing you associate yourself with is the ownership of objects that pre-existed your insignificant blip on the timeline... and will exist after you've gone.

From non-existence to existence and back to non-existence... materialists aren't looking up at the stars... they're pissing on every lamp post they encounter, saying "this is mine", "that is mine", "that... it used to be yours, but now it's mine!"... like a dog wandering through a new neighbourhood.

It is so fucking un-evolved.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2012, 08:11 PM
RE: Perspective on quality of life and NASA.
(05-08-2012 07:41 PM)Jeff Wrote:  
(05-08-2012 06:42 PM)Jeff Wrote:  If he buys a business because he thinks the parts are worth more than the whole then I see nothing illegal, immoral or unethical about selling it off in parts.

(05-08-2012 07:11 PM)Red Celt Wrote:  If you can't see the problem with that statement then you and I are too far removed from any possible middle-ground to make any discussion worthwhile. As is anyone else who has ever sat in on an ethics class.

You have no right to another man's property. He has no obligation to act according to your will. He is not your slave. Those are my ethics.

Here's part (most?) of the problem.
If you believe that making money is the only purpose or the highest good, then you buy a company, break it up, and sell the parts. Fuck the employees, that's collateral damage.
If you believe that there is more to a business than profit, you don't do that. You are producing something of value, you are providing jobs, you are increasing the wealth and health of the society in which you live, of which you are part, that you are strengthening; all of which benefits you as well as others.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
05-08-2012, 08:32 PM
RE: Perspective on quality of life and NASA.
(05-08-2012 08:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  Here's part (most?) of the problem.
If you believe that making money is the only purpose or the highest good, then you buy a company, break it up, and sell the parts. Fuck the employees, that's collateral damage.
If you believe that there is more to a business than profit, you don't do that. You are producing something of value, you are providing jobs, you are increasing the wealth and health of the society in which you live, of which you are part, that you are strengthening; all of which benefits you as well as others.

I'm fine with it as long as you (the owner) decide the course. However your first scenario is not quite as you describe. When a company is broken up, it's usually the highly-paid upper management that is fired, and then a reduction (not wholesale firing) in the size of the workforce. That's where the value is realized - leaving a stronger company behind that is then positioned to grow. The alternative is a too-costly workforce that leaves the company weakened, and likely to die, resulting in everyone losing their jobs. It's not fuck the employees. It's being realistic about how to create a strong company for 90% of the employees.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2012, 08:43 PM
RE: Perspective on quality of life and NASA.
(05-08-2012 08:32 PM)Jeff Wrote:  
(05-08-2012 08:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  Here's part (most?) of the problem.
If you believe that making money is the only purpose or the highest good, then you buy a company, break it up, and sell the parts. Fuck the employees, that's collateral damage.
If you believe that there is more to a business than profit, you don't do that. You are producing something of value, you are providing jobs, you are increasing the wealth and health of the society in which you live, of which you are part, that you are strengthening; all of which benefits you as well as others.

I'm fine with it as long as you (the owner) decide the course. However your first scenario is not quite as you describe. When a company is broken up, it's usually the highly-paid upper management that is fired, and then a reduction (not wholesale firing) in the size of the workforce. That's where the value is realized - leaving a stronger company behind that is then positioned to grow. The alternative is a too-costly workforce that leaves the company weakened, and likely to die, resulting in everyone losing their jobs. It's not fuck the employees. It's being realistic about how to create a strong company for 90% of the employees.

That is sometimes the outcome. Wholesale dismantling is also sometimes the outcome. And it is very dependent on the definition one uses for a 'strong company'.

A company that makes a product, has sales that supports its functioning, but makes no one wealthy is strong to some, weak to others. To raiders, it is weak. To the employees and the community, it is strong.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2012, 08:54 PM
RE: Perspective on quality of life and NASA.
(05-08-2012 08:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  Wholesale dismantling is also sometimes the outcome.

Chas, this discussion has gotten too hypothetical. Tell me the name of a company that was wholesale dismantled.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2012, 09:06 PM
RE: Perspective on quality of life and NASA.
(05-08-2012 08:54 PM)Jeff Wrote:  
(05-08-2012 08:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  Wholesale dismantling is also sometimes the outcome.

Chas, this discussion has gotten too hypothetical. Tell me the name of a company that was wholesale dismantled.

Boston Digital Corp. purchased and dismantled by Agie-Charmilles.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: