Obama Care

Well I was gonna quote myself but that is just inane so I will just add these headlines, and again ask:
IF GM were operating in the RED to the tune of 95BILLION a MONTH (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090713/pl_nm/us_usa_budget_2;_ylt=AgEwxpXmnDZh5m4wHvfnn7dv24cA; _ylu=X3oDMTE2dHNoaWQ3BHBvcwMyBHNlYwN5bi1yLWItbGVmd ARzbGsDZXYtanVuZWJ1ZGdl), what would happen to it?
Oh wait, we will never know because they declared bankruptcy when being far less in debt.

We are now at a TRILLION dollar deficit (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090713/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy_deficit), not Debt, but deficit. We should be cutting all sorts of programs, not looking for ways to let the government spend even more.

edit: put another way, the debt grows by about $50,000 every second. Figure your annual salary in multiples/fractions of that, and then say this country needs to do anything but go on a serious fiscal diet

Well I was gonna quote myself but that is just inane so I will just add these headlines, and again ask:
IF GM were operating in the RED to the tune of 95BILLION a MONTH (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090713/pl_nm/us_usa_budget_2;_ylt=AgEwxpXmnDZh5m4wHvfnn7dv24cA; _ylu=X3oDMTE2dHNoaWQ3BHBvcwMyBHNlYwN5bi1yLWItbGVmd ARzbGsDZXYtanVuZWJ1ZGdl), what would happen to it?
Oh wait, we will never know because they declared bankruptcy when being far less in debt.

We are now at a TRILLION dollar deficit (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090713/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy_deficit), not Debt, but deficit. We should be cutting all sorts of programs, not looking for ways to let the government spend even more.

edit: put another way, the debt grows by about $50,000 every second. Figure your annual salary in multiples/fractions of that, and then say this country needs to do anything but go on a serious fiscal diet

Good post and I will add this is not a Dem or Rep issue it is both parties that have been spending forever like druken sailors. At some point it has to stop.

You're smarter than that, but I'll spell it out for you, since you asked.

Corporate structure:
Shareholders -> Executive Officers -> Employees

Shareholders want return on investment, but are usually not involved in the everyday activities and/or decisions of the business. They usually only care about the bottom line.

If the executive officers of a corporation are faced with a moral dilemma, and chose the morally right thing to do but profits suffer, the shareholders will elect new officers. If the executive officers want to keep their jobs, they will almost always be forced to choose profits over ethics. See the Ford Pinto as a case study.

All right -- you answered none of my questions, but I'll still play along.

The Ford Pinto is a good example, but it proves my point more than it does yours. The Pinto is just one of the many examples of American cars that signified the decline in quality of the Big Three. As a result, they started losing out to better cars made by Toyota, Honda, and (at the time) Datsun. The American car companies paid the price for trying to cut corners and deliver an inferior product. So for them, choosing "profits over ethics" ultimately wound up losing them profits.

The free market worked like a charm; make a better product at a better price, and in the end, the consumers benefit.

The question is, what do you consider "immoral" in a business sense? And that goes back to the questions that you neglected to answer. I look forward to your response.

I love getting to the root of this "greed" issue...


GhettoDogAllStars may not have answered your questions but I will. First, your "questions" tend to be simplistic and stupid in nature. Second, they tend to be leading questions but not the good kind. Finally, they tend to be very insulting to sensibility.


When you're searching for a job, all other things being equal, do you go for the one that pays more over the one that pays less?

Are you being greedy if you choose the higher paying job?If all things are equal why does one job pay more than the other? Perhaps one requires you to be away from your family more often? Maybe it will but a strain on your marriage? Maybe you're being too short sighted to see that you may lose your family at the expense of few more bucks and a shiny new boat?

If you're shopping for a product, and two products are on the shelf that both will do the job you want them to do, are you being greedy by selecting the less expensive brand?
WTF kind of question is this and what does it have to do with greed? I don't believe you understand what the word greedy (http://www.answers.com/topic/greedy) means.

If you start a business, and you do everything in your power to cut down on expenses to earn as much money as you possibly can, are you being greedy?Your best question so far but a very stupid question nonetheless. Making as much money as possible is perfectly fine, making as much money as possible at the expense of your customers, employees and shareholders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron) is not.



You might want to spend more time practicing "getting to the root" of problems because this attempt is TT FAIL.

GhettoDogAllStars may not have answered your questions but I will. First, your "questions" tend to be simplistic and stupid in nature. Second, they tend to be leading questions but not the good kind. Finally, they tend to be very insulting to sensibility.

When you're searching for a job, all other things being equal, do you go for the one that pays more over the one that pays less?

Are you being greedy if you choose the higher paying job?

If all things are equal why does one job pay more than the other? Perhaps one requires you to be away from your family more often? Maybe it will but a strain on your marriage? Maybe you're being too short sighted to see that you may lose your family at the expense of few more bucks and a shiny new boat?

Clearly you don't understand the question. When I say "all other things being equal" I mean that the two jobs are otherwise equal in their perks, their distance from your home, the health and vacation benefits they're offering -- the two jobs offers are indentical, but one pays more than the other. Which job would you choose? And are you being greedy by taking the higher paying job?

If you're shopping for a product, and the two products on the shelf both will do the job you want them to do, are you being greedy by selecting the less expensive brand?

WTF kind of question is this and what does it have to do with greed? I don't believe you understand what the word greedy (http://www.answers.com/topic/greedy) means.

From your link: "Greed: 1. Excessively desirous of acquiring OR POSSESSING, especially wishing to possess more than what one needs or deserves."

If you're trying to save money by choosing a less expensive product, aren't you trying to possess more wealth? The object, in the end, is to have as much money left over after the purchase as possible, no? Again, greed = possessing more than you deserve -- think real hard here, Saden.

If you start a business, and you do everything in your power to cut down on expenses to earn as much money as you possibly can, are you being greedy?

Your best question so far but a very stupid question nonetheless. Making as much money as possible is perfectly fine, making as much money as possible at the expense of your customers, employees and shareholders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron) is not.

Saden, you really ought to endeavor to do two things: spend more time actually reading the links you provide, and start using a dictionary. Your Enron example doesn't fit what we're talking about here. Check the definiton of fraud (http://www.answers.com/topic/fraud).

"1. Fraud: A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain."

You say that making as much money as possible is fine, but not at the expense of your customers, employees, and shareholders. No kidding. One constitutes fraud, the other does not. That's like saying studying hard in college and working diligently for a higher paying job is fine but robbing banks is not. That's why the Enron Wiki link does nothing to prove your point. Enron engaged in accounting fraud which is against the law.

The point behind those questions I posed was to help distinguish between what is greedy and what is acting in your own best interests. If you answer the questions honestly, you will see that there's not much difference between the two.

GhettoDogAllStars used the phrase "corporate greed". Problem is, corporate greed is no different than what an individual does to enhance his or her position in life. We all want a better life for ourselves. Some of us spend more time with education, getting as much training as we can so that we're better qualified for a higher paying job. Some of us then use the money we've earned at that higher paying job to start or acquire a business that makes us more money. If we're successful, we expand, hire more employees, invest more, save more, and spend more.

Corporations, businesses big and small are no different. They've done exactly the same thing. In fact, just about all big businesses started small in the beginning. But somewhere along the line, they crossed the line from being respectable, to being hated by those on the left. I've tried for a long time to find out exactly what that line is. Is there a specific budget you can't exceed? A certain number of employees you can hire before you become "evil" in the minds of socialists? To me, that makes no sense.

That's why philisophically, I don't accept that 'greed' or even 'selfishness' is necessarily a bad thing.

Clearly you don't understand the question. When I say "all other things being equal" I mean that the two jobs are otherwise equal in their perks, their distance from your home, the health and vacation benefits they're offering -- the two jobs offers are indentical, but one pays more than the other. Which job would you choose? And are you being greedy by taking the higher paying job?

I take it I answered your question satisfactorily then?

From your link: "Greed: 1. Excessively desirous of acquiring OR POSSESSING, especially wishing to possess more than what one needs or deserves."

If you're trying to save money by choosing a less expensive product, aren't you trying to possess more wealth? The object, in the end, is to have as much money left over after the purchase as possible, no? Again, greed = possessing more than you deserve -- think real hard here, Saden.

If there has ever been bastardization and degeneration of a word this would be a great candidate. Choosing a product over another because it is cheaper is not an example greed. Buying both products at the same time when you only needs one is. You would be better served using the word frugal (http://www.answers.com/frugal) instead of greedy.



Saden, you really ought to endeavor to do two things: spend more time actually reading the links you provide, and start using a dictionary. Your Enron example doesn't fit what we're talking about here. Check the definiton of fraud (http://www.answers.com/topic/fraud).

"1. Fraud: A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain."

You say that making as much money as possible is fine, but not at the expense of your customers, employees, and shareholders. No kidding. One constitutes fraud, the other does not.

You are right in that their conduct was fraudulent but wrong in that you fail to realize what motivated this fraud (hint, greed). Greed is a prerequisite for fraud (absent psychological defects of course). I challenge you to give me an example of fraud absent greed.

That's like saying studying hard in college and working diligently for a higher paying job is fine but robbing banks is not. That's why the Enron Wiki link does nothing to prove your point. Enron engaged in accounting fraud which is against the law.

:doh:

GhettoDogAllStars may not have answered your questions but I will. First, your "questions" tend to be simplistic and stupid in nature. Second, they tend to be leading questions but not the good kind. Finally, they tend to be very insulting to sensibility.


If all things are equal why does one job pay more than the other? Perhaps one requires you to be away from your family more often? Maybe it will but a strain on your marriage? Maybe you're being too short sighted to see that you may lose your family at the expense of few more bucks and a shiny new boat?

WTF kind of question is this and what does it have to do with greed? I don't believe you understand what the word greedy (http://www.answers.com/topic/greedy) means.

Your best question so far but a very stupid question nonetheless. Making as much money as possible is perfectly fine, making as much money as possible at the expense of your customers, employees and shareholders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron) is not.



You might want to spend more time practicing "getting to the root" of problems because this attempt is TT FAIL.
Beam you got a shiny new boat and have not invited me to go fishing? I only live 20 to 30 minutes away and I'll won't be greedy and I'll chip in for gas, bait, and beer. Heck, I'll even bring us both lunch but I can only buy one slice of each kind of meat because Saden says if I buy two of the same things then its greedy.

You say that making as much money as possible is fine, but not at the expense of your customers, employees, and shareholders. No kidding. One constitutes fraud [not greed], the other does not. ... That's why the Enron Wiki link does nothing to prove your point [as an example of greed]. Enron engaged in accounting fraud which is against the law [but did not engage in corporate greed].

Saden answered it perfectly, but I'll elaborate a little.

You're basically saying Enron was not greedy, because they were fraudulent. The two are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to be greedy and fraudulent at the same time. And, like Saden said, fraud is almost always motivated by greed.

I fail to see how if something is illegal then it cannot be greedy. That makes absolutely no sense. That's why I gave up explaining this to Firstdown. You surprise me, because I never thought you'd use the same ridiculous reasoning.

That's why philisophically, I don't accept that 'greed' or even 'selfishness' is necessarily a bad thing.

I'm probably misunderstanding you (and the word "philosophically" does not change anything), but if not then I feel very bad for you. I think Saden was right -- you don't understand what greed is.

Gentlemen, if you cannot grasp the point I'm trying to make -- that there is no difference between what you call "corporate greed" and people doing whatever they can to better their position in life, outside of fraud and stealing from other people, then I don't know what else I can say.

Neither of you have answered my question -- what's the difference between an evil, vile, big business doing everything it can to enhance its bottom line and an individual doing everything he or she can to collect and save as much wealth as possible? How is one greed and the other not?

I'll answer, since neither of you will. Both are examples of greed. In one degree or another, greed exists in all of us. So yes, Enron was greedy. But so are you and me, and everyone else striving for a better life, for something more than we already have. But when you cross the line into cheating, stealing or defrauding others then that's something different.

That's why, again, I don't think greed is a bad thing.

Beam you got a shiny new boat and have not invited me to go fishing? I only live 20 to 30 minutes away and I'll won't be greedy and I'll chip in for gas, bait, and beer. Heck, I'll even bring us both lunch but I can only buy one slice of each kind of meat because Saden says if I buy two of the same things then its greedy.

Well, I'm not there yet. I have lots more hard work to do before I can get a boat. When that day comes we'll get together and be greedy with more beer than we possibly deserve.