| Business ethics:Questions |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: jesse ® 11/14/2002, 05:55:47 Author Profile Mail author |
The post below led into some other discussions, one of which I’d like to bring here.
(hope you don’t mind a second post since posts are coming slowly now) Here are questions for everyone – the make believe economist and the economist. If the owner(s) of a business has more wealth/money that she/he’s capable of ever spending but continues to expand the business to accumulate still more wealth at the detriment of other businesses that will be laid dead, are these persons just plain GREEDY? Do such businesses (that have such economic power) have some sort of ethical responsibility along these lines? Let’s face it, business with volume purchasing power have a BIG HAMMER over the heads of smaller like business. We know a few of them. (There’s a law in Florida that says that a gas station can’t sell for less than cost. This prevents a large entity from underselling for a time to run the single station owner out.) Does a business have to keep expanding faster than population growth to be deemed successful? |
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
Re: Business ethics:Questions Re: Business ethics:Questions -- jesse Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/14/2002, 06:16:17
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Business ethics:Questions Re: Re: Business ethics:Questions -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
11/14/2002, 09:14:52
Author Profile Mail author
“GREED is unfortunately a strong characteristic of us humans...”Do you think so? Consider that greed is fortunate. That is, greed motivates “us humans” to excel, to compete, to strive to succeed. As we humans implement greed, we create all the things which enhance or have the capacity to enhance our living conditions. Pharmaceutical companies are producing new medicines largely if not entirely because of greed. A successful new drug makes the company money. But it also makes better health for those who take the medicine.
The illustrations of this could be extended to virtually all those things which we look forward to or which we take for granted. Are “societies” which “control” greed in better condition BECAUSE they controlled? If so, what examples of “societies” would you cite that are (in your view) better than what we see in the United States?
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Greed? Re: Re: Business ethics:Questions -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/14/2002, 10:22:43
Author Profile Mail author
I am of the opinion that capitalism should be a bit more controlled in the US to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. I think some European countries, like Sweden, are doing a better job in this respect. If you wish to follow this line of discussion, please continue with your thoughts.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Greed? Re: Greed? -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
11/14/2002, 10:57:51
Author Profile Mail author
Certainly those who feel poor, who feel disenfranchised in the United States are likely to take desperate measure to secure by any means what they regard as “their fair share.” The real safety comes when the impoverished remain essentially unaware of just how greedy the rich really are. Such people continue to conduct themselves in such a way as to enrich the already rich -- relatively speaking.
“Finding the right balance” as you postulate assumes that there IS such a thing as “right balance.” But right for whom? And right relative to what?
When you say, “that capitalism should be a bit more controlled in the US,” just what IS that? What or who is to control? In addition, why should it be “more controlled”? Of course there excesses. But excess itself is relative. What is too much excess?
Even if we were to have some universal agreement on what level or manipulation of greed is just right, how would it be brought into being?
Are not excesses being rung out regularly by the market place of capitalism? Enron might be a case in point. When you say, “I think some European countries, like Sweden, are doing a better job...,” what do you mean by that? Are their systems of governance or wealth management superior? Are their levels of innovation better? Is their productive capacity superior?
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Greed? Re: Re: Greed? -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/14/2002, 11:54:11
Author Profile Mail author
No doubt about it. But we can't ignore the problem at home (and it is much smaller and easier to "fix") while concentrating on global problems (how much can be done, I don't know). In short, it is a shame to see so many destitute and homeless people reside in this richest and most powerful country in the world.
"The real safety comes when the impoverished remain essentially unaware of just how greedy the rich really are."
That sounds a bit cynical. I'd rather recommend compassion and say that society has an obligation to provide a bare minimum to everyone.
"“Finding the right balance” as you postulate assumes that there IS such a thing as “right balance.” But right for whom? And right relative to what?"
I know there is no universal balance, it always comes down to "personal balance." However, the society and especially its economuc system can influence and guide personal decisions.
"When you say, “that capitalism should be a bit more controlled in the US,” just what IS that? What or who is to control?"
You agree that capitalism of 100 years ago in the US is quite different from what we see today. Witness all the safety nets, like social security, that have been legislated. IMO more of the same is necessary.
"In addition, why should it be “more controlled”? Of course there excesses. But excess itself is relative. What is too much excess?"
You talk about "relativism" as though there is nothing we can do. Of course things are relative but there is always room for improvement. Just one example: Pay more attention to the homeless.
"Are not excesses being rung out regularly by the market place of capitalism? Enron might be a case in point."
Here is the crux of the matter. NO IT WAS NOT capitalism that "rung out" Enron, but the rules and regulations that control capitalism did that. And we need better rules and regulations because this "ringing out" came too late to the rescue.
"When you say, “I think some European countries, like Sweden, are doing a better job...,” what do you mean by that? Are their systems of governance or wealth management superior? Are their levels of innovation better? Is their productive capacity superior?"
What I can say about Sweden and some other "social democracies" is that they are better able (through their laws) to control capitalism and make it more "compassionate." The US has been doing this more slowly. Nevertheless, I believe it is progressing.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Greed? Re: Re: Greed? -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
11/15/2002, 09:10:46
Author Profile Mail author
On the other hand, when the haves recognize that others want to be haves also, they try to prevent it. Consider our current administration’s position with regard to Iraq’s possession of “weapons of mass destruction.” The Bush administration and Americans in general agree that Iraq or any other country we dislike should not have the very thing that we ourselves do have.
We feel threatened...we are threatened. What is the only nation which has used the atomic bomb? America HAS nuclear weapons. America has chemical weapons. America has biological weapons. WE developed them. Suppose another country asked to “send an inspection team” to America and FIND all such weapons which America has with the intent to disarm America?
The “haves” always insist on privilege which the have-nots shall not be permitted to acquire.
One observation you made was this: “ You talk about "relativism" as though there is nothing we can do. Of course things are relative but there is always room for improvement. Just one example: Pay more attention to the homeless.”
It was not my intention to suggest there is nothing we can do. But just what can be done pragmatically is not always clear. One reason we pay little attention to the homeless is because they have no power. Politicians are not seeking the vote of the homeless. Their voice is largely diminished because they lack power to influence. If the homeless could somehow organize to successfully destroy something valued by the powerful, the powerful would pay attention. While some might go to jail (as blacks did in the struggle for civil rights), change would be MORE likely than it is today.
There are things which can be done, but motivating their getting done is key.
You observed: “ Here is the crux of the matter. NO IT WAS NOT capitalism that "rung out" Enron, but the rules and regulations that control capitalism did that. And we need better rules and regulations because this "ringing out" came too late to the rescue.”
It seems this is a distinction without a difference. “Rules and regulations that control capitalism” are a product of capitalism. That is a part of the picture of what American capitalism is today. To be sure it is constantly evolving. New laws are added; old laws are taken off the record; modification of laws are made. A free press is a part of our capitalism, and that press reported on Enron and the law went into gear.
You may be correct with regard to “better job” done by some other countries. I am not in a position to voice evaluation about that.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Capitalism Re: Re: Greed? -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/15/2002, 10:00:11
Author Profile Mail author
No doubt about it. This is especially true nowadays globally with instant communications.
About Iraq and weapons of mass destrucation, do you really put Iraq at the same level, as far as danger to the world goes, as the US or UK or even Russia?
"It seems this is a distinction without a difference."
Really? Tell that to the consevatives in the government who are usually opposed to any regulations.
“Rules and regulations that control capitalism” are a product of capitalism."
You may characterize it that way if you wish, but they are in opposite positions to each other. Rules try to counterbalance the excesses of capitalism and are the result of hard-fought battles in the branches of government.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Capitalism Re: Capitalism -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
11/16/2002, 10:04:33
Author Profile Mail author
“About Iraq and weapons of mass destrucation, do you really put Iraq at the same level, as far as danger to the world goes, as the US or UK or even Russia?”I didn’t say that. But if Iraq were to trigger a nuclear response from the US, it is as dangerous as the United states. The US is the only nation to have used nuclear weapons which killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people.
nofaith researched well and stated effectively here.
You stated:
“You may characterize it that way if you wish, but they are in opposite positions to each other. Rules try to counterbalance the excesses of capitalism and are the result of hard-fought battles in the branches of government.”The “rules” make possible the excesses of capitalism as well as restrict excesses.
JAK
Modified by JAK at Sat, Nov 16, 2002, 10:14:35
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
No Faith! Re: Re: Capitalism -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/16/2002, 12:20:40
Author Profile Mail author
I have no faith in nofaith's research!
"The “rules” make possible the excesses of capitalism as well as restrict excesses."
This is a strange statement to me. For analogy, can I replace "excesses of capitalism" with "crime"? If I can, do you still agree with the result? It will read:
The “rules” make possible crimes as well as restrict cimes.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: No Faith! Re: No Faith! -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: nofaith ®
11/16/2002, 14:18:51
Author Profile Mail author
Please state where I went wrong. If I made a mistake, I would like to know about it. I will acknowledge it if I misrepresented or wrote something that was untrue. Never was it my intention to claim something that was false, and if you have a specific example, please correct me! I am not afraid of being wrong, or admitting sloppiness, if there was any. I'm serious: what was inaccurate?
In any case, the use of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is uncontested, and is clearly most destructive use of WMD in the world to date. That incident alone is enough to rank the US at the top of the list of use of WMD.
-Dan
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Here it is! Re: Re: No Faith! -- nofaith Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/16/2002, 21:11:10
Author Profile Mail author
However, if you insist (!) I'll give it another try here. I read in another post you saying you are a Liberatarian. Fine. But please, please try to lookt at all sides of an issue. Especially, what would've happened if a certain thing would've been done differently, in all other different options that was avalable. Because, usually, in complex issues, like WW2, none of the options avaiable are good, and the players have to really, really choose between EVIL SOLUTIONS. That said now let's go to your statement:
"In any case, the use of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is uncontested, and is clearly most destructive use of WMD in the world to date. That incident alone is enough to rank the US at the top of the list of use of WMD."
Please answer these questions thoughtfully and concisely.
1) Do you agree that Hitler and his allies had to be stopped?
2) I agree that the bombings in Japan were terrible, but tell me what alternatives were avalable, with what consequences?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Here it is! Re: Here it is! -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: nofaith ®
11/17/2002, 05:58:52
Author Profile Mail author
I understand if you find my views so drastically different from your own that you don't think a discussion has a point. If that is what you are saying (and what I sort of guessed when you said, "Thanks for your time," and left it at that), then I can accept it. But it is a bit different from saying you have "no faith" in my research, which (to me) implies some sort of intellectual dishonesty on my part. Perhaps you simply meant that I did not research the reasons behind the decisions to use nuclear weapons in Japan.
As for the questions:
1). I think it was best for the world that they be stopped, yes.
2). It has been claimed, and accepted by many, that fewer lives were lost by dropping the bombs. If this were true, I don't believe it would mitigate what happened. What I personally find so offensive is that civilians were the ones attacked. Regardless of what systems is used to attack, hitting civilians to deter the military is deplorable, IMO.
However, since the time of the war, that idea has been challenged, and I believe it is no longer clear that the decision was "the best." The prevailing alternate theory is the the bomb was dropped to intimidate the Russians. See here for one person's take on the theories. You don't have to challenge the theory--just know that it's not universally accepted that the bombs actually saved lives overall. I have read quite a few attempts to calculate the overall loss, and most total far less than the lives lost in Japan. From the linked page:
In June 1945, Truman ordered the U.S. military to calculate the cost in American lives for a planned assault on Japan. Consequently, the Joint War Plans Committee prepared a report for the Chiefs of Staff, dated June 15, 1945, thus providing the closest thing anyone has to "accurate": 40,000 U.S. soldiers killed, 150,000 wounded, and 3,500 missing. While the actual casualty count remains unknowable, it was widely known at the time that Japan had been trying to surrender for months prior to the atomic bombing. A May 5, 1945 cable, intercepted and decoded by the US, "dispelled any possible doubt that the Japanese were eager to sue for peace." In fact, the US Strategic Bombing Survey reported shortly after the war, that Japan "in all probability" would have surrendered before the much-discussed November 1, 1945 Allied invasion of the homeland. Truman himself eloquently noted in his diary that Stalin would "be in the Jap War on August 15th. Fini (sic) Japs when that comes about."
This is so you understand where I'm coming from, and I understand if you don't agree with or want to hear more about these alternate theories.
-Dan
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Monday morning guesses! Re: Re: Here it is! -- nofaith Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/17/2002, 07:02:44
Author Profile Mail author
Yes I have no faith in those who compare Saddam to the US. And BTW that was the issue under discussion and not ONLY WW2.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: No Faith! Re: No Faith! -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
11/17/2002, 09:01:54
Author Profile Mail author
JAK previously:
"nofaith researched well and stated effectively here"Bahman:
I have no faith in nofaith's research!JAK:
What is your particular objection to nofaith’s comments? Without clarification, this comment conveys nothing to me.JAK previously:
"The “rules” make possible the excesses of capitalism as well as restrict excesses."Bahman:
This is a strange statement to me. For analogy, can I replace "excesses of capitalism" with "crime"? If I can, do you still agree with the result? It will read:The “rules” make possible crimes as well as restrict cimes.
JAK:
I do not know what you mean by this transposition. A point which I intended was that rules facilitate. Under capitalism rules are made and changed, modified, reversed, etc. Correction of what is generally regarded as “excess” is application of law or rule as I have described here. Such rules can be changed, modified, reversed, etc. While such changes in capitalism often anticipate problems and seek to correct them, such is not always the case. Sometimes the problems overwhelm the system of governance. Corrections may come later than they should.Your comment is no “analogy” which I can discern based on your comment. Clarification is essential. Having read nofaith’s comments which followed this post of yours, I like him should like to see the particulars of your disagreement with his comments as well as mine.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Agree? Re: Re: No Faith! -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/17/2002, 09:29:33
Author Profile Mail author
You amybe right. This one-liner couldn't say much. But now I've answered nofaith in more detail and can add to it that I suspect his research was very selective in choosing his sources because the conclusion he (and his sources) draws is far from being universal.
As for rules & capitalism, it seems that we are in agreement: Rules and regulation ARE necessary to control and "leash" the ecesses of capitalism. If you agree with this conclusion, vala (sp?), and forget about the analogy.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: calling for example Re: Agree? -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
11/17/2002, 10:24:01
Author Profile Mail author
Second, how do you see law or rule as curbing what you cite?
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Here are some Re: Re: calling for example -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/17/2002, 11:38:45
Author Profile Mail author
On the other hand, if you want more historical and expansive laws, Social Security and Welfair systems come to mind. They were of course introduced to reduce the vulnerability of older people and the poor. Need I say more?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
In addition Re: Here are some -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/17/2002, 13:39:54
Author Profile Mail author
Correction for my previous post: It should read, Welfare.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Questions remain Re: In addition -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
11/18/2002, 08:54:36
Author Profile Mail author
You don't have to go very far for that: Enron (I think even you mentioned it) and other recent scandals which resulted in even this conservative administration to introduce some laws.
On the other hand, if you want more historical and expansive laws, Social Security and Welfair systems come to mind. They were of course introduced to reduce the vulnerability of older people and the poor. Need I say more?
Probably the most illustrious of the examples would be the SEC Security and Exchange Commission) which can be called a disciplinary agency. And don't forget all the labor laws, for the "little guys!" Examples are too numerous to count.
My questions were:
What would you cite as an example of excess of capitalism?
Second, how do you see law or rule as curbing what you cite?
JAK:
It seems to me a major disconnect between my questions and your comments. Specifically, I queried for your examples of capitalism, AND THEN, how do you see law or rule as curbing.Your comments reproduced in this post are not responses to the questions.
The point which I made was that within the scheme of American capitalism there are the mechanisms both for excess as well as mechanisms for exposing and ultimately controlling. The example of Enron is an example where a company WAS exposed. That is not to argue that great damage was not done. It was to persons within the company as well as to unenlightened shareholders left holding worthless stock after the high-level persons sold hundreds of millions of dollars worth of stock JUST BEFORE the collapse.
But, It happened within the capitalist system which was and is in the process of self-correcting.
Is it your view that this is a failure of capitalism or a success? In this, I imply answers to the questions which I raised. Namely that there has been success in dealing with problems which arise from a free market.
In the wake of your response, I don’t know if you approve or disapprove of the existence of the SEC or Social Security or the welfare system. Do you see those as failure of capitalism or as success. By implication, you seem to cite them as failure. If so, do you propose that they be eliminated?
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
The disconnect Re: Re: Questions remain -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/18/2002, 09:43:15
Author Profile Mail author
On the other hand, you are thinking of, and referring to, the present economic system as "capitalism" which is fine. Then we probably should call the theoretical Smith capitalism as "pure capitalism" or such. Does that make sense now?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Definitions Re: The disconnect -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
11/20/2002, 08:03:48
Author Profile Mail author
“Marketplace” is a relative term as is the combination “free enterprise.” Free enterprise is relative....relatively free, relatively enterprise.
“How things started” with regard to your “Adam Smith” illustration seems irrelevant. We might be able under certain conditions to produce pure oxygen. But applying an adjective like “pure” to the complexity of a system with multiple aspects and developments such as capitalism seems an inappropriate use of that word.
Certainly there were will be more developments in the future. There can be no doubt about that.
JAK
Modified by JAK at Wed, Nov 20, 2002, 08:04:33
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
No Definitions, No Discussion! Re: Re: Definitions -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/20/2002, 08:41:17
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: No Definitions, No Discussion! Re: No Definitions, No Discussion! -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
11/20/2002, 10:40:10
Author Profile Mail author
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Clarifaction Re: Re: No Definitions, No Discussion! -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/20/2002, 11:55:33
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Definition Re: Clarifaction -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
11/21/2002, 09:14:28
Author Profile Mail author
I don’t know that you were defining as you suggest in your post. I do think that you over-simplify the modern concept of “capitalism” by attaching an adjective which simply should not be applied. Today, capitalism is a complex economic system which overlaps with other systems as it engages with them, does business with them, etc.
While capitalism stresses private economic choices, people are relatively free to decide how they will conduct their economic affairs. Companies are also relatively free to choose which goods and services to produce and how much to charge. One Adam Smith becomes rather irrelevant in the complex of companies, nations, and the laws or agreements between them. Other names for “capitalism” include free market system, competitive system, entrepreneurial system, and laissez faire.
Factors under capitalism are individuals, businesses, the market, income, and the government.
In this, I am giving you an understanding of capitalism or a definition if you will. It is still much too simplistic. That is, there is more to articulate about it.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Now what? Re: Re: Definition -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/21/2002, 10:06:14
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
This post is to Bahman, who has blocked me Re: Re: Definitions -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
11/20/2002, 11:00:41
Author Profile Mail author
Bahman,
For the record (since I know it was an offhand comment you had no intent on making an issue out of), Adam Smith was a far more reasonable and compassionate economist than those who have stolen his good name for use as a facade by the contemptible "Chicago School" of economics which is much beloved by evil arch-capitalists like many Republicans and nearly all Libertarians. Smith believed in what we today call "welfare" and that the poor must never be taken advantage of by the rich. He and his economic philosophy are actually quite noble compared to modern Conservative Republicanism and Libertarianism.
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: Business ethics:Questions Re: Re: Business ethics:Questions -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Aaron V. ®
11/15/2002, 02:47:23
Author Profile Mail author
While greed can be (and can be used as) a positive motivator -- for whatever ‘positive’ may mean -- we should take note that the human psyche has myriad more sources for motivation. People drive themselves forward out of principle, for challenge, for life, or just to prove something to themselves. More optimistically, people also drive themselves for the common good; we can find fundamental motivators without resorting to the excesses of greed.
Aaron
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Business ethics:Questions Re: Re: Business ethics:Questions -- Aaron V. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
11/15/2002, 08:30:30
Author Profile Mail author
While you make excellent observations, “the excesses of greed” are difficult to identify. In addition, what is one man’s excess is another’s savvy.
We might agree that L. Dennis Kozlowski, the former CEO of Tyco, was excessive. He bought a shower curtain that cost $6,000. It was gold and burgundy with a floral print. He was doing what he thought all successful people should do. He was spending money. In fact, according to a newspaper story, he spent $135 million he picked up in a combinatiion of direct company payments for personal expenses and interest-free loans that were “forgiven” -- all part of his bonus deal. Add that to his salary and stock options and Kozlowski had raked in some $300 million since 1998.
That may be small compared to the $600 million the Enron chaps got away with or the more than $700 million Global Crossing’s founder made of with, but $300 million is real money nonetheless.
Thomas J. Stanley and William D Danko wrote The Millionaire Next Door. In that book they observed that “wealth is what you accumulate, not what you spend.”
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volker said, “Every day I try to remember this important truth: It’s not how much money you make but how much you keep that matters.”
The authors of The millionaire Next Door had it right.
“Excess” is relative, Aaron. People with incomes of $100 million per year and up have a different view of that term than do people with incomes of $50 thousand.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
All too true Re: Re: Business ethics:Questions -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Aaron V. ®
11/15/2002, 11:09:30
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: Business ethics:Questions Re: Business ethics:Questions -- jesse Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
11/14/2002, 06:59:35
Author Profile Mail author
Keep in mind that every "Best Buy" you don't open in favor of keeping ma and pa in business means 40 (or more?) less jobs for the rest of the world.
Creating price floors and cielings simply prevents the market from coming into its natural equlibrium. This means that demand is never fully satisfied, a net loss of production is realized for the market as a whole. If you help ma and pa, you hurt everyone else.
"Does a business have to keep expanding faster than population growth to be deemed successful?"
I have no idea what you mean.
Modified by Fer-de-lance at Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 07:02:00
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Equilibrium Re: Re: Business ethics:Questions -- Fer-de-lance Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/14/2002, 08:35:15
Author Profile Mail author
This is an interesting point, one which I have not thought of (among a couple of other things!). But I am not sure if I fully understand it. So let's dissect it a bit.
1) Theoretically speaking, is it possible that lots and lots of M&P's can be a substitute for superstores, or not?
2) I suppose the answer to the first question is NO. Then what about a combination of stores? Can the M&P's have part of the market and the "natural equlibrium" still exist? I remember some months ago a small town in the northeast (of US) was trying to stop walmart entering the town, but I don't know what happened. Can the superstores leave at least the small rural towns alone?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Equilibrium Re: Equilibrium -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
11/14/2002, 09:25:33
Author Profile Mail author
Since it has been a few years since I stayed at the Red Lion (a quaint lovely 100+ year hotel), it is possible that there is some chain store there now, but I doubt it. They were (and I suspect still are) passionate about their town with its mansions built before 1900.
In answer to question 1, I doubt that it is possible. They simply could not offer the quantity of stuff which a Wal*Mart can offer.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: quaintness Re: Re: Equilibrium -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
11/14/2002, 10:31:34
Author Profile Mail author
A great many of the towns in New England have managed to retain their quaintness. If the chains are permitted within the town borders it is nearly always on the outskirts, usually in a
designated "strip"...keeps the riff-raff all in one place. I believe that Walmart has just recently (within the past few years) managed to get a store into Vermont. I don't think there are more then 2 (maybe 3) in the entire state. I know there's one in Rutland, and there may be one in Burlington...but that's probably all. Vermonters take their quaintness very seriously. Check out Woodstock or Middlebury, Vt. They're so quaint they'll make your teeth hurt. Yankees are a crusty, curmudgeonly bunch of folk. They don't take kindly to progress or (gasp) change. They do have a fondness for fleecing all you silly tourist though.rdl
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Ah, Vermont! Re: Re: quaintness -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
11/14/2002, 11:06:36
Author Profile Mail author
JAK
Modified by JAK at Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 11:09:20
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Ah, Vermont! Re: Re: Ah, Vermont! -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
11/14/2002, 11:23:43
Author Profile Mail author
No good whatsoever! Money is merely a means to an end. :-)I try very hard to stay as far away from NYC as I can manage. I get severe culture shock whenever I go there.
I live in a town that is nearly as quaint as Stockbridge but is actually a functioning community that does not depend on tourism for it's existence. Our cute little town center, with it's requisite gazebo, caters to the town's inhabitants, not visitors, (although we welcome them too) so we have a gas station and a secretarial service and a few offices and some stores and a couple of restaurants and a tavern or two. We keep the riff-raff on the outskirts, just like most of the other NE towns.rdl
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Ah, Vermont! Re: Re: Ah, Vermont! -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
11/15/2002, 08:37:49
Author Profile Mail author
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
hehehehehe Re: Re: Ah, Vermont! -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
11/15/2002, 09:59:17
Author Profile Mail author
NYC just has way too many people. And the roads in and around NYC have way too many vehicles. And the condition of the roads in and around NYC make my precioussssss cry (and me too). And planes and trains and buses and subways and just about everything in and around NYC are just too damned crowded with people and stuff.
I live in a land where a two mile drive in any direction will get you on a dirt road that goes absolutely nowhere. A land where more than two trucks is considered a convoy. A land where traffic jams are caused by geese crossing the road. (geese are sacred, there's a flock in the next town that has their own crossing guard). My world shuts down in the middle of the day so that the kindergarten can have a costume parade through the middle of town (which just happens to be the intersection of two state highways) on Halloween. Our town drunk and resident homeless person grew up here and sleeps in the gazebo (per order of the town council).
When I want the pleasures of crowds and culture, I go to Boston.
rdl
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: hahahahaha Re: hehehehehe -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
11/16/2002, 09:31:16
Author Profile Mail author
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: hahahahaha Re: Re: hahahahaha -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
11/16/2002, 09:48:44
Author Profile Mail author
"How often do you hear the Boston Symphony Orchestra live?"
Not very often, I'm afraid. I saw them a few times at Tanglewood, but had more fun people watching then listening to the music. Doing stuff like that isn't that enjoyable by yourself and my (now ex) husband was more of a NASCAR/Country music type.
I don't know Thomas Murray but I can imagine that hearing anyone (competent) play a 13,000 pipe organ must be close to a spiritual experience. You must be able to feel it all the way into your bones. (see...now we can discuss how music and spirituality is related... or not ;-)rdl
**who is trying to keep from getting busted by the forum ethics police ;-)**
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: hahahahaha Re: Re: hahahahaha -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
11/16/2002, 10:23:41
Author Profile Mail author
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: NASCAR Re: Re: hahahahaha -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
11/16/2002, 10:31:39
Author Profile Mail author
:-)
Are you an organist? I'm guessing you play something...professionally?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: NASCAR Re: Re: NASCAR -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
11/17/2002, 09:09:47
Author Profile Mail author
JAK
| Recommend |