Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #23060

Subject: "good greed.." This topic is locked.
Previous topic | Next topic
AfricanHerbsman

Mon Aug-07-00 05:19 AM

  
"good greed.."


          


all the debates on capitalism a minute ago..

meant to ask a question, is there no way around what the michael douglas preached in the movie 'wall street' - is vanity & greed essential to establish/maintain a sucessful economy?

what I mean is, seems the way it works is to get consumers to buy a bunch of sht they don't really need, for producers to try and find the evencheaper ways to produce their produce..

question to nem nat know: is that all it boils down to?
______________________________________

seize your time! - marley/wailers

august - 'bitch' quote (for fire):

thought every bitch was a ho but my momma - witchdoctor

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top


Topic Outline
Subject Author Message Date ID
yep... beauty and money go hand in hand
Aug 07th 2000
1
truth, vet..
AfricanHerbsman
Aug 09th 2000
6
RE: good greed..
Aug 07th 2000
2
Good Incentive
Aug 07th 2000
4
      Good Incentive
AfricanHerbsman
Aug 09th 2000
7
           RE: Good Incentive
Aug 09th 2000
12
Sorry mane!
Aug 07th 2000
3
RE: Sorry mane!
AfricanHerbsman
Aug 09th 2000
8
RE: good greed..
Aug 08th 2000
5
yo!
AfricanHerbsman
Aug 09th 2000
9
RE: yo!
Aug 09th 2000
11
RE: good greed..
ovan
Aug 09th 2000
10

Vet
Charter member
8412 posts
Mon Aug-07-00 05:22 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
1. "yep... beauty and money go hand in hand"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

no one wants someone ugly to sell them something. no one wants an old wrinkled fart in office (that's why dole couldn't cut it). beauty/vanity is at the root of thangs.


QuOTeS 4 tOoDay...WEEK/DAY... whatever my mood

"no one tells you about being no artist man, on career day" - jane

...you are the syfl to my ollie
me to don

Resident Poets' Quotables

http://www.okayplayer.com/dcforum/freestyle/5207.html

then the CD skipped on the word
"love me"
how much joy can be found in repetition
when you seemed doomed to make the same mistakes
the same mistakes
the same mistakes
see how it messes up the flow of just being - IMPROV!


...she had a body like a cello with legs
i mean the ass was absurd
long neck
smooth skin
pretty face
cookie nipples
eyes wide as her hips
full lips between dimples




  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
AfricanHerbsman

Wed Aug-09-00 05:12 AM

  
6. "truth, vet.."
In response to Reply # 1


          

>no one wants someone ugly to
>sell them something. no one
>wants an old wrinkled fart
>in office (that's why dole
>couldn't cut it). beauty/vanity is
>at the root of thangs.

..programming and conditioning's borne beautiful fruit..I meant vanity more in the sense of the spendspendspend on a better car and a shiny rocket - or how we all like to fill up our homes with little bits & pieces of varying worth to please and amuse ourselves..keeps the money moving.
______________________________________

seize your time! - marley/wailers

crack baggin sick of braggin how my mink be draggin
desert eaze street sweeper inside the beamer wagon - BIG (RIP)

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

BooDaah
Charter member
32690 posts
Mon Aug-07-00 05:40 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
2. "RE: good greed.."
In response to Reply # 0


          

>is vanity & greed essential
>to establish/maintain a sucessful economy?

personalli I don't think so, but I guess the answer depends on one's definition of a "successful economy". If your idea of successful is a whole lot of money held by a very few which is gained at the expense of many, or if you can see people without homes living on the streets, or an educational system which is shot all to hell then sure why not. It's easy to say this economy (or any economy) is successful when you're on the top looking down. But the opinions of those on the "bottom" are often VERY different.

>question to nem nat know: is
>that all it boils down
>to?

for many yes. as long as things go well for them as an individual, then justifies the means.
------QUOTE STARTS HERE------
BooDaah-OkayActivist Moderator
** PLEASE READ THE POSTING GUIDELINES:
http://www.okayplayer.com/guidelines.html
-----------------------------
Sister SheRise's Activist Stew Recipe:
Step1:inform yourself step/Step2:inform others/Step3:discuss the problem/Step4: DISCUSS SOLUTIONS/Step5:EXECUTE SOLUTIONS/Step6:evaluate the results/Step7:start over at 1 until desired result is accomplished.
-----------------------------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
k_orr
Charter member
80197 posts
Mon Aug-07-00 08:34 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
4. "Good Incentive"
In response to Reply # 2


  

          


>personalli I don't think so, but
>I guess the answer depends
>on one's definition of a
>"successful economy". If your idea
>of successful is a whole
>lot of money held by
>a very few which is
>gained at the expense of
>many, or if you can
>see people without homes living
>on the streets, or an
>educational system which is shot
>all to hell then sure
>why not.

Or you could have an economy in which the many share the few resources so in essence everyone has a little nothing... You could be in a country where public healthcare and education are far off dreams. People in this country complain about what others would/and are killing for.

What are the alternatives to the wicked American system of capitalism.

We could just pare back the economy and return to a subsistence economy, in which each and every person was responsible for their daily needs of shelter, food, and security.

Why plant when the forest has everything you need to eat?

Of course millions would die even if we gradually turned towards this "new" economy.

There would be no incentive, other than self preservation, to invent anything. If I'm not blind, and none of my kin are blind, why would I search for the cure for blindness.

Or you could argue for a more equitable sharing of the resources, but then how do you define what is equitable?

The fundamental question of economics is how do you divide a diverse set of resources for a diverse set of interests?

Should we even strive for equity, or a meritocracy...

peace

k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
AfricanHerbsman

Wed Aug-09-00 05:31 AM

  
7. "Good Incentive"
In response to Reply # 4


          

>We could just pare back the
>economy and return to a
>subsistence economy, in which each
>and every person was responsible
>for their daily needs of
>shelter, food, and security.

sounds good..mentality a lot of cats have though, that would be chaos & disorder..why do I need to be responsible for my needs when I can help myself to yours?

>Why plant when the forest has everything you need to eat?

yeah? so tear down the cities and plant (and re-plant) forests all over - over the farms? I feel like it would revert back to the good planners/foragers having to look out for others..say, when winter falls - and capitalism starting all over.

>
>Of course millions would die even
>if we gradually turned towards
>this "new" economy.

why?

>Should we even strive for equity, or a meritocracy...

so what does that mean? from your other paragraph am I right thinking that 'equity' means to be fair about things..which means justice. like you said who defines it and how?

meritocracy..that's like merit, each man for himself - okay, I see: that's the forest-foraging approach. work to live. but it seems somehow regressive. dunno.
______________________________________

seize your time! - marley/wailers

crack baggin sick of braggin how my mink be draggin
desert eaze street sweeper inside the beamer wagon - BIG (RIP)

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
k_orr
Charter member
80197 posts
Wed Aug-09-00 09:36 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
12. "RE: Good Incentive"
In response to Reply # 7


  

          

>>Of course millions would die even
>>if we gradually turned towards
>>this "new" economy.

>why?

As an economic system, one that provides the basic necessities of life, hunting and gathering can only support so many people per square acre. Read some anthropology it will break it down. Farming is way more efficient, both production of food wise as well as labor. And when you don't have to farm, you have to do something in order to get food, so you sell labor.

>>Should we even strive for equity, or a meritocracy...
>
>so what does that mean?

Basically, there are 2 things about equity.

1. equal opportunity - everyone has the same chance.
2. equal results - everyone gets the same thing.

Does everyone who is born deserve the same thing?

I would say no. Not everyone deserves the same life.

k. orr

k. orr
house of phat beat

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

MisterGrump
Charter member
32144 posts
Mon Aug-07-00 05:54 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
3. "Sorry mane!"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

All I keep thnking is that you can't have a lassiez-fare economy because a sucesful economy is one that keeps fuctioning and maintaining certain levels of success. however, there are times when unemployment and inflation are need to drive it back down to a cool operating level.

So basically, the "greed" is needed to keep things going and every once in a while needs to get checked.

In shorter words: Yeah.

____________________________________________
Marinate on that!!!!!!!!!!!


"SOOO - did ya miss me!?!"
-The Devil through an email

******TOP TEN*************************
THINGS THAT GET GRUMP'S ATTENTION

10) 1995 Chevy Impala SS
9) New graffiti along the Red Line
8) A Phat Ass
7) Pizza Aroma
6) Nice Ta-ta's
5) Somebody from school
4) A fatty
3) A cabbie bumpin "Ting-a-Ling"
2) "Headlights on High Beams"
1) Junky capris

________________________________________
Grump
http://twitter.com/Gator_Bell

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
AfricanHerbsman

Wed Aug-09-00 05:34 AM

  
8. "RE: Sorry mane!"
In response to Reply # 3


          


>success. however, there are times
>when unemployment and inflation are
>need to drive it back
>down to a cool operating
>level.

don't know economics - what's the red zone..what happens when it overheats?

>So basically, the "greed" is needed
>to keep things going and
>every once in a while
>needs to get checked.

who by?
______________________________________

seize your time! - marley/wailers

crack baggin sick of braggin how my mink be draggin
desert eaze street sweeper inside the beamer wagon - BIG (RIP)

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

janey
Charter member
123120 posts
Tue Aug-08-00 02:59 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
5. "RE: good greed.."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

but to sum up, there's good greed (healthy levels of incentives, keep the economy going) and there's too much greed (like how many cars do you really need or how many pairs of shoes or whatever). The larger problem with the Michael Douglas/Wall Street message is that it was distorted and out of balance and was being used to justify bad actions.

During the 80s (The Decade of Greed and the decade that the movie Wall Street was made), there was a rash of mergers and acquisitions, a lot of corporate "downsizing" and layoffs and a lot of unhappy people because of these. I recall that at the time that TWA was taken over, a lot of routes were abandoned because they weren't profitable, which meant that a lot of flight attendants were laid off. The flight attendants picketed -- not just TWA, but also the investment bank that had found the financiers for the takeover. The media made a big deal out of the poor flight attendants and, granted, it's horrible to be laid off from a job. But TWA was really hurting, otherwise it wouldn't have been a takeover target. So the choice may have been between laying off a big group of flight attendants and other staff members, or closing down entirely -- which would have cost a lot more jobs. It was this kind of scenario that was played up by the makers of Wall Street, but without asking the harder questions of "What alternatives are there?" and "Who's going to pay that person's salary?"

I like to think that I am a good person, one who thinks about the larger perspective and tries to make a difference. But I'm not completely selfless -- comfort is important to me. So is appearance. So I'm driven at least in part by greed and vanity. And I do try to be realistic.

The basic corporate structure has a small centralized management (the officers of the corporation -- the president or CEO, for example, who is visible to the community as The Corporation), and a large decentralized ownership (shareholders. Each person who owns a share of a corporation is a part owner of that corporation, because each share represents a teensy little ownership percentage -- usually a teensy percent of a percent of ownership). The corporation's mandate is to generate profits, which are paid to the owners of the company (the shareholders) as dividends. A shareholder who believes that the company is being mismanaged can bring an action (not easy and expensive, but doable in the right circumstances) to replace the officers if they are not creating profits -- dividends. Most state statutes that govern corporations require that all profits be paid in dividends (although you can keep a small amount back for contingencies and working capital and stuff). So, by law, you have to give out dividends if you've got profits, and you have to earn profits or basically you'll lose your job if you're a company officer.

So, is greed good? I think it's morally neutral up to a certain point. It's built into the system. Profits are the way we judge the value of a corporation. Corporations are owned by individuals (lots and lots of individuals). So the idea of the big bad corporation doing mean things to nice unsuspecting individuals is kind of inapt, because it's those very individuals that are providing the incentive for the corporation to create and distribute profits, sometimes by means of cutbacks and layoffs.

It's true that we would have to re-think the whole structure in order to change this around. Several people who post regularly on this board have ideas about how we would go about that. But honestly, I'm in agreement with those who believe that the first effect of this would be a major recession or depression. I still believe that we should think globally but act locally.

Peace.


~ ~ ~
All meetings end in separation
All acquisition ends in dispersion
All life ends in death
- The Buddha

|\_/|
='_'=

Every hundred years, all new people

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
AfricanHerbsman

Wed Aug-09-00 05:52 AM

  
9. "yo!"
In response to Reply # 5


          

alright, that's love - you broke it down to the very source quote. appreciated..

> I recall that at
>the time that TWA was
>taken over, a lot of
>routes were abandoned because they
>weren't profitable, which meant that
>a lot of flight attendants
>were laid off. The
>flight attendants picketed -- not
>just TWA, but also the
>investment bank that had found
>the financiers for the takeover.
> The media made a
>big deal out of the
>poor flight attendants and, granted,
>it's horrible to be laid
>off from a job.
>But TWA was really hurting,
>otherwise it wouldn't have been
>a takeover target. So
>the choice may have been
>between laying off a big
>group of flight attendants and
>other staff members, or closing
>down entirely -- which would
>have cost a lot more
>jobs. It was this
>kind of scenario that was
>played up by the makers
>of Wall Street, but without
>asking the harder questions of
>"What alternatives are there?" and
>"Who's going to pay that
>person's salary?"

kinda like shedding weight - destroy to build. or like mos def said it: 'it's business, no faces - just lines and statistics/from your phone and zip code to ssi digits/system breaks man, child and women into figures...numbers are hardly real and never have feelings/but push too hard, even numbers got limits..'

>I like to think that I
>am a good person, one
>who thinks about the larger
>perspective and tries to make
>a difference. But I'm
>not completely selfless -- comfort
>is important to me.
>So is appearance. So
>I'm driven at least in
>part by greed and vanity.
> And I do try
>to be realistic.

that's what I'm saying with good greed - that's relatively harmless to others (if you shop right) but beneficial to your economy - greed/vanity keeps us spending instead of hoarding.

> Each person who owns
>a share of a corporation
>is a part owner of
>that corporation, because each share
>represents a teensy little ownership
>percentage -- usually a teensy
>percent of a percent of
>ownership). The corporation's mandate
>is to generate profits, which
>are paid to the owners
>of the company (the shareholders)
>as dividends. A shareholder
>who believes that the company
>is being mismanaged can bring
>an action (not easy and
>expensive, but doable in the
>right circumstances) to replace the
>officers if they are not
>creating profits -- dividends.
>Most state statutes that govern
>corporations require that all profits
>be paid in dividends (although
>you can keep a small
>amount back for contingencies and
>working capital and stuff).
>So, by law, you have
>to give out dividends if
>you've got profits, and you
>have to earn profits or
>basically you'll lose your job
>if you're a company officer.

damn, that sounds like a fairly sweet set-up..is shareholding considered as employment? that's almost like pimping..to sit back and let the money roll in and know that you have the right by law to act up if it flow's too slow..

>
>So, is greed good? I
>think it's morally neutral up
>to a certain point.
>It's built into the system.
> Profits are the way
>we judge the value of
>a corporation. Corporations are
>owned by individuals (lots and
>lots of individuals). So
>the idea of the big
>bad corporation doing mean things
>to nice unsuspecting individuals is
>kind of inapt, because it's
>those very individuals that are
>providing the incentive for the
>corporation to create and distribute
>profits, sometimes by means of
>cutbacks and layoffs.

but a lot of shareholders prolly don't know or care about the finer points of company policy, they just want the bottom line..but the big bad company'll do whatever it takes to keep them pacified?

>But honestly, I'm in agreement
>with those who believe that
>the first effect of this
>would be a major recession
>or depression. I still
>believe that we should think
>globally but act locally.
>
>Peace.

sounds like a plan..peace to you - nicely explained, thank you.
______________________________________

seize your time! - marley/wailers

crack baggin sick of braggin how my mink be draggin
desert eaze street sweeper inside the beamer wagon - BIG (RIP)

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
janey
Charter member
123120 posts
Wed Aug-09-00 06:18 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
11. "RE: yo!"
In response to Reply # 9


  

          

RE: damn, that sounds like a fairly sweet set-up..is shareholding considered as employment? that's almost like pimping..to sit back and let the money roll in and know that you have the right by law to act up if it flow's too slow..

Some people live off their investments, which basically means that they buy and sell shares of companies (and sometimes bonds, which represent loans to the company that get paid off at a given rate of interest). To the extent that they hold the shares, they get the dividends, which can be substantial or miniscule, depending on the company. To the extent that they make money by buying stock at a low price and selling it at a high price, they are in essence earning money on other people's expectations of the future profits (dividends) of the company. So yeah, it's employment for some people. And it's all income that has to be reported on your income taxes, so it's at least partial "employment" for anyone who invests.


Peace.

~ ~ ~
All meetings end in separation
All acquisition ends in dispersion
All life ends in death
- The Buddha

|\_/|
='_'=

Every hundred years, all new people

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
ovan

Wed Aug-09-00 06:01 AM

  
10. "RE: good greed.."
In response to Reply # 5


          

I think an issue here is what you are greedy for. If you check out cats like Jeremy Bentham and J.S. Mill, they talk about everybody seeking to maximize their own utility, being greedy for more of what they hold to be important. But they also talk about how this utility is defined differently by each individual. Some people gain utility from feeding the poor, some from feeling that god is with them, some from love, and unfortunately, some for the pure accumulation of money. Clearly somebody who is greedy for the feeling of satisfaction that comes with feeding the hungry is probably benefiting society, so that their greed cant really be seen as bad. The problem is not the amount of greed that we have, but what we are greedy for.
Peace,
Ovan

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #23060 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.25
Copyright © DCScripts.com