it is ... that's why we need to change the objectives ...
I guess I don't think there is changing man in a dramatic way. Perhaps we'll need to disagree on this point, but we agreed on several others on this topic. So that's a start!
it is ... that's why we need to change the objectives ...
I guess I don't think there is changing man in a dramatic way. Perhaps we'll need to disagree on this point, but we agreed on several others on this topic. So that's a start!
if you look at all the countries that are high on the UN development index adjusted for inequality - they are mostly socialist type countries ... where the objectives are similar but slightly different ... you have less of what is going on here in those countries ... because the objectives are different ...
it is ... that's why we need to change the objectives ...
I guess I don't think there is changing man in a dramatic way. Perhaps we'll need to disagree on this point, but we agreed on several others on this topic. So that's a start!
if you look at all the countries that are high on the UN development index adjusted for inequality - they are mostly socialist type countries ... where the objectives are similar but slightly different ... you have less of what is going on here in those countries ... because the objectives are different ...
But socialism isn't anti-capitalism or anti-competition, necessarily. I assume you mean countries like Norway, Sweden, Australia, correct? Isn't the US high up on that list too? Also, don't these countries benefit from the highly competitive nature of the US market without having to feel the downside of it? Pharmacology is a great example where the US bears of the brunt of high prices related to R&D but exports those products around the world. What I've always wondered is where is the market equilibrium on that research? At what point do companies exit R&D if the profit doesn't exist?
it is ... that's why we need to change the objectives ...
I guess I don't think there is changing man in a dramatic way. Perhaps we'll need to disagree on this point, but we agreed on several others on this topic. So that's a start!
if you look at all the countries that are high on the UN development index adjusted for inequality - they are mostly socialist type countries ... where the objectives are similar but slightly different ... you have less of what is going on here in those countries ... because the objectives are different ...
But socialism isn't anti-capitalism or anti-competition, necessarily. I assume you mean countries like Norway, Sweden, Australia, correct? Isn't the US high up on that list too? Also, don't these countries benefit from the highly competitive nature of the US market without having to feel the downside of it? Pharmacology is a great example where the US bears of the brunt of high prices related to R&D but exports those products around the world. What I've always wondered is where is the market equilibrium on that research? At what point do companies exit R&D if the profit doesn't exist?
that's my point ... again - I am by no means espousing a system that is necessarily anti-capitalism or anti-competition or communist ...
when adjusted for inequality ... the US is tied for 27 just behind malta ...
these countries operate with slightly different objectives ... and it's not to say this metric is the be all and end all ... it's just simply that operating in a society that respects human rights and the environment doesn't necessarily mean people live a horrible existence ...
it's this indoctrination that the economy as it stands now is the most important thing and that anything that threatens it is the end of us ...
it is ... that's why we need to change the objectives ...
I guess I don't think there is changing man in a dramatic way. Perhaps we'll need to disagree on this point, but we agreed on several others on this topic. So that's a start!
if you look at all the countries that are high on the UN development index adjusted for inequality - they are mostly socialist type countries ... where the objectives are similar but slightly different ... you have less of what is going on here in those countries ... because the objectives are different ...
But socialism isn't anti-capitalism or anti-competition, necessarily. I assume you mean countries like Norway, Sweden, Australia, correct? Isn't the US high up on that list too? Also, don't these countries benefit from the highly competitive nature of the US market without having to feel the downside of it? Pharmacology is a great example where the US bears of the brunt of high prices related to R&D but exports those products around the world. What I've always wondered is where is the market equilibrium on that research? At what point do companies exit R&D if the profit doesn't exist?
that's my point ... again - I am by no means espousing a system that is necessarily anti-capitalism or anti-competition or communist ...
when adjusted for inequality ... the US is tied for 27 just behind malta ...
these countries operate with slightly different objectives ... and it's not to say this metric is the be all and end all ... it's just simply that operating in a society that respects human rights and the environment doesn't necessarily mean people live a horrible existence ...
it's this indoctrination that the economy as it stands now is the most important thing and that anything that threatens it is the end of us ...
Can you explain "adjusted for inequality" for me? For example, if a country has relatively tight class structure, but it's all low income (like a Dominican Republic for example), does it have a lower adjustment than the United States that has very wide class ranges? I'm not following that metric.
it is ... that's why we need to change the objectives ...
I guess I don't think there is changing man in a dramatic way. Perhaps we'll need to disagree on this point, but we agreed on several others on this topic. So that's a start!
if you look at all the countries that are high on the UN development index adjusted for inequality - they are mostly socialist type countries ... where the objectives are similar but slightly different ... you have less of what is going on here in those countries ... because the objectives are different ...
But socialism isn't anti-capitalism or anti-competition, necessarily. I assume you mean countries like Norway, Sweden, Australia, correct? Isn't the US high up on that list too? Also, don't these countries benefit from the highly competitive nature of the US market without having to feel the downside of it? Pharmacology is a great example where the US bears of the brunt of high prices related to R&D but exports those products around the world. What I've always wondered is where is the market equilibrium on that research? At what point do companies exit R&D if the profit doesn't exist?
that's my point ... again - I am by no means espousing a system that is necessarily anti-capitalism or anti-competition or communist ...
when adjusted for inequality ... the US is tied for 27 just behind malta ...
these countries operate with slightly different objectives ... and it's not to say this metric is the be all and end all ... it's just simply that operating in a society that respects human rights and the environment doesn't necessarily mean people live a horrible existence ...
it's this indoctrination that the economy as it stands now is the most important thing and that anything that threatens it is the end of us ...
Can you explain "adjusted for inequality" for me? For example, if a country has relatively tight class structure, but it's all low income (like a Dominican Republic for example), does it have a lower adjustment than the United States that has very wide class ranges? I'm not following that metric.
you're sort of right ... it basically factors in a country's score on the development index with it's distribution of those achievements across the population ... so, ya ... the US has some of the best doctors and hospitals in the world but not everyone has access so, the score is adjusted ... the higher the inequality - the higher the adjustment ...
it is ... that's why we need to change the objectives ...
I guess I don't think there is changing man in a dramatic way. Perhaps we'll need to disagree on this point, but we agreed on several others on this topic. So that's a start!
if you look at all the countries that are high on the UN development index adjusted for inequality - they are mostly socialist type countries ... where the objectives are similar but slightly different ... you have less of what is going on here in those countries ... because the objectives are different ...
But socialism isn't anti-capitalism or anti-competition, necessarily. I assume you mean countries like Norway, Sweden, Australia, correct? Isn't the US high up on that list too? Also, don't these countries benefit from the highly competitive nature of the US market without having to feel the downside of it? Pharmacology is a great example where the US bears of the brunt of high prices related to R&D but exports those products around the world. What I've always wondered is where is the market equilibrium on that research? At what point do companies exit R&D if the profit doesn't exist?
that's my point ... again - I am by no means espousing a system that is necessarily anti-capitalism or anti-competition or communist ...
when adjusted for inequality ... the US is tied for 27 just behind malta ...
these countries operate with slightly different objectives ... and it's not to say this metric is the be all and end all ... it's just simply that operating in a society that respects human rights and the environment doesn't necessarily mean people live a horrible existence ...
it's this indoctrination that the economy as it stands now is the most important thing and that anything that threatens it is the end of us ...
Can you explain "adjusted for inequality" for me? For example, if a country has relatively tight class structure, but it's all low income (like a Dominican Republic for example), does it have a lower adjustment than the United States that has very wide class ranges? I'm not following that metric.
you're sort of right ... it basically factors in a country's score on the development index with it's distribution of those achievements across the population ... so, ya ... the US has some of the best doctors and hospitals in the world but not everyone has access so, the score is adjusted ... the higher the inequality - the higher the adjustment ...
That seems a bit misleading though. And I haven't gone through this obviously, but the lowest class in the United States is in much better economic, physical, and educational shape (by and large) than the same lowest class in India, Brazil or many countries. By contrast, that's probably not true for Norway. I skimmed the UNHD report from two years ago a few minutes ago and we were 8th on that. Do you think that's misleading or that number is over stated? Not that we can't or shouldn't be better, but it's not terrible either.
it is ... that's why we need to change the objectives ...
I guess I don't think there is changing man in a dramatic way. Perhaps we'll need to disagree on this point, but we agreed on several others on this topic. So that's a start!
if you look at all the countries that are high on the UN development index adjusted for inequality - they are mostly socialist type countries ... where the objectives are similar but slightly different ... you have less of what is going on here in those countries ... because the objectives are different ...
But socialism isn't anti-capitalism or anti-competition, necessarily. I assume you mean countries like Norway, Sweden, Australia, correct? Isn't the US high up on that list too? Also, don't these countries benefit from the highly competitive nature of the US market without having to feel the downside of it? Pharmacology is a great example where the US bears of the brunt of high prices related to R&D but exports those products around the world. What I've always wondered is where is the market equilibrium on that research? At what point do companies exit R&D if the profit doesn't exist?
that's my point ... again - I am by no means espousing a system that is necessarily anti-capitalism or anti-competition or communist ...
when adjusted for inequality ... the US is tied for 27 just behind malta ...
these countries operate with slightly different objectives ... and it's not to say this metric is the be all and end all ... it's just simply that operating in a society that respects human rights and the environment doesn't necessarily mean people live a horrible existence ...
it's this indoctrination that the economy as it stands now is the most important thing and that anything that threatens it is the end of us ...
Can you explain "adjusted for inequality" for me? For example, if a country has relatively tight class structure, but it's all low income (like a Dominican Republic for example), does it have a lower adjustment than the United States that has very wide class ranges? I'm not following that metric.
you're sort of right ... it basically factors in a country's score on the development index with it's distribution of those achievements across the population ... so, ya ... the US has some of the best doctors and hospitals in the world but not everyone has access so, the score is adjusted ... the higher the inequality - the higher the adjustment ...
That seems a bit misleading though. And I haven't gone through this obviously, but the lowest class in the United States is in much better economic, physical, and educational shape (by and large) than the same lowest class in India, Brazil or many countries. By contrast, that's probably not true for Norway. I skimmed the UNHD report from two years ago a few minutes ago and we were 8th on that. Do you think that's misleading or that number is over stated? Not that we can't or shouldn't be better, but it's not terrible either.
you're right ... and the adjusted index accounts for that ... that's why the US scores higher than india and brazil but does not vs. say hungary or estonia ...
i think for a portion of the US population - it's not over-stated ... it's why I continue to claim the game is rigged ... for a segment of the population - the current system is quite beneficial ... even if the majority are ignorant of the consequences (see global warming, war, human rights violations) ...
it is ... that's why we need to change the objectives ...
I guess I don't think there is changing man in a dramatic way. Perhaps we'll need to disagree on this point, but we agreed on several others on this topic. So that's a start!
if you look at all the countries that are high on the UN development index adjusted for inequality - they are mostly socialist type countries ... where the objectives are similar but slightly different ... you have less of what is going on here in those countries ... because the objectives are different ...
But socialism isn't anti-capitalism or anti-competition, necessarily. I assume you mean countries like Norway, Sweden, Australia, correct? Isn't the US high up on that list too? Also, don't these countries benefit from the highly competitive nature of the US market without having to feel the downside of it? Pharmacology is a great example where the US bears of the brunt of high prices related to R&D but exports those products around the world. What I've always wondered is where is the market equilibrium on that research? At what point do companies exit R&D if the profit doesn't exist?
that's my point ... again - I am by no means espousing a system that is necessarily anti-capitalism or anti-competition or communist ...
when adjusted for inequality ... the US is tied for 27 just behind malta ...
these countries operate with slightly different objectives ... and it's not to say this metric is the be all and end all ... it's just simply that operating in a society that respects human rights and the environment doesn't necessarily mean people live a horrible existence ...
it's this indoctrination that the economy as it stands now is the most important thing and that anything that threatens it is the end of us ...
Can you explain "adjusted for inequality" for me? For example, if a country has relatively tight class structure, but it's all low income (like a Dominican Republic for example), does it have a lower adjustment than the United States that has very wide class ranges? I'm not following that metric.
you're sort of right ... it basically factors in a country's score on the development index with it's distribution of those achievements across the population ... so, ya ... the US has some of the best doctors and hospitals in the world but not everyone has access so, the score is adjusted ... the higher the inequality - the higher the adjustment ...
That seems a bit misleading though. And I haven't gone through this obviously, but the lowest class in the United States is in much better economic, physical, and educational shape (by and large) than the same lowest class in India, Brazil or many countries. By contrast, that's probably not true for Norway. I skimmed the UNHD report from two years ago a few minutes ago and we were 8th on that. Do you think that's misleading or that number is over stated? Not that we can't or shouldn't be better, but it's not terrible either.
you're right ... and the adjusted index accounts for that ... that's why the US scores higher than india and brazil but does not vs. say hungary or estonia ...
i think for a portion of the US population - it's not over-stated ... it's why I continue to claim the game is rigged ... for a segment of the population - the current system is quite beneficial ... even if the majority are ignorant of the consequences (see global warming, war, human rights violations) ...
I see. I would argue that 70-80% of the population benefit from the current system (some certainly more than others). I base that statement on median income analysis and how many people fall below the poverty line. Certainly you can argue where that line should be and I can probably agree with it in many places. I don't want you to think that I'm arguing for status quo because I'm not. I want changes in this country, but I tend to disagree with statement like "blow up the system" although maybe people are using it in the hyperbolic sense, whereas I am taking it literally.
But this is good conversation and a welcome change around here lately. Let's dovetail back to a discussion we had a month or so ago. You were making a similar argument that we use the wrong metrics to evaluate a company/corporation. I pointed out that there are indices and tools to people to have the freedom of choice to invest in companies that share their values. If you are not arguing for gov't intervention necessarily, then why are you against or maybe suspicious/disillusioned/something with using that? I guess I never really grasped all that but to be fair I was traveling at the time and didn't get a chance to really absorb your point.
it is ... that's why we need to change the objectives ...
I guess I don't think there is changing man in a dramatic way. Perhaps we'll need to disagree on this point, but we agreed on several others on this topic. So that's a start!
if you look at all the countries that are high on the UN development index adjusted for inequality - they are mostly socialist type countries ... where the objectives are similar but slightly different ... you have less of what is going on here in those countries ... because the objectives are different ...
But socialism isn't anti-capitalism or anti-competition, necessarily. I assume you mean countries like Norway, Sweden, Australia, correct? Isn't the US high up on that list too? Also, don't these countries benefit from the highly competitive nature of the US market without having to feel the downside of it? Pharmacology is a great example where the US bears of the brunt of high prices related to R&D but exports those products around the world. What I've always wondered is where is the market equilibrium on that research? At what point do companies exit R&D if the profit doesn't exist?
that's my point ... again - I am by no means espousing a system that is necessarily anti-capitalism or anti-competition or communist ...
when adjusted for inequality ... the US is tied for 27 just behind malta ...
these countries operate with slightly different objectives ... and it's not to say this metric is the be all and end all ... it's just simply that operating in a society that respects human rights and the environment doesn't necessarily mean people live a horrible existence ...
it's this indoctrination that the economy as it stands now is the most important thing and that anything that threatens it is the end of us ...
Can you explain "adjusted for inequality" for me? For example, if a country has relatively tight class structure, but it's all low income (like a Dominican Republic for example), does it have a lower adjustment than the United States that has very wide class ranges? I'm not following that metric.
you're sort of right ... it basically factors in a country's score on the development index with it's distribution of those achievements across the population ... so, ya ... the US has some of the best doctors and hospitals in the world but not everyone has access so, the score is adjusted ... the higher the inequality - the higher the adjustment ...
That seems a bit misleading though. And I haven't gone through this obviously, but the lowest class in the United States is in much better economic, physical, and educational shape (by and large) than the same lowest class in India, Brazil or many countries. By contrast, that's probably not true for Norway. I skimmed the UNHD report from two years ago a few minutes ago and we were 8th on that. Do you think that's misleading or that number is over stated? Not that we can't or shouldn't be better, but it's not terrible either.
you're right ... and the adjusted index accounts for that ... that's why the US scores higher than india and brazil but does not vs. say hungary or estonia ...
i think for a portion of the US population - it's not over-stated ... it's why I continue to claim the game is rigged ... for a segment of the population - the current system is quite beneficial ... even if the majority are ignorant of the consequences (see global warming, war, human rights violations) ...
I see. I would argue that 70-80% of the population benefit from the current system (some certainly more than others). I base that statement on median income analysis and how many people fall below the poverty line. Certainly you can argue where that line should be and I can probably agree with it in many places. I don't want you to think that I'm arguing for status quo because I'm not. I want changes in this country, but I tend to disagree with statement like "blow up the system" although maybe people are using it in the hyperbolic sense, whereas I am taking it literally.
But this is good conversation and a welcome change around here lately. Let's dovetail back to a discussion we had a month or so ago. You were making a similar argument that we use the wrong metrics to evaluate a company/corporation. I pointed out that there are indices and tools to people to have the freedom of choice to invest in companies that share their values. If you are not arguing for gov't intervention necessarily, then why are you against or maybe suspicious/disillusioned/something with using that? I guess I never really grasped all that but to be fair I was traveling at the time and didn't get a chance to really absorb your point.
i mean it literally because the system as I see it is evolving ... and it's evolving in a negative way ... so, although it may appear that it's doing ok now ... it's just a snapshot ... the consequences take time to establish itself ... take the impacts of global warming for example ... they are being triggered now as we type but we may not realize the fallout until at later times and even then we may not connect it ...
these outcomes I would like to change are only going to get worse under our current system ...
as for your question ... I am very familiar with funds that have social values indices applied to it ... it's where a lot of my savings are in now ... but it's a problem for me ... when I look at the companies that make up these funds ... and I dig deep into how they qualify to be on these funds - i realize that it's a lot of smoke and mirrors ... you can't be a company that believes in preserving the planet while simultaneously fracking and extracting oil from the tar sands ...
ultimately, we, as people and members of society, need to redefine what our goals are ... i asked a previous poster to express what they would like to see in our society using 5 words ... for me ... i would use the words just, sustainable, peace, balance and transparent ... our current system does not have any of those ideals as an objective ...
If those indices were more transparent and had a higher 'bar', would that be what you are going for, or are you in favor of eliminating the market economy period?
If those indices were more transparent and had a higher 'bar', would that be what you are going for, or are you in favor of eliminating the market economy period?
i would definitely be in favour of a higher bar and more transparency ... but there is a catch 22 ... because these same entities are operating within the same posted objectives as our economy ... they are bound to not meet my expectation ...
it's not so much about eliminating the market economy ... it's about changing what are objectives are ... I am assuming you are pretty in tune with corporate america ... especially publicly traded ones ... they govern based on goals that may seem reasonable ... say profits ... but in reality when you look at other goals such as shareholder value ... they result in a society that has little concern for sustainability of business and planet and a growing inequality ...
change the objective of the game ... not necessarily change the game ...
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,894
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
it's absolutely shocking to me that people aren't up in arms over this ... this plays out in boardrooms and executive offices all over the country (world) ... there is absolutely no justification for this kind of compensation ... it's absurd ... these folks get paid more money to fire people ... this is furthermore to my belief the system needs to be blown up ...
Elizabeth Warren is a rare bread in government these days. We could use several more like her.
At least 5 on that panel received contributions from WF, Liz W not 1of them. What does resigning do? Guy still golden parachutes and then lands at another bank. CEO is chairmen of board.
Like I said - blow it up!!!!! these assholes have been gaming the system for years ... but people are still buying this fraud product ...
And the few people on top keep getting away with it.
Another thing, I hope people don't take their anger over this out on the bank tellers. From what I've seen, bank teller jobs have to be one of the more unrewarding, stressful jobs out there.
Your bank teller is not the bad guy!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Comments
Also, don't these countries benefit from the highly competitive nature of the US market without having to feel the downside of it? Pharmacology is a great example where the US bears of the brunt of high prices related to R&D but exports those products around the world. What I've always wondered is where is the market equilibrium on that research? At what point do companies exit R&D if the profit doesn't exist?
when adjusted for inequality ... the US is tied for 27 just behind malta ...
these countries operate with slightly different objectives ... and it's not to say this metric is the be all and end all ... it's just simply that operating in a society that respects human rights and the environment doesn't necessarily mean people live a horrible existence ...
it's this indoctrination that the economy as it stands now is the most important thing and that anything that threatens it is the end of us ...
i think for a portion of the US population - it's not over-stated ... it's why I continue to claim the game is rigged ... for a segment of the population - the current system is quite beneficial ... even if the majority are ignorant of the consequences (see global warming, war, human rights violations) ...
But this is good conversation and a welcome change around here lately. Let's dovetail back to a discussion we had a month or so ago. You were making a similar argument that we use the wrong metrics to evaluate a company/corporation. I pointed out that there are indices and tools to people to have the freedom of choice to invest in companies that share their values. If you are not arguing for gov't intervention necessarily, then why are you against or maybe suspicious/disillusioned/something with using that? I guess I never really grasped all that but to be fair I was traveling at the time and didn't get a chance to really absorb your point.
these outcomes I would like to change are only going to get worse under our current system ...
as for your question ... I am very familiar with funds that have social values indices applied to it ... it's where a lot of my savings are in now ... but it's a problem for me ... when I look at the companies that make up these funds ... and I dig deep into how they qualify to be on these funds - i realize that it's a lot of smoke and mirrors ... you can't be a company that believes in preserving the planet while simultaneously fracking and extracting oil from the tar sands ...
ultimately, we, as people and members of society, need to redefine what our goals are ... i asked a previous poster to express what they would like to see in our society using 5 words ... for me ... i would use the words just, sustainable, peace, balance and transparent ... our current system does not have any of those ideals as an objective ...
it's not so much about eliminating the market economy ... it's about changing what are objectives are ... I am assuming you are pretty in tune with corporate america ... especially publicly traded ones ... they govern based on goals that may seem reasonable ... say profits ... but in reality when you look at other goals such as shareholder value ... they result in a society that has little concern for sustainability of business and planet and a growing inequality ...
change the objective of the game ... not necessarily change the game ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/13/wells-fargo-fired-5300-workers-for-illegal-sales-push-executive-in-charge-retiring-with-125-million/?tid=sm_fb
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Can anyone guess who WF largest stakeholder is?
Elizabeth Warren is a rare bread in government these days. We could use several more like her.
What does resigning do? Guy still golden parachutes and then lands at another bank.
CEO is chairmen of board.
Another thing, I hope people don't take their anger over this out on the bank tellers. From what I've seen, bank teller jobs have to be one of the more unrewarding, stressful jobs out there.
Your bank teller is not the bad guy!
Can anyone guess Eric Holders law firm name?