Wells Fargo Scandal...
Comments
-
I love the NFL...best game around.I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon0 -
try and not focus on the business side of the nfl in this example ... focus on the outcome when the superbowl is all that matters ... there is evolution for sure ... but so does the cheating ... i think it's safe to say that on every play - someone is cheating in the game ... it's encouraged so long as you don't get caught ... that's our economic system now ...mrussel1 said:
That's why you have referees (e.g., courts, prosecutors, CFPB, regulators). They can't catch everything, but they catch many things and the rules have changed in the past few years to better protect the athletes, like no helmet to helmet contact and no low hits on the QB. It's like instilling new reserve requirements at a bank, creating the CFPB, strengthening the OCC. It's actually a pretty fair analogy when you think about it. If you make winning not important, the league folds. If you tweak the rules to continue to foster fair competition, the game thrives.polaris_x said:
you're looking at the business side of the NFL ... my analogy focuses simply on the game ... and the objectives of the game ... when the objective is to win at all costs ... it fosters cheating ... and that is what you see on almost every play of the game ... someone is holding, someone is trying to get away with things because ultimately winning is all that matters ...mrussel1 said:
Interesting. And how long do you think the NFL will be in business if its objective is to have fun and stay healthy? Do you think people will pay to go to games? Advertisers will put ads on the TV? Will the networks renew their contracts? What you are advocating is essentially a televised exercising in the park which will be the end of the NFL.polaris_x said:
it's pretty simple ... we need to add objectives and line items to foster the society we want ... right now ... everything is predicated on metrics such as gdp, growth, unemployment rate, etc.. metrics that are not only misleading but deliver us a society of inequalities and injustices along with an unsustainable future ...mrussel1 said:
Then I guess I don't understand how the philosophy you set forth is achievable or actionable. Are you basically saying that we encourage the wrong behaviors which lead to the wrong results so this is just a mindset that needs to change by parents, teachers, churches, etc but no gov't action? Or are you saying there is some specific government action that would be taken?polaris_x said:
nothing of the sort ... there is nothing n what I wrote that begs for communism ...mrussel1 said:
What it appears you are advocating is the stepping stone into communism. The problem with communism (among many) is that it is soiled by human nature. There are no examples of communism being successful in practice, only corrupt, just like capitalism can be corrupt.polaris_x said:
it's what we talked about before in other threads ... stockmarkets, shareholders, growth, etc ...mrussel1 said:
What does 'blown up' mean? What type of economy are you recommending, if not a market economy?polaris_x said:this is why the foundation of the economy needs to be blown up ... we can talk about all the "watchdogs" there are ... but in the end ... the object of the game is what causes this ... it's the cause of all imbalances and fraud ... this won't be the last scandal ... this is not an isolated case ...
the fundamentals of our economy are based on mythological objectives that do not serve societal needs ... what we discussed about the unemployment rate is a great example ...
the economy should be founded on principles of sustainability ... not just environmental but economic sustainability ... it should focus on creating a system that accounts for injustices and inequities ... not just seek profits and growth ... an economy that seeks for people to earn living wages not amass as much wealth as possible without consequence ...
For me, I believe we should strive for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes. If you are in the workforce with more than 10 people, I'm sure you see it everyday. There are people who work harder than other people. People who care more, put in more hours, create a better work product. Why should the reward be the same? That makes no sense to me.
it's definitely socialist in principle but nowhere near communism ...
like barack obama said ... global warming is the biggest threat to life on this planet ... and yet the environment is an afterthought in the metrics of the economy ... the well being of people is not considered ...
the current structure is a rigged game ... it should be blatantly obvious by now ...
I'll take you up on the 'rigged game' comment later. I don't understand this phrase in its current context and it has been used and abused in 2016.
it's not about everyone getting everything for free or not rewarding hard work ... it's about promoting the outcomes that is in the interests of all ... take the nfl for example ... the objective is to win the superbowl ... only 1 team can ... and we've seen in recent history what teams will do to achieve that ... concussions, addiction to pain killers, spygate, deflategate, steroids, etc ... imagine a game where the objective is for players to have fun and stay active so that they can live a healthy lifestyle into their later years? ... the economic system now is more reflected by the NFL than it does a system that's meant to benefit society ...0 -
I don't think you can have it both ways. How do you encourage staying healthy and having fun, but not take out the competition. You are advocating not making the SB the ultimate objective, but that kills competition. That's the contradiction I think is inherent here. The NFL is about winning the SB. MLB is about winning the World Series. Period.polaris_x said:
who is saying taking competition out? ... again ... this is simply about changing the objectives and outcomes ...pjalive21 said:
^^^^^^took the words right out of my mouthmrussel1 said:
Interesting. And how long do you think the NFL will be in business if its objective is to have fun and stay healthy? Do you think people will pay to go to games? Advertisers will put ads on the TV? Will the networks renew their contracts? What you are advocating is essentially a televised exercising in the park which will be the end of the NFL.polaris_x said:
it's pretty simple ... we need to add objectives and line items to foster the society we want ... right now ... everything is predicated on metrics such as gdp, growth, unemployment rate, etc.. metrics that are not only misleading but deliver us a society of inequalities and injustices along with an unsustainable future ...mrussel1 said:
Then I guess I don't understand how the philosophy you set forth is achievable or actionable. Are you basically saying that we encourage the wrong behaviors which lead to the wrong results so this is just a mindset that needs to change by parents, teachers, churches, etc but no gov't action? Or are you saying there is some specific government action that would be taken?polaris_x said:
nothing of the sort ... there is nothing n what I wrote that begs for communism ...mrussel1 said:
What it appears you are advocating is the stepping stone into communism. The problem with communism (among many) is that it is soiled by human nature. There are no examples of communism being successful in practice, only corrupt, just like capitalism can be corrupt.polaris_x said:
it's what we talked about before in other threads ... stockmarkets, shareholders, growth, etc ...mrussel1 said:
What does 'blown up' mean? What type of economy are you recommending, if not a market economy?polaris_x said:this is why the foundation of the economy needs to be blown up ... we can talk about all the "watchdogs" there are ... but in the end ... the object of the game is what causes this ... it's the cause of all imbalances and fraud ... this won't be the last scandal ... this is not an isolated case ...
the fundamentals of our economy are based on mythological objectives that do not serve societal needs ... what we discussed about the unemployment rate is a great example ...
the economy should be founded on principles of sustainability ... not just environmental but economic sustainability ... it should focus on creating a system that accounts for injustices and inequities ... not just seek profits and growth ... an economy that seeks for people to earn living wages not amass as much wealth as possible without consequence ...
For me, I believe we should strive for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes. If you are in the workforce with more than 10 people, I'm sure you see it everyday. There are people who work harder than other people. People who care more, put in more hours, create a better work product. Why should the reward be the same? That makes no sense to me.
it's definitely socialist in principle but nowhere near communism ...
like barack obama said ... global warming is the biggest threat to life on this planet ... and yet the environment is an afterthought in the metrics of the economy ... the well being of people is not considered ...
the current structure is a rigged game ... it should be blatantly obvious by now ...
I'll take you up on the 'rigged game' comment later. I don't understand this phrase in its current context and it has been used and abused in 2016.
it's not about everyone getting everything for free or not rewarding hard work ... it's about promoting the outcomes that is in the interests of all ... take the nfl for example ... the objective is to win the superbowl ... only 1 team can ... and we've seen in recent history what teams will do to achieve that ... concussions, addiction to pain killers, spygate, deflategate, steroids, etc ... imagine a game where the objective is for players to have fun and stay active so that they can live a healthy lifestyle into their later years? ... the economic system now is more reflected by the NFL than it does a system that's meant to benefit society ...
competition is necessary, not just in the example of the NFL, but in the market...its the dirty antics used in both that need to be scrubbed out its not necessarily the systems themselves that are the problems which has been seen in both our economy and those in socialism and communism
use 5 words that you would want your society to be about ... your idea ...
Now youth sports is different. I coached youth baseball, from Pre-K to high school. And the focus on health, sportsmanship, everyone playing, etc. was something that I very much advocated. I've had to deal with many parents who could not understand why I was playing X at 3rd base for two innings when he was a liability. What happens is the lower performers eventually leave. They quit, usually by middle school and then the focus shifts to competition and winning. When you get to college and pro, that's what it's about. But you can do that and play by the rules. We didn't teach kids how to grease a ball, or to slide spikes up. That is dirty. You can win and play the game correctly.0 -
i don't see a contradiction ... in fact, it appears you are agreeing ... because the NFL is about winning the SB and MLB is about winning the WS ... fair play and health are secondary and win at all costs is all that matters ... which is ultimately my point ... the economy now is a game where win at all costs is the objective and the consequences are what we see ...mrussel1 said:
I don't think you can have it both ways. How do you encourage staying healthy and having fun, but not take out the competition. You are advocating not making the SB the ultimate objective, but that kills competition. That's the contradiction I think is inherent here. The NFL is about winning the SB. MLB is about winning the World Series. Period.polaris_x said:
who is saying taking competition out? ... again ... this is simply about changing the objectives and outcomes ...pjalive21 said:
^^^^^^took the words right out of my mouthmrussel1 said:
Interesting. And how long do you think the NFL will be in business if its objective is to have fun and stay healthy? Do you think people will pay to go to games? Advertisers will put ads on the TV? Will the networks renew their contracts? What you are advocating is essentially a televised exercising in the park which will be the end of the NFL.polaris_x said:
it's pretty simple ... we need to add objectives and line items to foster the society we want ... right now ... everything is predicated on metrics such as gdp, growth, unemployment rate, etc.. metrics that are not only misleading but deliver us a society of inequalities and injustices along with an unsustainable future ...mrussel1 said:
Then I guess I don't understand how the philosophy you set forth is achievable or actionable. Are you basically saying that we encourage the wrong behaviors which lead to the wrong results so this is just a mindset that needs to change by parents, teachers, churches, etc but no gov't action? Or are you saying there is some specific government action that would be taken?polaris_x said:
nothing of the sort ... there is nothing n what I wrote that begs for communism ...mrussel1 said:
What it appears you are advocating is the stepping stone into communism. The problem with communism (among many) is that it is soiled by human nature. There are no examples of communism being successful in practice, only corrupt, just like capitalism can be corrupt.polaris_x said:
it's what we talked about before in other threads ... stockmarkets, shareholders, growth, etc ...mrussel1 said:
What does 'blown up' mean? What type of economy are you recommending, if not a market economy?polaris_x said:this is why the foundation of the economy needs to be blown up ... we can talk about all the "watchdogs" there are ... but in the end ... the object of the game is what causes this ... it's the cause of all imbalances and fraud ... this won't be the last scandal ... this is not an isolated case ...
the fundamentals of our economy are based on mythological objectives that do not serve societal needs ... what we discussed about the unemployment rate is a great example ...
the economy should be founded on principles of sustainability ... not just environmental but economic sustainability ... it should focus on creating a system that accounts for injustices and inequities ... not just seek profits and growth ... an economy that seeks for people to earn living wages not amass as much wealth as possible without consequence ...
For me, I believe we should strive for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes. If you are in the workforce with more than 10 people, I'm sure you see it everyday. There are people who work harder than other people. People who care more, put in more hours, create a better work product. Why should the reward be the same? That makes no sense to me.
it's definitely socialist in principle but nowhere near communism ...
like barack obama said ... global warming is the biggest threat to life on this planet ... and yet the environment is an afterthought in the metrics of the economy ... the well being of people is not considered ...
the current structure is a rigged game ... it should be blatantly obvious by now ...
I'll take you up on the 'rigged game' comment later. I don't understand this phrase in its current context and it has been used and abused in 2016.
it's not about everyone getting everything for free or not rewarding hard work ... it's about promoting the outcomes that is in the interests of all ... take the nfl for example ... the objective is to win the superbowl ... only 1 team can ... and we've seen in recent history what teams will do to achieve that ... concussions, addiction to pain killers, spygate, deflategate, steroids, etc ... imagine a game where the objective is for players to have fun and stay active so that they can live a healthy lifestyle into their later years? ... the economic system now is more reflected by the NFL than it does a system that's meant to benefit society ...
competition is necessary, not just in the example of the NFL, but in the market...its the dirty antics used in both that need to be scrubbed out its not necessarily the systems themselves that are the problems which has been seen in both our economy and those in socialism and communism
use 5 words that you would want your society to be about ... your idea ...
Now youth sports is different. I coached youth baseball, from Pre-K to high school. And the focus on health, sportsmanship, everyone playing, etc. was something that I very much advocated. I've had to deal with many parents who could not understand why I was playing X at 3rd base for two innings when he was a liability. What happens is the lower performers eventually leave. They quit, usually by middle school and then the focus shifts to competition and winning. When you get to college and pro, that's what it's about. But you can do that and play by the rules. We didn't teach kids how to grease a ball, or to slide spikes up. That is dirty. You can win and play the game correctly.0 -
Win within the rules. I feel like the assumption you are making is that you can only win by breaking the rules. Certainly there has been cheating in baseball, as an example. George Brett's pine tar, greased balls, cut balls, etc. But there are penalties. In football, there's a 4 game suspension for Brady, but a holding is only ten yards. There are different intents for each of those and the severity of penalties are reflective of that.polaris_x said:
i don't see a contradiction ... in fact, it appears you are agreeing ... because the NFL is about winning the SB and MLB is about winning the WS ... fair play and health are secondary and win at all costs is all that matters ... which is ultimately my point ... the economy now is a game where win at all costs is the objective and the consequences are what we see ...mrussel1 said:
I don't think you can have it both ways. How do you encourage staying healthy and having fun, but not take out the competition. You are advocating not making the SB the ultimate objective, but that kills competition. That's the contradiction I think is inherent here. The NFL is about winning the SB. MLB is about winning the World Series. Period.polaris_x said:
who is saying taking competition out? ... again ... this is simply about changing the objectives and outcomes ...pjalive21 said:
^^^^^^took the words right out of my mouthmrussel1 said:
Interesting. And how long do you think the NFL will be in business if its objective is to have fun and stay healthy? Do you think people will pay to go to games? Advertisers will put ads on the TV? Will the networks renew their contracts? What you are advocating is essentially a televised exercising in the park which will be the end of the NFL.polaris_x said:
it's pretty simple ... we need to add objectives and line items to foster the society we want ... right now ... everything is predicated on metrics such as gdp, growth, unemployment rate, etc.. metrics that are not only misleading but deliver us a society of inequalities and injustices along with an unsustainable future ...mrussel1 said:
Then I guess I don't understand how the philosophy you set forth is achievable or actionable. Are you basically saying that we encourage the wrong behaviors which lead to the wrong results so this is just a mindset that needs to change by parents, teachers, churches, etc but no gov't action? Or are you saying there is some specific government action that would be taken?polaris_x said:
nothing of the sort ... there is nothing n what I wrote that begs for communism ...mrussel1 said:
What it appears you are advocating is the stepping stone into communism. The problem with communism (among many) is that it is soiled by human nature. There are no examples of communism being successful in practice, only corrupt, just like capitalism can be corrupt.polaris_x said:
it's what we talked about before in other threads ... stockmarkets, shareholders, growth, etc ...mrussel1 said:
What does 'blown up' mean? What type of economy are you recommending, if not a market economy?polaris_x said:this is why the foundation of the economy needs to be blown up ... we can talk about all the "watchdogs" there are ... but in the end ... the object of the game is what causes this ... it's the cause of all imbalances and fraud ... this won't be the last scandal ... this is not an isolated case ...
the fundamentals of our economy are based on mythological objectives that do not serve societal needs ... what we discussed about the unemployment rate is a great example ...
the economy should be founded on principles of sustainability ... not just environmental but economic sustainability ... it should focus on creating a system that accounts for injustices and inequities ... not just seek profits and growth ... an economy that seeks for people to earn living wages not amass as much wealth as possible without consequence ...
For me, I believe we should strive for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes. If you are in the workforce with more than 10 people, I'm sure you see it everyday. There are people who work harder than other people. People who care more, put in more hours, create a better work product. Why should the reward be the same? That makes no sense to me.
it's definitely socialist in principle but nowhere near communism ...
like barack obama said ... global warming is the biggest threat to life on this planet ... and yet the environment is an afterthought in the metrics of the economy ... the well being of people is not considered ...
the current structure is a rigged game ... it should be blatantly obvious by now ...
I'll take you up on the 'rigged game' comment later. I don't understand this phrase in its current context and it has been used and abused in 2016.
it's not about everyone getting everything for free or not rewarding hard work ... it's about promoting the outcomes that is in the interests of all ... take the nfl for example ... the objective is to win the superbowl ... only 1 team can ... and we've seen in recent history what teams will do to achieve that ... concussions, addiction to pain killers, spygate, deflategate, steroids, etc ... imagine a game where the objective is for players to have fun and stay active so that they can live a healthy lifestyle into their later years? ... the economic system now is more reflected by the NFL than it does a system that's meant to benefit society ...
competition is necessary, not just in the example of the NFL, but in the market...its the dirty antics used in both that need to be scrubbed out its not necessarily the systems themselves that are the problems which has been seen in both our economy and those in socialism and communism
use 5 words that you would want your society to be about ... your idea ...
Now youth sports is different. I coached youth baseball, from Pre-K to high school. And the focus on health, sportsmanship, everyone playing, etc. was something that I very much advocated. I've had to deal with many parents who could not understand why I was playing X at 3rd base for two innings when he was a liability. What happens is the lower performers eventually leave. They quit, usually by middle school and then the focus shifts to competition and winning. When you get to college and pro, that's what it's about. But you can do that and play by the rules. We didn't teach kids how to grease a ball, or to slide spikes up. That is dirty. You can win and play the game correctly.
In business, there are degrees to winning. Apple wants to dominate the cell phone market, but the FTC would never let them buy Android from Google. That would eliminate competition and therefore against the Federal antitrust laws. So while sports has one champion, business does not. The gov't creates specific limits to 'victory'. There are rules and they should be enforced. And just like in sports, rules should always be evaluated for their effectiveness and whether they need to be tweaked to continue to encourage competition in the market place. I guess my point is, I never believe in blowing shit up. I always believe in modifying, and tweaking.0 -
another great example ... brady is serving 4 games but they won the SB ... companies get fined ... but it's worth it ... companies like Exxon don't follow regulations because it's more financially beneficial to pay fines then actually pay to meet regulations ...mrussel1 said:
Win within the rules. I feel like the assumption you are making is that you can only win by breaking the rules. Certainly there has been cheating in baseball, as an example. George Brett's pine tar, greased balls, cut balls, etc. But there are penalties. In football, there's a 4 game suspension for Brady, but a holding is only ten yards. There are different intents for each of those and the severity of penalties are reflective of that.polaris_x said:
i don't see a contradiction ... in fact, it appears you are agreeing ... because the NFL is about winning the SB and MLB is about winning the WS ... fair play and health are secondary and win at all costs is all that matters ... which is ultimately my point ... the economy now is a game where win at all costs is the objective and the consequences are what we see ...mrussel1 said:
I don't think you can have it both ways. How do you encourage staying healthy and having fun, but not take out the competition. You are advocating not making the SB the ultimate objective, but that kills competition. That's the contradiction I think is inherent here. The NFL is about winning the SB. MLB is about winning the World Series. Period.polaris_x said:
who is saying taking competition out? ... again ... this is simply about changing the objectives and outcomes ...pjalive21 said:
^^^^^^took the words right out of my mouthmrussel1 said:
Interesting. And how long do you think the NFL will be in business if its objective is to have fun and stay healthy? Do you think people will pay to go to games? Advertisers will put ads on the TV? Will the networks renew their contracts? What you are advocating is essentially a televised exercising in the park which will be the end of the NFL.polaris_x said:
it's pretty simple ... we need to add objectives and line items to foster the society we want ... right now ... everything is predicated on metrics such as gdp, growth, unemployment rate, etc.. metrics that are not only misleading but deliver us a society of inequalities and injustices along with an unsustainable future ...mrussel1 said:
Then I guess I don't understand how the philosophy you set forth is achievable or actionable. Are you basically saying that we encourage the wrong behaviors which lead to the wrong results so this is just a mindset that needs to change by parents, teachers, churches, etc but no gov't action? Or are you saying there is some specific government action that would be taken?polaris_x said:
nothing of the sort ... there is nothing n what I wrote that begs for communism ...mrussel1 said:
What it appears you are advocating is the stepping stone into communism. The problem with communism (among many) is that it is soiled by human nature. There are no examples of communism being successful in practice, only corrupt, just like capitalism can be corrupt.polaris_x said:
it's what we talked about before in other threads ... stockmarkets, shareholders, growth, etc ...mrussel1 said:
What does 'blown up' mean? What type of economy are you recommending, if not a market economy?polaris_x said:this is why the foundation of the economy needs to be blown up ... we can talk about all the "watchdogs" there are ... but in the end ... the object of the game is what causes this ... it's the cause of all imbalances and fraud ... this won't be the last scandal ... this is not an isolated case ...
the fundamentals of our economy are based on mythological objectives that do not serve societal needs ... what we discussed about the unemployment rate is a great example ...
the economy should be founded on principles of sustainability ... not just environmental but economic sustainability ... it should focus on creating a system that accounts for injustices and inequities ... not just seek profits and growth ... an economy that seeks for people to earn living wages not amass as much wealth as possible without consequence ...
For me, I believe we should strive for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes. If you are in the workforce with more than 10 people, I'm sure you see it everyday. There are people who work harder than other people. People who care more, put in more hours, create a better work product. Why should the reward be the same? That makes no sense to me.
it's definitely socialist in principle but nowhere near communism ...
like barack obama said ... global warming is the biggest threat to life on this planet ... and yet the environment is an afterthought in the metrics of the economy ... the well being of people is not considered ...
the current structure is a rigged game ... it should be blatantly obvious by now ...
I'll take you up on the 'rigged game' comment later. I don't understand this phrase in its current context and it has been used and abused in 2016.
it's not about everyone getting everything for free or not rewarding hard work ... it's about promoting the outcomes that is in the interests of all ... take the nfl for example ... the objective is to win the superbowl ... only 1 team can ... and we've seen in recent history what teams will do to achieve that ... concussions, addiction to pain killers, spygate, deflategate, steroids, etc ... imagine a game where the objective is for players to have fun and stay active so that they can live a healthy lifestyle into their later years? ... the economic system now is more reflected by the NFL than it does a system that's meant to benefit society ...
competition is necessary, not just in the example of the NFL, but in the market...its the dirty antics used in both that need to be scrubbed out its not necessarily the systems themselves that are the problems which has been seen in both our economy and those in socialism and communism
use 5 words that you would want your society to be about ... your idea ...
Now youth sports is different. I coached youth baseball, from Pre-K to high school. And the focus on health, sportsmanship, everyone playing, etc. was something that I very much advocated. I've had to deal with many parents who could not understand why I was playing X at 3rd base for two innings when he was a liability. What happens is the lower performers eventually leave. They quit, usually by middle school and then the focus shifts to competition and winning. When you get to college and pro, that's what it's about. But you can do that and play by the rules. We didn't teach kids how to grease a ball, or to slide spikes up. That is dirty. You can win and play the game correctly.
In business, there are degrees to winning. Apple wants to dominate the cell phone market, but the FTC would never let them buy Android from Google. That would eliminate competition and therefore against the Federal antitrust laws. So while sports has one champion, business does not. The gov't creates specific limits to 'victory'. There are rules and they should be enforced. And just like in sports, rules should always be evaluated for their effectiveness and whether they need to be tweaked to continue to encourage competition in the market place. I guess my point is, I never believe in blowing shit up. I always believe in modifying, and tweaking.
0 -
The Brady example is an example of due process that everyone has a right to, particularly those in a collective bargaining agreement. You don't go to jail before you have a trial. That's essentially the same thing.polaris_x said:
another great example ... brady is serving 4 games but they won the SB ... companies get fined ... but it's worth it ... companies like Exxon don't follow regulations because it's more financially beneficial to pay fines then actually pay to meet regulations ...mrussel1 said:
Win within the rules. I feel like the assumption you are making is that you can only win by breaking the rules. Certainly there has been cheating in baseball, as an example. George Brett's pine tar, greased balls, cut balls, etc. But there are penalties. In football, there's a 4 game suspension for Brady, but a holding is only ten yards. There are different intents for each of those and the severity of penalties are reflective of that.polaris_x said:
i don't see a contradiction ... in fact, it appears you are agreeing ... because the NFL is about winning the SB and MLB is about winning the WS ... fair play and health are secondary and win at all costs is all that matters ... which is ultimately my point ... the economy now is a game where win at all costs is the objective and the consequences are what we see ...mrussel1 said:
I don't think you can have it both ways. How do you encourage staying healthy and having fun, but not take out the competition. You are advocating not making the SB the ultimate objective, but that kills competition. That's the contradiction I think is inherent here. The NFL is about winning the SB. MLB is about winning the World Series. Period.polaris_x said:
who is saying taking competition out? ... again ... this is simply about changing the objectives and outcomes ...pjalive21 said:
^^^^^^took the words right out of my mouthmrussel1 said:
Interesting. And how long do you think the NFL will be in business if its objective is to have fun and stay healthy? Do you think people will pay to go to games? Advertisers will put ads on the TV? Will the networks renew their contracts? What you are advocating is essentially a televised exercising in the park which will be the end of the NFL.polaris_x said:
it's pretty simple ... we need to add objectives and line items to foster the society we want ... right now ... everything is predicated on metrics such as gdp, growth, unemployment rate, etc.. metrics that are not only misleading but deliver us a society of inequalities and injustices along with an unsustainable future ...mrussel1 said:
Then I guess I don't understand how the philosophy you set forth is achievable or actionable. Are you basically saying that we encourage the wrong behaviors which lead to the wrong results so this is just a mindset that needs to change by parents, teachers, churches, etc but no gov't action? Or are you saying there is some specific government action that would be taken?polaris_x said:
nothing of the sort ... there is nothing n what I wrote that begs for communism ...mrussel1 said:
What it appears you are advocating is the stepping stone into communism. The problem with communism (among many) is that it is soiled by human nature. There are no examples of communism being successful in practice, only corrupt, just like capitalism can be corrupt.polaris_x said:
it's what we talked about before in other threads ... stockmarkets, shareholders, growth, etc ...mrussel1 said:
What does 'blown up' mean? What type of economy are you recommending, if not a market economy?polaris_x said:this is why the foundation of the economy needs to be blown up ... we can talk about all the "watchdogs" there are ... but in the end ... the object of the game is what causes this ... it's the cause of all imbalances and fraud ... this won't be the last scandal ... this is not an isolated case ...
the fundamentals of our economy are based on mythological objectives that do not serve societal needs ... what we discussed about the unemployment rate is a great example ...
the economy should be founded on principles of sustainability ... not just environmental but economic sustainability ... it should focus on creating a system that accounts for injustices and inequities ... not just seek profits and growth ... an economy that seeks for people to earn living wages not amass as much wealth as possible without consequence ...
For me, I believe we should strive for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes. If you are in the workforce with more than 10 people, I'm sure you see it everyday. There are people who work harder than other people. People who care more, put in more hours, create a better work product. Why should the reward be the same? That makes no sense to me.
it's definitely socialist in principle but nowhere near communism ...
like barack obama said ... global warming is the biggest threat to life on this planet ... and yet the environment is an afterthought in the metrics of the economy ... the well being of people is not considered ...
the current structure is a rigged game ... it should be blatantly obvious by now ...
I'll take you up on the 'rigged game' comment later. I don't understand this phrase in its current context and it has been used and abused in 2016.
it's not about everyone getting everything for free or not rewarding hard work ... it's about promoting the outcomes that is in the interests of all ... take the nfl for example ... the objective is to win the superbowl ... only 1 team can ... and we've seen in recent history what teams will do to achieve that ... concussions, addiction to pain killers, spygate, deflategate, steroids, etc ... imagine a game where the objective is for players to have fun and stay active so that they can live a healthy lifestyle into their later years? ... the economic system now is more reflected by the NFL than it does a system that's meant to benefit society ...
competition is necessary, not just in the example of the NFL, but in the market...its the dirty antics used in both that need to be scrubbed out its not necessarily the systems themselves that are the problems which has been seen in both our economy and those in socialism and communism
use 5 words that you would want your society to be about ... your idea ...
Now youth sports is different. I coached youth baseball, from Pre-K to high school. And the focus on health, sportsmanship, everyone playing, etc. was something that I very much advocated. I've had to deal with many parents who could not understand why I was playing X at 3rd base for two innings when he was a liability. What happens is the lower performers eventually leave. They quit, usually by middle school and then the focus shifts to competition and winning. When you get to college and pro, that's what it's about. But you can do that and play by the rules. We didn't teach kids how to grease a ball, or to slide spikes up. That is dirty. You can win and play the game correctly.
In business, there are degrees to winning. Apple wants to dominate the cell phone market, but the FTC would never let them buy Android from Google. That would eliminate competition and therefore against the Federal antitrust laws. So while sports has one champion, business does not. The gov't creates specific limits to 'victory'. There are rules and they should be enforced. And just like in sports, rules should always be evaluated for their effectiveness and whether they need to be tweaked to continue to encourage competition in the market place. I guess my point is, I never believe in blowing shit up. I always believe in modifying, and tweaking.
Regarding the Exxon example, I'm not sure if that is their motivation or not, but I know many companies due take that tact. Paying the fine is cheaper than complying and I agree that is bullshit. For many statues (FDCPA for example), the fine can be 1% of the companies annual revenue, I believe. That is a steep ass fine and we need more like that. That will change the calculation.0 -
I'm really really shocked!
From a company that issued fraudulent mortgages, illegally foreclosed on homes, enslave college students in education debt and was involved in predatory lending and payday loan business then went crying to the government for millions in handouts and impunity.
Truly shocking from such a social and ethically conscience company!
0 -
brady shows that when the objective places winning above everything ... people will do whatever it takes whether it's within the rules or not ...mrussel1 said:
The Brady example is an example of due process that everyone has a right to, particularly those in a collective bargaining agreement. You don't go to jail before you have a trial. That's essentially the same thing.polaris_x said:
another great example ... brady is serving 4 games but they won the SB ... companies get fined ... but it's worth it ... companies like Exxon don't follow regulations because it's more financially beneficial to pay fines then actually pay to meet regulations ...mrussel1 said:
Win within the rules. I feel like the assumption you are making is that you can only win by breaking the rules. Certainly there has been cheating in baseball, as an example. George Brett's pine tar, greased balls, cut balls, etc. But there are penalties. In football, there's a 4 game suspension for Brady, but a holding is only ten yards. There are different intents for each of those and the severity of penalties are reflective of that.polaris_x said:
i don't see a contradiction ... in fact, it appears you are agreeing ... because the NFL is about winning the SB and MLB is about winning the WS ... fair play and health are secondary and win at all costs is all that matters ... which is ultimately my point ... the economy now is a game where win at all costs is the objective and the consequences are what we see ...mrussel1 said:
I don't think you can have it both ways. How do you encourage staying healthy and having fun, but not take out the competition. You are advocating not making the SB the ultimate objective, but that kills competition. That's the contradiction I think is inherent here. The NFL is about winning the SB. MLB is about winning the World Series. Period.polaris_x said:
who is saying taking competition out? ... again ... this is simply about changing the objectives and outcomes ...pjalive21 said:
^^^^^^took the words right out of my mouthmrussel1 said:
Interesting. And how long do you think the NFL will be in business if its objective is to have fun and stay healthy? Do you think people will pay to go to games? Advertisers will put ads on the TV? Will the networks renew their contracts? What you are advocating is essentially a televised exercising in the park which will be the end of the NFL.polaris_x said:
it's pretty simple ... we need to add objectives and line items to foster the society we want ... right now ... everything is predicated on metrics such as gdp, growth, unemployment rate, etc.. metrics that are not only misleading but deliver us a society of inequalities and injustices along with an unsustainable future ...mrussel1 said:
Then I guess I don't understand how the philosophy you set forth is achievable or actionable. Are you basically saying that we encourage the wrong behaviors which lead to the wrong results so this is just a mindset that needs to change by parents, teachers, churches, etc but no gov't action? Or are you saying there is some specific government action that would be taken?polaris_x said:
nothing of the sort ... there is nothing n what I wrote that begs for communism ...mrussel1 said:
What it appears you are advocating is the stepping stone into communism. The problem with communism (among many) is that it is soiled by human nature. There are no examples of communism being successful in practice, only corrupt, just like capitalism can be corrupt.polaris_x said:
it's what we talked about before in other threads ... stockmarkets, shareholders, growth, etc ...mrussel1 said:
What does 'blown up' mean? What type of economy are you recommending, if not a market economy?polaris_x said:this is why the foundation of the economy needs to be blown up ... we can talk about all the "watchdogs" there are ... but in the end ... the object of the game is what causes this ... it's the cause of all imbalances and fraud ... this won't be the last scandal ... this is not an isolated case ...
the fundamentals of our economy are based on mythological objectives that do not serve societal needs ... what we discussed about the unemployment rate is a great example ...
the economy should be founded on principles of sustainability ... not just environmental but economic sustainability ... it should focus on creating a system that accounts for injustices and inequities ... not just seek profits and growth ... an economy that seeks for people to earn living wages not amass as much wealth as possible without consequence ...
For me, I believe we should strive for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes. If you are in the workforce with more than 10 people, I'm sure you see it everyday. There are people who work harder than other people. People who care more, put in more hours, create a better work product. Why should the reward be the same? That makes no sense to me.
it's definitely socialist in principle but nowhere near communism ...
like barack obama said ... global warming is the biggest threat to life on this planet ... and yet the environment is an afterthought in the metrics of the economy ... the well being of people is not considered ...
the current structure is a rigged game ... it should be blatantly obvious by now ...
I'll take you up on the 'rigged game' comment later. I don't understand this phrase in its current context and it has been used and abused in 2016.
it's not about everyone getting everything for free or not rewarding hard work ... it's about promoting the outcomes that is in the interests of all ... take the nfl for example ... the objective is to win the superbowl ... only 1 team can ... and we've seen in recent history what teams will do to achieve that ... concussions, addiction to pain killers, spygate, deflategate, steroids, etc ... imagine a game where the objective is for players to have fun and stay active so that they can live a healthy lifestyle into their later years? ... the economic system now is more reflected by the NFL than it does a system that's meant to benefit society ...
competition is necessary, not just in the example of the NFL, but in the market...its the dirty antics used in both that need to be scrubbed out its not necessarily the systems themselves that are the problems which has been seen in both our economy and those in socialism and communism
use 5 words that you would want your society to be about ... your idea ...
Now youth sports is different. I coached youth baseball, from Pre-K to high school. And the focus on health, sportsmanship, everyone playing, etc. was something that I very much advocated. I've had to deal with many parents who could not understand why I was playing X at 3rd base for two innings when he was a liability. What happens is the lower performers eventually leave. They quit, usually by middle school and then the focus shifts to competition and winning. When you get to college and pro, that's what it's about. But you can do that and play by the rules. We didn't teach kids how to grease a ball, or to slide spikes up. That is dirty. You can win and play the game correctly.
In business, there are degrees to winning. Apple wants to dominate the cell phone market, but the FTC would never let them buy Android from Google. That would eliminate competition and therefore against the Federal antitrust laws. So while sports has one champion, business does not. The gov't creates specific limits to 'victory'. There are rules and they should be enforced. And just like in sports, rules should always be evaluated for their effectiveness and whether they need to be tweaked to continue to encourage competition in the market place. I guess my point is, I never believe in blowing shit up. I always believe in modifying, and tweaking.
Regarding the Exxon example, I'm not sure if that is their motivation or not, but I know many companies due take that tact. Paying the fine is cheaper than complying and I agree that is bullshit. For many statues (FDCPA for example), the fine can be 1% of the companies annual revenue, I believe. That is a steep ass fine and we need more like that. That will change the calculation.0 -
^^ Agree. But I think that's human nature.0
-
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!polaris_x said:
it is ... that's why we need to change the objectives ...mrussel1 said:^^ Agree. But I think that's human nature.
0 -
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 ...mrussel1 said:
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!polaris_x said:
it is ... that's why we need to change the objectives ...mrussel1 said:^^ Agree. But I think that's human nature.
0 -
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?polaris_x said:
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 ...mrussel1 said:
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!polaris_x said:
it is ... that's why we need to change the objectives ...mrussel1 said:^^ Agree. But I think that's human nature.
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?0 -
that's my point ... again - I am by no means espousing a system that is necessarily anti-capitalism or anti-competition or communist ...mrussel1 said:
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?polaris_x said:
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 ...mrussel1 said:
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!polaris_x said:
it is ... that's why we need to change the objectives ...mrussel1 said:^^ Agree. But I think that's human nature.
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 ...0 -
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.polaris_x said:
that's my point ... again - I am by no means espousing a system that is necessarily anti-capitalism or anti-competition or communist ...mrussel1 said:
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?polaris_x said:
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 ...mrussel1 said:
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!polaris_x said:
it is ... that's why we need to change the objectives ...mrussel1 said:^^ Agree. But I think that's human nature.
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 ...0 -
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 ...mrussel1 said:
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.polaris_x said:
that's my point ... again - I am by no means espousing a system that is necessarily anti-capitalism or anti-competition or communist ...mrussel1 said:
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?polaris_x said:
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 ...mrussel1 said:
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!polaris_x said:
it is ... that's why we need to change the objectives ...mrussel1 said:^^ Agree. But I think that's human nature.
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 ...0 -
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.polaris_x said:
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 ...mrussel1 said:
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.polaris_x said:
that's my point ... again - I am by no means espousing a system that is necessarily anti-capitalism or anti-competition or communist ...mrussel1 said:
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?polaris_x said:
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 ...mrussel1 said:
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!polaris_x said:
it is ... that's why we need to change the objectives ...mrussel1 said:^^ Agree. But I think that's human nature.
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 ...0 -
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 ...mrussel1 said:
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.polaris_x said:
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 ...mrussel1 said:
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.polaris_x said:
that's my point ... again - I am by no means espousing a system that is necessarily anti-capitalism or anti-competition or communist ...mrussel1 said:
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?polaris_x said:
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 ...mrussel1 said:
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!polaris_x said:
it is ... that's why we need to change the objectives ...mrussel1 said:^^ Agree. But I think that's human nature.
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) ...
0 -
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.polaris_x said:
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 ...mrussel1 said:
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.polaris_x said:
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 ...mrussel1 said:
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.polaris_x said:
that's my point ... again - I am by no means espousing a system that is necessarily anti-capitalism or anti-competition or communist ...mrussel1 said:
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?polaris_x said:
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 ...mrussel1 said:
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!polaris_x said:
it is ... that's why we need to change the objectives ...mrussel1 said:^^ Agree. But I think that's human nature.
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.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help