Q: How do I lower CEO pay?
A: Stop paying their insane salaries. CEOs don't print money. They get it from us. Don't buy their products. Don't invest in their organizations. Share your choices and the motivations for them with anyone who will listen. But don't pretend for a minute you have a right to prevent others from making different choices. Don't pretend that your definitions of "need" or "enough" are objective measures, lest their subjective realities get turned on you.
Like someone else already said in the thread, if a company starts loosing money, regular workers are laid of before CEO salaries are lowered. And how does this work in a situation of almost total monopoly?
The idea of morally regulating corporations by not buying their stuff is a nice idea but doesn't seem really effective. Does anyone actually know if such a thing effectively worked before?
just sad how you far left libs want government to control your lives.
No one wants government to control lives, but regulating pay through taxes seems a little less intrusive than biometric passports, patriot acts, wiretapping or other stuff that are seriously starting to do some privacy damage. If I had to criticise government control, taxes wouldn't be the first of my concern.
Like someone else already said in the thread, if a company starts loosing money, regular workers are laid of before CEO salaries are lowered.
This happens regularly. Now, tell me why this is inherently bad? If the reverse were true, and a company when it started losing money instantly cut CEO pay and hired more "regular workers", would that be inherently good? If so, why?
The CEO of a corporation is supposed to be the leader of an organization. Ideally, this is the most valuable person at a healthy company. It stands to reason that, if times get demanding, a CEO's renumeration should increase as an incentive to produce. However, certainly other cases can be made for increasing worker pay during tough times or lowering CEO pay when the CEO themselves might be responsible for the downturn. What I fail to understand is why you think it would always be bad for CEO pay to rise in tough times (or why it would always be good or bad to do something else).
And how does this work in a situation of almost total monopoly?
That would entirely depend on the nature of the monopoly, of course. In the event of a true monopoly, all bets on CEO and worker pay are off. But it seems silly to complain about monopolies while directly advocating one of the primary causes of monopolization, namely government regulation.
The idea of morally regulating corporations by not buying their stuff is a nice idea but doesn't seem really effective. Does anyone actually know if such a thing effectively worked before?
You're using the word "effective", but what you really mean is "does not buying their stuff actually rectify the injustice that I see." You're using the term "effective" as if it has a universal meaning that it doesnt' really have.
"Morally regulating corporations" will put CEO pay at the level sanctioned by the customers and shareholders of that CEO's corporation. So, while you and I might not buy anything from Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart's CEO might still make a ton of money. Why? Because millions of others disagree with us and believe that Wal-Mart, its management, and its workers are offering them a good deal. Here's the cool thing though: Wal-Mart, despite its continued success, would not be getting any of our property. The only exchanges would be between willing participants who have evaluated the offerings of the other side and who, based on their standards, act accordingly. In other cases, ones that happen everyday, a critical mass of people stop buying products from corporations and CEO pay (as well as worker pay) disappears accordingly. Do you want an example of this? Look no further than the last business that closed its doors your town. That business likely had a CEO who is now making $0/year from that business.
By far the most significant consequence of "selfish capitalism" (Thatch/Blatcherism) has been a startling increase in the incidence of mental illness in both children and adults since the 1970s. As I report in my book, The Selfish Capitalist -- Origins of Affluenza, World Health Organization and nationally representative studies in the United States, Britain and Australia, reveal that it almost doubled between the early 80s and the turn of the century. These increases are very unlikely to be due to greater preparedness to acknowledge distress -- the psychobabbling therapy culture was already established.
Add to this the astonishing fact that citizens of Selfish Capitalist, English-speaking nations (which tend to be one and the same) are twice as likely to suffer mental illness as those from mainland western Europe, which is largely Unselfish Capitalist in its political economy. An average 23% of Americans, Britons, Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians suffered in the last 12 months, but only 11.5% of Germans, Italians, French, Belgians, Spaniards and Dutch. The message could not be clearer. Selfish Capitalism, much more than genes, is extremely bad for your mental health. But why is it so toxic?
Readers of this newspaper will need little reminding that Selfish Capitalism has massively increased the wealth of the wealthy, robbing the average earner to give to the rich. There was no "trickle-down effect" after all.
The real wage of the average English-speaking person has remained the same - or, in the case of the US, decreased - since the 1970s. By more than halving the taxes of the richest and transferring the burden to the general population, Margaret Thatcher reinstated the rich's capital wealth after three postwar decades in which they had steadily become poorer.
Although I risk you glazing over at these statistics, it's worth remembering that the top 1% of British earners have doubled their share of the national income since 1982, from 6.5% to 13%, FTSE 100 chief executives now earning 133 times more than the average wage (against 20 times in 1980); and under Brown's chancellorship the richest 0.3% nobbled over half of all liquid assets (cash, instantly accessible income), increasing their share by 79% during the last five years.
In itself, this economic inequality does not cause mental illness. WHO studies show that some very inequitable developing nations, like Nigeria and China, also have the lowest prevalence of mental illness. Furthermore, inequity may be much greater in the English-speaking world today, but it is far less than it was at the end of the 19th century. While we have no way of knowing for sure, it is very possible that mental illness was nowhere near as widespread in, for instance, the US or Britain of that time.
What does the damage is the combination of inequality with the widespread relative materialism of Affluenza - placing a high value on money, possessions, appearances and fame when you already have enough income to meet your fundamental psychological needs. Survival materialism is healthy. If you need money for medicine or to buy a house, becoming very concerned about getting them does not make you mentally ill.
But Selfish Capitalism stokes up relative materialism: unrealistic aspirations and the expectation that they can be fulfilled. It does so to stimulate consumerism in order to increase profits and promote short-term economic growth. Indeed, I maintain that high levels of mental illness are essential to Selfish Capitalism, because needy, miserable people make greedy consumers and can be more easily suckered into perfectionist, competitive workaholism.
With overstimulated aspirations and expectations, the entrepreneurial fantasy society fosters the delusion that anyone can be Alan Sugar or Bill Gates, never mind that the actual likelihood of this occurring has diminished since the 1970s. A Briton turning 20 in 1978 was more likely than one doing so in 1990 to achieve upward mobility through education. Nonetheless, in the Big Brother/ It Could Be You society, great swaths of the population believe they can become rich and famous, and that it is highly desirable. This is most damaging of all - the ideology that material affluence is the key to fulfillment and open to anyone willing to work hard enough. If you don't succeed, there is only one person to blame - never mind that it couldn't be clearer that it's the system's fault, not yours.
Depressed or anxious, you work ever harder. Or maybe you collapse and join the sickness benefit queue, leaving it to people shipped in to do the low-paid jobs that society has taught you are too demeaning - let alone the unpaid ones, like looking after children or elderly parents, which are beneath contempt in the Nouveau labor liturgy.
There is much tearing of hair across the media and advocacy of nose-pegging on these pages of the "grin and bear it" variety. In fact, there is an alternative. We desperately need -- and before long, I predict we will get -- a passionate, charismatic, probably female leader who advocates the Unselfish Capitalism of our neighbors. The pitch is simple. Not only would reduced consumerism and greater equality make us more ecologically sustainable, it would halve the prevalence of mental illness within a generation.
Oliver James is the author of They f*** you up. His new book, Affluenza - How to be successful and stay sane, is now available.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
"Indeed, I maintain that high levels of mental illness are essential to Selfish Capitalism, because needy, miserable people make greedy consumers and can be more easily suckered into perfectionist, competitive workaholism."
call it whatever you want, i think this is true.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
"Indeed, I maintain that high levels of mental illness are essential to Selfish Capitalism, because needy, miserable people make greedy consumers and can be more easily suckered into perfectionist, competitive workaholism."
WHY do i think needy, miserable people make greedy consumers and can be more easily suckered into perfectionist, competitive workaholism? because i can see it happening all around me. can't you?
here's a particularly true excerpt:
"This is most damaging of all - the ideology that material affluence is the key to fulfillment and open to anyone willing to work hard enough. If you don't succeed, there is only one person to blame - never mind that it couldn't be clearer that it's the system's fault, not yours.
Depressed or anxious, you work ever harder. Or maybe you collapse and join the sickness benefit queue, leaving it to people shipped in to do the low-paid jobs that society has taught you are too demeaning - let alone the unpaid ones, like looking after children or elderly parents, which are beneath contempt in the Nouveau labor liturgy."
i think our current brand of capitalism makes for an unhealthy society. it places greed over compassion, which never leads to a good place.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
As many people prolly know, Edwards isn't my first choice. That being said, what's wrong with any of these theories? Sounds right to me.
Wait i guess its cool for CEO's to line their pockets by the blood sweat and tears of their employess while at the same time fucking them out of retirement and pensions. Work 'em to death and then fuck their corpse below the deck of your largest yacht. Yeah, that sounds like a better plan. Fuckin' SHEESH!
WHY do i think needy, miserable people make greedy consumers and can be more easily suckered into perfectionist, competitive workaholism? because i can see it happening all around me. can't you?
I certainly see many perfectionists and workaholics around me. I also see people who are content with who they are and who don't work much. Yet both operate in the same economic system.
Once upon a time, people "saw" the sun revolving around the Earth. The opposite was actually true, and it took someone to explain why the sun rises and sets everyday at a level deeper than what they "see". They used science and reason and logic, something the article you used was largely devoid of.
here's a particularly true excerpt:
"This is most damaging of all - the ideology that material affluence is the key to fulfillment and open to anyone willing to work hard enough. If you don't succeed, there is only one person to blame - never mind that it couldn't be clearer that it's the system's fault, not yours.
Depressed or anxious, you work ever harder. Or maybe you collapse and join the sickness benefit queue, leaving it to people shipped in to do the low-paid jobs that society has taught you are too demeaning - let alone the unpaid ones, like looking after children or elderly parents, which are beneath contempt in the Nouveau labor liturgy."
Why is that "true"? What science supports it? What comprehensive study or unassailable logic demonstrates that "truth"?
i think our current brand of capitalism makes for an unhealthy society. it places greed over compassion, which never leads to a good place.
What is "it"? Capitalism? Capitalism doesn't place greed over compassion, by default. Capitalism places some of the values of individuals over others, all based on the standards and virtues of the individuals involved. If your society is comprised of mostly the greedy, then certainly greed will be placed over compassion. Conversely, if your society is comprised of mostly the compassionate, then compassion will be given a higher precedence.
I find it incredibly ironic that the concept of "greed" is so often raised by people like John Edwards, his own immense wealth notwithstanding. Edwards and his ilk, while invoking the "perils of greed", demand from others free healthcare, free jobs, free retirements, free money, all without committing to provide anything in return. Yet they pretend that the faceless "them" at whom they toss nothing but vitriol hold a monopoly on greed. Is not the definition of greed the demand for something greater than the value you wish to provide in return? Is not the logic of the "greedy CEO" hallmarked by payments greater than his or her worth? Then what is that which Edwards stands for? "Compassion"??? What a mockery people like that make of language and morality.
If you dislike our "current brand of capitalism", I completely support your right to separate yourself from it. You have no obligation, in my mind, to serve any function of American capitalism, if you do not wish to do so. But to pretend that you dislike the current brand of capitalism in this country, being so marked by coersion and force, when all your really dislike is the position you hold within it and when all you really desire is to apply that same coersion and force on your own chosen targets, is to be contradictory and, in my opinion, no better than those you call your enemy.
I certainly see many perfectionists and workaholics around me. I also see people who are content with who they are and who don't work much. Yet both operate in the same economic system.
Once upon a time, people "saw" the sun revolving around the Earth. The opposite was actually true, and it took someone to explain why the sun rises and sets everyday at a level deeper than what they "see". They used science and reason and logic, something the article you used was largely devoid of.
Why is that "true"? What science supports it? What comprehensive study or unassailable logic demonstrates that "truth"?
What is "it"? Capitalism? Capitalism doesn't place greed over compassion, by default.
I find it incredibly ironic that the concept of "greed" is so often raised by people like John Edwards, his own immense wealth notwithstanding. Edwards and his ilk, while invoking the "perils of greed", demand from others free healthcare, free jobs, free retirements, free money, all without committing to provide anything in return. Yet they pretend that the faceless "them" at whom they toss nothing but vitriol hold a monopoly on greed. Is not the definition of greed the demand for something greater than the value you wish to provide in return? Is not the logic of the "greedy CEO" hallmarked by payments greater than his or her worth? Then what is that which Edwards stands for? "Compassion"??? What a mockery people like that make of language and morality.
If you dislike our "current brand of capitalism", I completely support your right to separate yourself from it. You have no obligation, in my mind, to serve any function of American capitalism, if you do not wish to do so. But to pretend that you dislike the current brand of capitalism in this country, being so marked by coersion and force, when all your really dislike is the position you hold within it and when all you really desire is to apply that same coersion and force on your own chosen targets, is to be contradictory and, in my opinion, no better than those you call your enemy.
you are assuming a bit too much about me, don;t you think? what makes you think i don't like "the position i hold within it"? that's silly of you, and frankly, not true.
"Capitalism places some of the values of individuals over others, all based on the standards and virtues of the individuals involved. If your society is comprised of mostly the greedy, then certainly greed will be placed over compassion. Conversely, if your society is comprised of mostly the compassionate, then compassion will be given a higher precedence."
that's what i said. so basically, you're agreeing with my statement that OUR CURRENT BRAND of capitalism places greed over compassion.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
you are assuming a bit too much about me, don;t you think? what makes you think i don't like "the position i hold within it"? that's silly of you, and frankly, not true.
I certainly might be assuming too much there, though I find it odd that you then attack the statement with questions, instead of counterarguments.
"Capitalism places some of the values of individuals over others, all based on the standards and virtues of the individuals involved. If your society is comprised of mostly the greedy, then certainly greed will be placed over compassion. Conversely, if your society is comprised of mostly the compassionate, then compassion will be given a higher precedence."
that's what i said. so basically, you're agreeing with my statement that OUR CURRENT BRAND of capitalism places greed over compassion.
I would disagree that our current brand of capitalism places greed over compassion. I believe that the individuals who comprise the American capitalistic system are more compassionate than they are greedy, but that's simply my experience and I can certainly understand and relate to counterstatements. Furthermore, your original statement presented capitalism as a gauranteed way to put greed over compassion, a contention that I find highly erroneous.
If you dislike our "current brand" of capitalism, what is it in particular you wish would be removed from the system? How do you propose to remove it?
I didn't mean it as a joke. But I didn't mean it to be serious either. If somebody believes they are worth $400 million when they retire, then I do believe those people are delusional and out of touch.
If you dislike our "current brand" of capitalism, what is it in particular you wish would be removed from the system? How do you propose to remove it?
cap peoples pay and force corporations to evenly spread the rest of the money to people who dont want to work. there's enough to go around for everyone.
fuck the sick...
fuck the poor...
fuck the unemployed...
fuck the homeless...
fuck the hungry...
fuck the elderly...
fuck the children...
fuck the working class...
fuck them all...
as long Bill Gates gets to keep as much as possible
fuck the sick...
fuck the poor...
fuck the unemployed...
fuck the homeless...
fuck the hungry...
fuck the elderly...
fuck the children...
fuck the working class...
fuck them all...
as long Bill Gates gets to keep as much as possible
yeah, your right
fuck Bill Gates...
fuck Bill Gates...
fuck Bill Gates...
fuck Bill Gates...
fuck Bill Gates...
fuck Bill Gates ...
fuck Bill Gates...
fuck Bill Gates...
fuck them all...
as long the sick, poor, unemployed, homeless, hungry, elderly, children and working class get to take as much as possible.
Perhaps you should find an argument that doesn't lend itself to such an obvious contradiction.
fuck Bill Gates...
fuck Bill Gates...
fuck Bill Gates...
fuck Bill Gates...
fuck Bill Gates...
fuck Bill Gates ...
fuck Bill Gates...
fuck Bill Gates...
fuck them all...
as long the sick, poor, unemployed, homeless, hungry, elderly, children and working class get to take as much as possible.
Perhaps you should find an argument that doesn't lend itself to such an obvious contradiction.
i think bill gates will be fine...
i guess you dont believe i helping people whe they are down or need a hand? typical heartless right wing "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" greedy capitalistic attitude
he was an obvious example to use... maybe that went over your head?
you get the point
An obvious example of what? Someone who worked hard and became successful? Some one who amassed a fortune through his work and intellect? Someone who is committed to giving away a substantial piece of that fortune to causes throughout the world? Someone who wants to erradicate killer diseases, make technology more accessable to the poor, raise educational standards?
He is an obvious example of all of the above. He is not an obvious target of your tirade. So I did not get the point.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
i HATE people that care more about the DOW and NASDAQ and some CEO $300,000,000 bonus package then they do about their fellow human being and the needs of the people...
i guess you dont believe i helping people whe they are down or need a hand? typical heartless right wing "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" greedy capitalistic attitude
well y ou know everyone has the same opportunities as everyone else...if you don't make $100k a year..its your own fault...bastards.
Salary caps work in football. A few great teams, lots of parody (sp?), and a few bad teams. Baseball needs a hard cap if it ever wants good competition.
An obvious example of what? Someone who worked hard and became successful? Some one who amassed a fortune through his work and intellect? Someone who is committed to giving away a substantial piece of that fortune to causes throughout the world? Someone who wants to erradicate killer diseases, make technology more accessable to the poor, raise educational standards?
He is an obvious example of all of the above. He is not an obvious target of your tirade. So I did not get the point.
Come on guys, you're arguments are petty. You know what he meant. The guy just named a rich person. Yeah, there are a lot of rich people who give to charity, and there are a ton who just want more and more money and don't give a shit about anyone. I would say there are less Bill Gates than the other.
An obvious example of what? Someone who worked hard and became successful? Some one who amassed a fortune through his work and intellect? Someone who is committed to giving away a substantial piece of that fortune to causes throughout the world? Someone who wants to erradicate killer diseases, make technology more accessable to the poor, raise educational standards?
He is an obvious example of all of the above. He is not an obvious target of your tirade. So I did not get the point.
this is what you guys do... ignore the actual topic and focus on some small point made... i used bill gates as an example...
the greedy society that cheers a system that allows a man to hoard $50 BILLION dollars while people sleep in the streets and starve
just remember... someone is going to freeze to death on the street tonight... blocks away from wall street...
Bill Gates' physical status, fine or otherwise, doesn't allow you to make a contradiction true. You can't damn greed and, in the process, demand your right to be greedy.
i guess you dont believe i helping people whe they are down or need a hand?
I certainly do. What I don't believe in is forcing my neighbor to do it for me, or letting people drag others down with them in the name of something someone calls "compassion".
typical heartless right wing "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" greedy capitalistic attitude
Tell me, what's greedy about it? What's heartless about it? What mention have I made of "bootstraps"?
You're demanding payment for some from others in exchange for nothing. You're levelling personal attacks on others based only on the sizes of their bank accounts. Who's greedy here? Who's heartless?
Comments
The idea of morally regulating corporations by not buying their stuff is a nice idea but doesn't seem really effective. Does anyone actually know if such a thing effectively worked before?
No one wants government to control lives, but regulating pay through taxes seems a little less intrusive than biometric passports, patriot acts, wiretapping or other stuff that are seriously starting to do some privacy damage. If I had to criticise government control, taxes wouldn't be the first of my concern.
that's exactly what i was gonna say, but you said it first. DAMN YOU!!!
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
This happens regularly. Now, tell me why this is inherently bad? If the reverse were true, and a company when it started losing money instantly cut CEO pay and hired more "regular workers", would that be inherently good? If so, why?
The CEO of a corporation is supposed to be the leader of an organization. Ideally, this is the most valuable person at a healthy company. It stands to reason that, if times get demanding, a CEO's renumeration should increase as an incentive to produce. However, certainly other cases can be made for increasing worker pay during tough times or lowering CEO pay when the CEO themselves might be responsible for the downturn. What I fail to understand is why you think it would always be bad for CEO pay to rise in tough times (or why it would always be good or bad to do something else).
That would entirely depend on the nature of the monopoly, of course. In the event of a true monopoly, all bets on CEO and worker pay are off. But it seems silly to complain about monopolies while directly advocating one of the primary causes of monopolization, namely government regulation.
You're using the word "effective", but what you really mean is "does not buying their stuff actually rectify the injustice that I see." You're using the term "effective" as if it has a universal meaning that it doesnt' really have.
"Morally regulating corporations" will put CEO pay at the level sanctioned by the customers and shareholders of that CEO's corporation. So, while you and I might not buy anything from Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart's CEO might still make a ton of money. Why? Because millions of others disagree with us and believe that Wal-Mart, its management, and its workers are offering them a good deal. Here's the cool thing though: Wal-Mart, despite its continued success, would not be getting any of our property. The only exchanges would be between willing participants who have evaluated the offerings of the other side and who, based on their standards, act accordingly. In other cases, ones that happen everyday, a critical mass of people stop buying products from corporations and CEO pay (as well as worker pay) disappears accordingly. Do you want an example of this? Look no further than the last business that closed its doors your town. That business likely had a CEO who is now making $0/year from that business.
By Oliver James, Comment Is Free
http://www.alternet.org/story/72496/
By far the most significant consequence of "selfish capitalism" (Thatch/Blatcherism) has been a startling increase in the incidence of mental illness in both children and adults since the 1970s. As I report in my book, The Selfish Capitalist -- Origins of Affluenza, World Health Organization and nationally representative studies in the United States, Britain and Australia, reveal that it almost doubled between the early 80s and the turn of the century. These increases are very unlikely to be due to greater preparedness to acknowledge distress -- the psychobabbling therapy culture was already established.
Add to this the astonishing fact that citizens of Selfish Capitalist, English-speaking nations (which tend to be one and the same) are twice as likely to suffer mental illness as those from mainland western Europe, which is largely Unselfish Capitalist in its political economy. An average 23% of Americans, Britons, Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians suffered in the last 12 months, but only 11.5% of Germans, Italians, French, Belgians, Spaniards and Dutch. The message could not be clearer. Selfish Capitalism, much more than genes, is extremely bad for your mental health. But why is it so toxic?
Readers of this newspaper will need little reminding that Selfish Capitalism has massively increased the wealth of the wealthy, robbing the average earner to give to the rich. There was no "trickle-down effect" after all.
The real wage of the average English-speaking person has remained the same - or, in the case of the US, decreased - since the 1970s. By more than halving the taxes of the richest and transferring the burden to the general population, Margaret Thatcher reinstated the rich's capital wealth after three postwar decades in which they had steadily become poorer.
Although I risk you glazing over at these statistics, it's worth remembering that the top 1% of British earners have doubled their share of the national income since 1982, from 6.5% to 13%, FTSE 100 chief executives now earning 133 times more than the average wage (against 20 times in 1980); and under Brown's chancellorship the richest 0.3% nobbled over half of all liquid assets (cash, instantly accessible income), increasing their share by 79% during the last five years.
In itself, this economic inequality does not cause mental illness. WHO studies show that some very inequitable developing nations, like Nigeria and China, also have the lowest prevalence of mental illness. Furthermore, inequity may be much greater in the English-speaking world today, but it is far less than it was at the end of the 19th century. While we have no way of knowing for sure, it is very possible that mental illness was nowhere near as widespread in, for instance, the US or Britain of that time.
What does the damage is the combination of inequality with the widespread relative materialism of Affluenza - placing a high value on money, possessions, appearances and fame when you already have enough income to meet your fundamental psychological needs. Survival materialism is healthy. If you need money for medicine or to buy a house, becoming very concerned about getting them does not make you mentally ill.
But Selfish Capitalism stokes up relative materialism: unrealistic aspirations and the expectation that they can be fulfilled. It does so to stimulate consumerism in order to increase profits and promote short-term economic growth. Indeed, I maintain that high levels of mental illness are essential to Selfish Capitalism, because needy, miserable people make greedy consumers and can be more easily suckered into perfectionist, competitive workaholism.
With overstimulated aspirations and expectations, the entrepreneurial fantasy society fosters the delusion that anyone can be Alan Sugar or Bill Gates, never mind that the actual likelihood of this occurring has diminished since the 1970s. A Briton turning 20 in 1978 was more likely than one doing so in 1990 to achieve upward mobility through education. Nonetheless, in the Big Brother/ It Could Be You society, great swaths of the population believe they can become rich and famous, and that it is highly desirable. This is most damaging of all - the ideology that material affluence is the key to fulfillment and open to anyone willing to work hard enough. If you don't succeed, there is only one person to blame - never mind that it couldn't be clearer that it's the system's fault, not yours.
Depressed or anxious, you work ever harder. Or maybe you collapse and join the sickness benefit queue, leaving it to people shipped in to do the low-paid jobs that society has taught you are too demeaning - let alone the unpaid ones, like looking after children or elderly parents, which are beneath contempt in the Nouveau labor liturgy.
There is much tearing of hair across the media and advocacy of nose-pegging on these pages of the "grin and bear it" variety. In fact, there is an alternative. We desperately need -- and before long, I predict we will get -- a passionate, charismatic, probably female leader who advocates the Unselfish Capitalism of our neighbors. The pitch is simple. Not only would reduced consumerism and greater equality make us more ecologically sustainable, it would halve the prevalence of mental illness within a generation.
Oliver James is the author of They f*** you up. His new book, Affluenza - How to be successful and stay sane, is now available.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
Wow...this is the biggest pile of pseudo-science I've seen in a very long time.
call it whatever you want, i think this is true.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
Why do you think it's true?
WHY do i think needy, miserable people make greedy consumers and can be more easily suckered into perfectionist, competitive workaholism? because i can see it happening all around me. can't you?
here's a particularly true excerpt:
"This is most damaging of all - the ideology that material affluence is the key to fulfillment and open to anyone willing to work hard enough. If you don't succeed, there is only one person to blame - never mind that it couldn't be clearer that it's the system's fault, not yours.
Depressed or anxious, you work ever harder. Or maybe you collapse and join the sickness benefit queue, leaving it to people shipped in to do the low-paid jobs that society has taught you are too demeaning - let alone the unpaid ones, like looking after children or elderly parents, which are beneath contempt in the Nouveau labor liturgy."
i think our current brand of capitalism makes for an unhealthy society. it places greed over compassion, which never leads to a good place.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
sounds accurate
I certainly see many perfectionists and workaholics around me. I also see people who are content with who they are and who don't work much. Yet both operate in the same economic system.
Once upon a time, people "saw" the sun revolving around the Earth. The opposite was actually true, and it took someone to explain why the sun rises and sets everyday at a level deeper than what they "see". They used science and reason and logic, something the article you used was largely devoid of.
Why is that "true"? What science supports it? What comprehensive study or unassailable logic demonstrates that "truth"?
What is "it"? Capitalism? Capitalism doesn't place greed over compassion, by default. Capitalism places some of the values of individuals over others, all based on the standards and virtues of the individuals involved. If your society is comprised of mostly the greedy, then certainly greed will be placed over compassion. Conversely, if your society is comprised of mostly the compassionate, then compassion will be given a higher precedence.
I find it incredibly ironic that the concept of "greed" is so often raised by people like John Edwards, his own immense wealth notwithstanding. Edwards and his ilk, while invoking the "perils of greed", demand from others free healthcare, free jobs, free retirements, free money, all without committing to provide anything in return. Yet they pretend that the faceless "them" at whom they toss nothing but vitriol hold a monopoly on greed. Is not the definition of greed the demand for something greater than the value you wish to provide in return? Is not the logic of the "greedy CEO" hallmarked by payments greater than his or her worth? Then what is that which Edwards stands for? "Compassion"??? What a mockery people like that make of language and morality.
If you dislike our "current brand of capitalism", I completely support your right to separate yourself from it. You have no obligation, in my mind, to serve any function of American capitalism, if you do not wish to do so. But to pretend that you dislike the current brand of capitalism in this country, being so marked by coersion and force, when all your really dislike is the position you hold within it and when all you really desire is to apply that same coersion and force on your own chosen targets, is to be contradictory and, in my opinion, no better than those you call your enemy.
you are assuming a bit too much about me, don;t you think? what makes you think i don't like "the position i hold within it"? that's silly of you, and frankly, not true.
"Capitalism places some of the values of individuals over others, all based on the standards and virtues of the individuals involved. If your society is comprised of mostly the greedy, then certainly greed will be placed over compassion. Conversely, if your society is comprised of mostly the compassionate, then compassion will be given a higher precedence."
that's what i said. so basically, you're agreeing with my statement that OUR CURRENT BRAND of capitalism places greed over compassion.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
I certainly might be assuming too much there, though I find it odd that you then attack the statement with questions, instead of counterarguments.
I would disagree that our current brand of capitalism places greed over compassion. I believe that the individuals who comprise the American capitalistic system are more compassionate than they are greedy, but that's simply my experience and I can certainly understand and relate to counterstatements. Furthermore, your original statement presented capitalism as a gauranteed way to put greed over compassion, a contention that I find highly erroneous.
If you dislike our "current brand" of capitalism, what is it in particular you wish would be removed from the system? How do you propose to remove it?
I didn't mean it as a joke. But I didn't mean it to be serious either. If somebody believes they are worth $400 million when they retire, then I do believe those people are delusional and out of touch.
cap peoples pay and force corporations to evenly spread the rest of the money to people who dont want to work. there's enough to go around for everyone.
Based on what standard?
Through what means?
For how long?
sticks and stones
forever!
hehe my last post (and this one) was a complete lie btw
fuck the sick...
fuck the poor...
fuck the unemployed...
fuck the homeless...
fuck the hungry...
fuck the elderly...
fuck the children...
fuck the working class...
fuck them all...
as long Bill Gates gets to keep as much as possible
you are absolutely right. the more he gets the better. for millions of people. I really hope you take a second to see how much good he has done
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm
he was an obvious example to use... maybe that went over your head?
you get the point
yeah, your right
fuck Bill Gates...
fuck Bill Gates...
fuck Bill Gates...
fuck Bill Gates...
fuck Bill Gates...
fuck Bill Gates ...
fuck Bill Gates...
fuck Bill Gates...
fuck them all...
as long the sick, poor, unemployed, homeless, hungry, elderly, children and working class get to take as much as possible.
Perhaps you should find an argument that doesn't lend itself to such an obvious contradiction.
yea I guess it did go over my head. why say what you did?
i think bill gates will be fine...
i guess you dont believe i helping people whe they are down or need a hand? typical heartless right wing "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" greedy capitalistic attitude
"What you thought was freedom was just greed"
An obvious example of what? Someone who worked hard and became successful? Some one who amassed a fortune through his work and intellect? Someone who is committed to giving away a substantial piece of that fortune to causes throughout the world? Someone who wants to erradicate killer diseases, make technology more accessable to the poor, raise educational standards?
He is an obvious example of all of the above. He is not an obvious target of your tirade. So I did not get the point.
profit over people
fucking disgusting
Come on guys, you're arguments are petty. You know what he meant. The guy just named a rich person. Yeah, there are a lot of rich people who give to charity, and there are a ton who just want more and more money and don't give a shit about anyone. I would say there are less Bill Gates than the other.
this is what you guys do... ignore the actual topic and focus on some small point made... i used bill gates as an example...
the greedy society that cheers a system that allows a man to hoard $50 BILLION dollars while people sleep in the streets and starve
just remember... someone is going to freeze to death on the street tonight... blocks away from wall street...
Bill Gates' physical status, fine or otherwise, doesn't allow you to make a contradiction true. You can't damn greed and, in the process, demand your right to be greedy.
I certainly do. What I don't believe in is forcing my neighbor to do it for me, or letting people drag others down with them in the name of something someone calls "compassion".
Tell me, what's greedy about it? What's heartless about it? What mention have I made of "bootstraps"?
You're demanding payment for some from others in exchange for nothing. You're levelling personal attacks on others based only on the sizes of their bank accounts. Who's greedy here? Who's heartless?