right. I agree that it has no direct correlation with the well-being of the economy. In fact when people are spending more than they bring in it can only be interpreted asa GOOD thing from a national economic perspective. People are buying SHIT they don't need, but hey its good for all these corporations that took in record 4th quarter earnings last year.
But it does have huge implications when the economy does head south. And there are lots of signs pointing that may happen. (I personally think it is unlikely, but very possible) What would happen to the millions who lose jobs and live paycheck to paycheck with a butt load of current debt?
people incurring large amounts of debt makes the economy "appear" better than it is.
throughout history; when an economy does go south; people ignore all but the important bills. for example; if i lose my job and i owe you money; are you willing to pay a lawyer to sue me and get a worthless judgment?
I know technically it's not, but it's at least more excusable to my mind if the bankruptcy comes as a result of a personal tragedy rather than just consuming until you can't make the payments.
My comment was mostly to say that I think most people who file bankruptcy for situations that didn't involve personal tragedy are no better than criminals.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I know technically it's not, but it's at least more excusable to my mind if the bankruptcy comes as a result of a personal tragedy rather than just consuming until you can't make the payments.
My comment was mostly to say that I think most people who file bankruptcy for situations that didn't involve personal tragedy are no better than criminals.
you're assuming "criminals" are worse than "ordinary" folks,..
ALL economy [economics] has its foundation in the rape of Nature.
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
I know technically it's not, but it's at least more excusable to my mind if the bankruptcy comes as a result of a personal tragedy rather than just consuming until you can't make the payments.
My comment was mostly to say that I think most people who file bankruptcy for situations that didn't involve personal tragedy are no better than criminals.
Ok -- that's fair. Certainly one is much more understandable than the other. However, the forced protection from either debt, in my opinion, is justifiable.
you guys are right... it is the american publics fault, the era of "keep up with the jones'" just began 20 months ago :rolleyes:
it has nothing to do with the skyrocketing cost of housing, energy, health care, college tuition, etc... coupled with stagnant wages. :rolleyes:
You make a great point here, and it speaks to the current state of our culture. Think about this, skyrocketing cost of housing, energy, heath care, college tuition, etc... coupled with stagnant wages AND a freakin WAR.
Yet, what do we do as Americans? I'm not talking about the poor who don't have many choices. I'm talking about the middle class. We go out and spend more than we earn! We refinance and run up credit card debt.
A lot of people aren't buying presciption drugs on there credit cards. But, I bet a hell of a lot of Americans go buy a $4 cup of coffee at Starbucks on their credit card.
The point is, it's all about luxury now... more than ever - everything has to be THE BEST!!!
This is at least, my interpretation of where our culture is headed and what we value. It's money, it's status... these are the things we value. And the more of it you have and show, the more value you have as a member of your community.
For instance, maybe it is just me and its a part of growing up.... but I can't remember a time when designer jeans and purses were in such high demand. Look at all the knock-off products you can buy now....
It seems that Gucci and Prada are as much a part of the American lexicon as apple pie and baseball. Just look at MTV or VH1... they used to play music. Now it's all reality shows about famous people. It's all about celebrities and how they spend their money....
It sucks... I'm 26 and already feel like our country is going to hell in a hand basket. I thought I would at least need to have grandkids before I felt that way.
You make a great point here, and it speaks to the current state of our culture. Think about this, skyrocketing cost of housing, energy, heath care, college tuition, etc... coupled with stagnant wages AND a freakin WAR.
Yet, what do we do as Americans? I'm not talking about the poor who don't have many choices. I'm talking about the middle class. We go out and spend more than we earn! We refinance and run up credit card debt.
A lot of people aren't buying presciption drugs on there credit cards. But, I bet a hell of a lot of Americans go buy a $4 cup of coffee at Starbucks on their credit card.
The point is, it's all about luxury now... more than ever - everything has to be THE BEST!!!
This is at least, my interpretation of where our culture is headed and what we value. It's money, it's status... these are the things we value. And the more of it you have and show, the more value you have as a member of your community.
when you buy THE BEST; you never have complaints. you don't throw out the cheaper version and then have to buy the best anyway.
people who live outside of their means has nothing to do with the strength/weakness of the economy
people who live beyond their means can help the economy by spending a lot, but they hurt the economy when they stiff the bank on their credit card bills.
I'm not talking about buying the best value, or splurging to spend more now to save more later.
I'm talking about indulging in luxury items that people can't afford. I think this is a widespread phenomenon now in America.
in addition to what your saying...it almost seems like people have this thought that they deserve what everyone else has...that its not fair they have to sacrifice...so they buy the best and put it on their credit cards. Its now now now now. I hear people say all the time....hey it takes two parents working now a days to get by......well yea..you have two car payments equaling $800.00, Insurance to cover them, $100.00 buck cable bill, have someone cut your grass, get all your clothes laundered, have others change the oil in your car..as well as all the maintenance...on car and house...buy lunch everyday....no wonder they have nooo freakin money. Again I'm talking about the middle class.
You make a great point here, and it speaks to the current state of our culture. Think about this, skyrocketing cost of housing, energy, heath care, college tuition, etc... coupled with stagnant wages AND a freakin WAR.
Yet, what do we do as Americans? I'm not talking about the poor who don't have many choices. I'm talking about the middle class. We go out and spend more than we earn! We refinance and run up credit card debt.
A lot of people aren't buying presciption drugs on there credit cards. But, I bet a hell of a lot of Americans go buy a $4 cup of coffee at Starbucks on their credit card.
The point is, it's all about luxury now... more than ever - everything has to be THE BEST!!!
This is at least, my interpretation of where our culture is headed and what we value. It's money, it's status... these are the things we value. And the more of it you have and show, the more value you have as a member of your community.
as a member of corporate america (fuck me) I see this every day. It is a freaking disease. People are so blind to how consumerism destroys us. Most people work jobs that they hate so they can pay for shit that they don't need, and only provides a limited amount of happiness. The excitement that you get from buying shit quickly turns into either only comfort and sometimes disappointment, so you need to buy more shit to keep happy. And this happiness certainly doesn't outweight the stress and depression that everyone goes through in order to buy the shit. Its a vicious cycle.
But most people will call me a socialist or whatever (not that socialism is necessarily a bad thing).
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
as a member of corporate america (fuck me) I see this every day. It is a freaking disease. People are so blind to how consumerism destroys us. Most people work jobs that they hate so they can pay for shit that they don't need, and only provides a limited amount of happiness. The excitement that you get from buying shit quickly turns into either only comfort and sometimes disappointment, so you need to buy more shit to keep happy. And this happiness certainly doesn't outweight the stress and depression that everyone goes through in order to buy the shit. Its a vicious cycle.
But most people will call me a socialist or whatever (not that socialism is necessarily a bad thing).
watched a farmer in the middle of his rice field.....he seemed happy...didn't have crap...but I often wondered if his life wasn't much better than mine.....also he knew how long a day really was......it just blasts by for me....
Are you trying to argue my points? [sorry i've been at lunch]
Not really. Both your points are valid, depending on what the "..." means after the first and that the latter is free of negative connotations.
Sure, the cycles of life-and-death only function through inherent, internal opposition(s),....
Yep.
but the common denomination of "criminal" is still slanted up-on the bias of economic-righteousness.
Of course it is. That's the whole point. You can't have any denomination of "criminal" in the absence of economic-righteousness. Without economic-righteousness, even the rape you mention is perfectly uncriminal.
Of course it is. That's the whole point. You can't have any denomination of "criminal" in the absence of economic-righteousness. Without economic-righteousness, even the rape you mention is perfectly uncriminal.
Well yeah, exactly, kinda,...
what i'm saying is that ALL economics are essential "criminal", given the rape of Nature inherent.
*this is of course a broad over-estimate/generalization since the "native-americans" [including both north and south i suppose] has a relatively need-based, non-wasteful economic-mentality,.. but this very astute counter-example predates the usage of "specifically-designed monetary-objects",.. so basically at the invention/usage of money for bartering i think something happens in terms of humanity/culture/civilization which has yet to acheive any sort of equilibrium in history.
[perhaps you can tell i'm extremely interested in leveling the playing field whenever possible?;)]
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
what i'm saying is that ALL economics are essential "criminal", given the rape of Nature inherent.
Huh? There's nothing criminal about eating. There's nothing criminal about breathing. There's nothing criminal about trading. Those are all economic pursuits.
*this is of course a broad over-estimate/generalization since the "native-americans" [including both north and south i suppose] has a relatively need-based, non-wasteful economic-mentality,.. but this very astute counter-example predates the usage of "specifically-designed monetary-objects",.. so basically at the invention/usage of money for bartering i think something happens in terms of humanity/culture/civilization which has yet to acheive any sort of equilibrium in history.
[perhaps you can tell i'm extremely interested in leveling the playing field whenever possible?;)]
Of course you are. But here's the problem -- in an effort to justify doing so, you've destroyed the moral reasoning required for it.
Huh? There's nothing criminal about eating. There's nothing criminal about breathing. There's nothing criminal about trading. Those are all economic pursuits.
well, technically, okay, i'll make an agreement for the sake of conversation; but breathing--although this action contains a faculty of economic-mediation--is not what i would ever consider an "economic pusruit", but rather a Natural pursuit, namely, of survival, health, etc...
Of course you are. But here's the problem -- in an effort to justify doing so, you've destroyed the moral reasoning required for it.
this is my point. there is a false moral-reasoning beneath contemporary Humanity's social-existence which underpins numerous ignorances and misunderstandings.
so i think you are seeing me backwards or upside-down: from my immoralists' position of viewing society i am easily able to level the playing field of economics because everyone involved is equally guilty of participating in a system founded upon the rape of Nature [which i can not deny either],.....
this is an ethical position, so your talk of moral-justification falls upon preordained ears with me. my justification is always the hope in working towards greater degrees of idealism, and of course the stipulation that regardless of any failures i am in fact working on such hopes (thus such criticisms become mostly irrelevent).
what seems to be the issue in this convo is that economics are today so distorted and corrupted from the primary historical-characteristics behind the origins here [of trade, production, commerce, etc...] that government(s) involvement has become an even larger problem than the basic facets of economic-theory would otherwise see,....
economic-law is probably the only chance humanity has for preserving Earth and creating peace hereon.
~ok, i'm out of work,.. i'll check tomorrow for any responses, but thanks for discussing. later.
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
well, technically, okay, i'll make an agreement for the sake of conversation; but breathing--although this action contains a faculty of economic-mediation--is not what i would ever consider an "economic pusruit", but rather a Natural pursuit, namely, of survival, health, etc...
Hehe...your differentiation is troubling. All human behaviors are "natural pursuits". It's impossible to do anything as a human that isn't "Natural".
Survival and economics are inextricably linked. Without one, the other is meaningless, given our environment. You, as a living organism, must consume. To consume, you must labor. If you wish to benefit from the labor of others, you must exchange. Damn economics and you damn what makes your life possible.
This is my point. there is a false moral-reasoning beneath contemporary Humanity's social-existence which underpins numerous ignorances and misunderstandings.
so i think you are seeing me backwards or upside-down: from my immoralists' position of viewing society i am easily able to level the playing field of economics because everyone involved is equally guilty of participating in a system founded upon the rape of Nature [which i can not deny either],.....
this is an ethical position, so your talk of moral-justification falls upon preordained ears with me. my justification is always the hope in working towards greater degrees of idealism, and of course the stipulation that regardless of any failures i am in fact working on such hopes (thus such criticisms become mostly irrelevent).
You don't have an "immoralists" position. If you did, the word "rape" would be meaningless, as would be the word "guilty". These cannot be ethical positions, given your wording. You cannot be ethically "guilty" absent a morality. You cannot "rape" something, absent a moral judgement. There can be no ethical code without a moral one preceding it, just as there cannot be a society without individuals comprising it.
what seems to be the issue in this convo is that economics are today so distorted and corrupted from the primary historical-characteristics behind the origins here [of trade, production, commerce, etc...] that government(s) involvement has become an even larger problem than the basic facets of economic-theory would otherwise see,....
economic-law is probably the only chance humanity has for preserving Earth and creating peace hereon.
Hehe...economic-law has been the cause of more wars than anything in history, other than religion. Yet you are certainly correct to differentiate between the actions of governments and the core issues of trade, production and commerce, just as you would be right to differentiate the theif who steals an ear of corn from the man who planted its seed.
~ok, i'm out of work,.. i'll check tomorrow for any responses, but thanks for discussing. later.
Survival and economics are inextricably linked. Without one, the other is meaningless, given our environment. You, as a living organism, must consume. To consume, you must labor. If you wish to benefit from the labor of others, you must exchange. Damn economics and you damn what makes your life possible.
well, i'm not really sure what exactly has made my life possible, or Life at all as possible,.. but i do know that survival is NOT inextricably linked to economics in the sense from which we were discussing--which is the case where "economics" is referring to a social-faculty, not an entirely personal-process.
by this i mean, i concede that survival requires some form of economy, whether dietary or in terms of energy/motion, thought, sleep, etc... BUT i do not concede that survival has any inherent relation with/to social-commerce--one needs simply to look at wildlife for an example of survival without economics [finances].
~i am not trying to advocate some type of Rousseau-esque return to the wilderness,.. just trying defense i suppose.
You don't have an "immoralists" position. If you did, the word "rape" would be meaningless, as would be the word "guilty". These cannot be ethical positions, given your wording. You cannot be ethically "guilty" absent a morality. You cannot "rape" something, absent a moral judgement. There can be no ethical code without a moral one preceding it, just as there cannot be a society without individuals comprising it.
i dont think there is a unanimous ethical-code, nor a moral one preceding it; i think ethics arrive from experience and experience only, and i see 'morality' as the corruption [short-coming falsification] of intuition/instinct.
Hehe...economic-law has been the cause of more wars than anything in history, other than religion. Yet you are certainly correct to differentiate between the actions of governments and the core issues of trade, production and commerce, just as you would be right to differentiate the theif who steals an ear of corn from the man who planted its seed.
there is also human-survival beyond economy----
~where is the involvement of "economy" in the case of the man who, after emerging from the forest(s), accepts an ear of corn from a kind farmer?
You make a great point here, and it speaks to the current state of our culture. Think about this, skyrocketing cost of housing, energy, heath care, college tuition, etc... coupled with stagnant wages AND a freakin WAR.
Yet, what do we do as Americans? I'm not talking about the poor who don't have many choices. I'm talking about the middle class. We go out and spend more than we earn! We refinance and run up credit card debt.
A lot of people aren't buying presciption drugs on there credit cards. But, I bet a hell of a lot of Americans go buy a $4 cup of coffee at Starbucks on their credit card.
The point is, it's all about luxury now... more than ever - everything has to be THE BEST!!!
This is at least, my interpretation of where our culture is headed and what we value. It's money, it's status... these are the things we value. And the more of it you have and show, the more value you have as a member of your community.
For instance, maybe it is just me and its a part of growing up.... but I can't remember a time when designer jeans and purses were in such high demand. Look at all the knock-off products you can buy now....
It seems that Gucci and Prada are as much a part of the American lexicon as apple pie and baseball. Just look at MTV or VH1... they used to play music. Now it's all reality shows about famous people. It's all about celebrities and how they spend their money....
It sucks... I'm 26 and already feel like our country is going to hell in a hand basket. I thought I would at least need to have grandkids before I felt that way.
i completely understand where you are coming from, and i agree that most americans value all the wrong things, especially when it comes to celebrity, and luxury items. however i think this problem is much larger than that. for a country of 300,000,000 to spend beyond their take-home pay consistantly over 20 months shows me that this is much larger than Gucci bags and over-priced jeans made my children for slave wages overseas. i think it is a systematic squeezing of the population by corporate america to get every fucking penny we have earned. they operate with practical immunity, and have become almost unavoidable to the consumer in nearly every facet of life.
and as i said earlier, it is the basic needs that are skyrocketing. take a look at the last few years and the cost of education, energy, housing, and health care. these are the essentials to life, not luxury items at all. we do not have a choice about these bills, they must be paid regularly in order to survive.
so while average joe is struggling to put sally through college and keep food on the table, Exxon is raping him at the pump, while at the same time reaping record profits, which in turn then morph into record CEO salaries. Wall St. is recording records earnings, meanwhile wages have been stagnant for years, and it took 10 years to raise the minimum wage. basicly, IMO, once the "Bankruptcy Bill" was rammed through our "sold to the highest bidder" represenative government, Corporate America now has a license to squeeze every fucking dime out of our pockets while we buy overpriced piece of shit denim, over-priced shitty coffee, and discuss celebrity fluzzies sex lives and bald hair cuts. in short, we are the dumb animal being distracted by the shiny object while the conman empties our wallets, and pays us less.
surpisingly enough the moral to the story is not the headline, but the firast sentence in the second paragraph. why the fuck would someone leave a job that pays $50,000,000 a year for a job that pays 150,000 a year? i know why, do you? we have been sold to the highest bidder. talk about conflict of interest. wake up america, your wealth is being stolen from under your nose and funneled to the few.
Goldman CEO reaped record $54.3 mln in pay in 2006 By Joseph A. Giannone
2 hours, 31 minutes ago
Goldman Sachs Group (NYSE:GS - news) Chairman and Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein received more than $54.3 million in cash, stock and options last year, setting a record for Wall Street CEO remuneration after leading the most profitable investment bank for just six months.
Blankfein, 52, named CEO in June after Henry "Hank" Paulson quit to become U.S. Treasury Secretary, earned $600,000 in salary and a cash bonus of $27.2 million, according to a proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday.
He also received $15.7 million in restricted stock, options valued at $10.5 million and $261,906 for perks such as a car, driver and financial counseling, plus $82,876 in contributions to his pension, insurance and other benefit plans.
Excluding options, Blankfein's cash and stock pay rose 42 percent from 2005, when he was Goldman's president.
"Don't get me wrong: it is a large amount, and people want to be outraged, but this is a perfect example of executive pay tracking company performance," said Bill Coleman, chief compensation officer at Salary.com.
Goldman had a standout year in 2006, with earnings surging 70 percent to a record $9.4 billion. Its stock price rose 50 percent during the fiscal year ended November 30, more than double that of the Amex Securities Broker-Dealer Index (^XBD - news).
Goldman set aside a jaw-dropping $16 billion for bonuses, with Blankfein's cash and stock bonuses exceeding previous records held by Merrill Lynch (NYSE:MER - news) CEO Stanley O'Neal, at $47.3 million in bonuses, and Morgan Stanley (NYSE:MS - news) chief John Mack, at $40 million.
These rival CEOs even fell short of the riches heaped on Goldman Co-Presidents Gary Cohn and Jon Winkelried, who each received $52.4 million in bonuses, stock and options.
Combining salary, bonuses and stock, Cohn received $53.2 million in compensation last year. Before his promotion, Cohn, 46, was co-head of Goldman's global securities trading.
Winkelried, 47, earned nearly $53.3 million in total pay last year. He was co-head of investment banking before moving up in June.
Blankfein, who rose through the ranks as a trader and helped build Goldman's giant fixed-income business, did not exercise any stock options last year, though he held more than $63 million in in-the-money options at the end of November.
Paulson, who had led Goldman since its initial public offering in 1999, last year earned $19.2 million in salary and bonus, but he received no restricted stock or options. He realized $34.9 million by exercising options.
Goldman discloses its windfall pay packages at a time when shareholders and governance groups accuse companies of overpaying executives. With annual meetings scheduled over the next few months, several fund managers and pension groups are pushing companies to give shareholders a voice in setting pay.
The problem with the economic growth of late is that it has been heavily concentrated among a smaller number of people. The percentage of the national income that went to corporate profits has almost doubled under Bush, but the percentage going to wages has dropped.
In 2004 Alan Greenspan said, “We have greatly increased wealth, but almost all of the increased wealth is going to the owners of capital, and none to people who work for wages.”
Even as tax rates are coming down, federal spending keeps going up. Federal spending increased 7.4 percent last year and the $182 billion increase was about twice the pace of inflation.
The problem with the economic growth of late is that it has been heavily concentrated among a smaller number of people. The percentage of the national income that went to corporate profits has almost doubled under Bush, but the percentage going to wages has dropped.
In 2004 Alan Greenspan said, “We have greatly increased wealth, but almost all of the increased wealth is going to the owners of capital, and none to people who work for wages.”
Even as tax rates are coming down, federal spending keeps going up. Federal spending increased 7.4 percent last year and the $182 billion increase was about twice the pace of inflation.
Comments
Then I have no intuition. Care to explain how it's different?
people incurring large amounts of debt makes the economy "appear" better than it is.
throughout history; when an economy does go south; people ignore all but the important bills. for example; if i lose my job and i owe you money; are you willing to pay a lawyer to sue me and get a worthless judgment?
ha ha! Maybe you could explain how it is the same........
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Ok. In both cases you've promised to exchange payment for the labor or goods of others. And in both cases you've defaulted on your promise.
I know technically it's not, but it's at least more excusable to my mind if the bankruptcy comes as a result of a personal tragedy rather than just consuming until you can't make the payments.
My comment was mostly to say that I think most people who file bankruptcy for situations that didn't involve personal tragedy are no better than criminals.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Culture is bigger than one person. I never really thought much of late 90's pop music, but hey there is no denying that was our culture then, right?
you're assuming "criminals" are worse than "ordinary" folks,..
ALL economy [economics] has its foundation in the rape of Nature.
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
Ok -- that's fair. Certainly one is much more understandable than the other. However, the forced protection from either debt, in my opinion, is justifiable.
They are, assuming those ordinary people aren't criminal.
Of course. All death has its foundation in the reverse.
You make a great point here, and it speaks to the current state of our culture. Think about this, skyrocketing cost of housing, energy, heath care, college tuition, etc... coupled with stagnant wages AND a freakin WAR.
Yet, what do we do as Americans? I'm not talking about the poor who don't have many choices. I'm talking about the middle class. We go out and spend more than we earn! We refinance and run up credit card debt.
A lot of people aren't buying presciption drugs on there credit cards. But, I bet a hell of a lot of Americans go buy a $4 cup of coffee at Starbucks on their credit card.
The point is, it's all about luxury now... more than ever - everything has to be THE BEST!!!
This is at least, my interpretation of where our culture is headed and what we value. It's money, it's status... these are the things we value. And the more of it you have and show, the more value you have as a member of your community.
For instance, maybe it is just me and its a part of growing up.... but I can't remember a time when designer jeans and purses were in such high demand. Look at all the knock-off products you can buy now....
It seems that Gucci and Prada are as much a part of the American lexicon as apple pie and baseball. Just look at MTV or VH1... they used to play music. Now it's all reality shows about famous people. It's all about celebrities and how they spend their money....
It sucks... I'm 26 and already feel like our country is going to hell in a hand basket. I thought I would at least need to have grandkids before I felt that way.
when you buy THE BEST; you never have complaints. you don't throw out the cheaper version and then have to buy the best anyway.
I'm not talking about buying the best value, or splurging to spend more now to save more later.
I'm talking about indulging in luxury items that people can't afford. I think this is a widespread phenomenon now in America.
people who live beyond their means can help the economy by spending a lot, but they hurt the economy when they stiff the bank on their credit card bills.
in addition to what your saying...it almost seems like people have this thought that they deserve what everyone else has...that its not fair they have to sacrifice...so they buy the best and put it on their credit cards. Its now now now now. I hear people say all the time....hey it takes two parents working now a days to get by......well yea..you have two car payments equaling $800.00, Insurance to cover them, $100.00 buck cable bill, have someone cut your grass, get all your clothes laundered, have others change the oil in your car..as well as all the maintenance...on car and house...buy lunch everyday....no wonder they have nooo freakin money. Again I'm talking about the middle class.
as a member of corporate america (fuck me) I see this every day. It is a freaking disease. People are so blind to how consumerism destroys us. Most people work jobs that they hate so they can pay for shit that they don't need, and only provides a limited amount of happiness. The excitement that you get from buying shit quickly turns into either only comfort and sometimes disappointment, so you need to buy more shit to keep happy. And this happiness certainly doesn't outweight the stress and depression that everyone goes through in order to buy the shit. Its a vicious cycle.
But most people will call me a socialist or whatever (not that socialism is necessarily a bad thing).
watched a farmer in the middle of his rice field.....he seemed happy...didn't have crap...but I often wondered if his life wasn't much better than mine.....also he knew how long a day really was......it just blasts by for me....
Are you trying to argue my points? [sorry i've been at lunch]
Sure, the cycles of life-and-death only function through inherent, internal opposition(s),....
but the common denomination of "criminal" is still slanted up-on the bias of economic-righteousness.
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
Not really. Both your points are valid, depending on what the "..." means after the first and that the latter is free of negative connotations.
Yep.
Of course it is. That's the whole point. You can't have any denomination of "criminal" in the absence of economic-righteousness. Without economic-righteousness, even the rape you mention is perfectly uncriminal.
Well yeah, exactly, kinda,...
what i'm saying is that ALL economics are essential "criminal", given the rape of Nature inherent.
*this is of course a broad over-estimate/generalization since the "native-americans" [including both north and south i suppose] has a relatively need-based, non-wasteful economic-mentality,.. but this very astute counter-example predates the usage of "specifically-designed monetary-objects",.. so basically at the invention/usage of money for bartering i think something happens in terms of humanity/culture/civilization which has yet to acheive any sort of equilibrium in history.
[perhaps you can tell i'm extremely interested in leveling the playing field whenever possible?;)]
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
Huh? There's nothing criminal about eating. There's nothing criminal about breathing. There's nothing criminal about trading. Those are all economic pursuits.
Of course you are. But here's the problem -- in an effort to justify doing so, you've destroyed the moral reasoning required for it.
well, technically, okay, i'll make an agreement for the sake of conversation; but breathing--although this action contains a faculty of economic-mediation--is not what i would ever consider an "economic pusruit", but rather a Natural pursuit, namely, of survival, health, etc...
this is my point. there is a false moral-reasoning beneath contemporary Humanity's social-existence which underpins numerous ignorances and misunderstandings.
so i think you are seeing me backwards or upside-down: from my immoralists' position of viewing society i am easily able to level the playing field of economics because everyone involved is equally guilty of participating in a system founded upon the rape of Nature [which i can not deny either],.....
this is an ethical position, so your talk of moral-justification falls upon preordained ears with me. my justification is always the hope in working towards greater degrees of idealism, and of course the stipulation that regardless of any failures i am in fact working on such hopes (thus such criticisms become mostly irrelevent).
what seems to be the issue in this convo is that economics are today so distorted and corrupted from the primary historical-characteristics behind the origins here [of trade, production, commerce, etc...] that government(s) involvement has become an even larger problem than the basic facets of economic-theory would otherwise see,....
economic-law is probably the only chance humanity has for preserving Earth and creating peace hereon.
~ok, i'm out of work,.. i'll check tomorrow for any responses, but thanks for discussing. later.
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
Hehe...your differentiation is troubling. All human behaviors are "natural pursuits". It's impossible to do anything as a human that isn't "Natural".
Survival and economics are inextricably linked. Without one, the other is meaningless, given our environment. You, as a living organism, must consume. To consume, you must labor. If you wish to benefit from the labor of others, you must exchange. Damn economics and you damn what makes your life possible.
You don't have an "immoralists" position. If you did, the word "rape" would be meaningless, as would be the word "guilty". These cannot be ethical positions, given your wording. You cannot be ethically "guilty" absent a morality. You cannot "rape" something, absent a moral judgement. There can be no ethical code without a moral one preceding it, just as there cannot be a society without individuals comprising it.
Hehe...economic-law has been the cause of more wars than anything in history, other than religion. Yet you are certainly correct to differentiate between the actions of governments and the core issues of trade, production and commerce, just as you would be right to differentiate the theif who steals an ear of corn from the man who planted its seed.
No problem. Thank you. Be well.
yes, i am a very troubling, uh, entity.
[i agree whole-heartedly that what i said was misleading in precisely the way you have mentioned]
well, i'm not really sure what exactly has made my life possible, or Life at all as possible,.. but i do know that survival is NOT inextricably linked to economics in the sense from which we were discussing--which is the case where "economics" is referring to a social-faculty, not an entirely personal-process.
by this i mean, i concede that survival requires some form of economy, whether dietary or in terms of energy/motion, thought, sleep, etc... BUT i do not concede that survival has any inherent relation with/to social-commerce--one needs simply to look at wildlife for an example of survival without economics [finances].
~i am not trying to advocate some type of Rousseau-esque return to the wilderness,.. just trying defense i suppose.
i dont think there is a unanimous ethical-code, nor a moral one preceding it; i think ethics arrive from experience and experience only, and i see 'morality' as the corruption [short-coming falsification] of intuition/instinct.
there is also human-survival beyond economy----
~where is the involvement of "economy" in the case of the man who, after emerging from the forest(s), accepts an ear of corn from a kind farmer?
great. i feel strong. thanks to you also.
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
i completely understand where you are coming from, and i agree that most americans value all the wrong things, especially when it comes to celebrity, and luxury items. however i think this problem is much larger than that. for a country of 300,000,000 to spend beyond their take-home pay consistantly over 20 months shows me that this is much larger than Gucci bags and over-priced jeans made my children for slave wages overseas. i think it is a systematic squeezing of the population by corporate america to get every fucking penny we have earned. they operate with practical immunity, and have become almost unavoidable to the consumer in nearly every facet of life.
and as i said earlier, it is the basic needs that are skyrocketing. take a look at the last few years and the cost of education, energy, housing, and health care. these are the essentials to life, not luxury items at all. we do not have a choice about these bills, they must be paid regularly in order to survive.
so while average joe is struggling to put sally through college and keep food on the table, Exxon is raping him at the pump, while at the same time reaping record profits, which in turn then morph into record CEO salaries. Wall St. is recording records earnings, meanwhile wages have been stagnant for years, and it took 10 years to raise the minimum wage. basicly, IMO, once the "Bankruptcy Bill" was rammed through our "sold to the highest bidder" represenative government, Corporate America now has a license to squeeze every fucking dime out of our pockets while we buy overpriced piece of shit denim, over-priced shitty coffee, and discuss celebrity fluzzies sex lives and bald hair cuts. in short, we are the dumb animal being distracted by the shiny object while the conman empties our wallets, and pays us less.
Goldman CEO reaped record $54.3 mln in pay in 2006 By Joseph A. Giannone
2 hours, 31 minutes ago
Goldman Sachs Group (NYSE:GS - news) Chairman and Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein received more than $54.3 million in cash, stock and options last year, setting a record for Wall Street CEO remuneration after leading the most profitable investment bank for just six months.
Blankfein, 52, named CEO in June after Henry "Hank" Paulson quit to become U.S. Treasury Secretary, earned $600,000 in salary and a cash bonus of $27.2 million, according to a proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday.
He also received $15.7 million in restricted stock, options valued at $10.5 million and $261,906 for perks such as a car, driver and financial counseling, plus $82,876 in contributions to his pension, insurance and other benefit plans.
Excluding options, Blankfein's cash and stock pay rose 42 percent from 2005, when he was Goldman's president.
"Don't get me wrong: it is a large amount, and people want to be outraged, but this is a perfect example of executive pay tracking company performance," said Bill Coleman, chief compensation officer at Salary.com.
Goldman had a standout year in 2006, with earnings surging 70 percent to a record $9.4 billion. Its stock price rose 50 percent during the fiscal year ended November 30, more than double that of the Amex Securities Broker-Dealer Index (^XBD - news).
Goldman set aside a jaw-dropping $16 billion for bonuses, with Blankfein's cash and stock bonuses exceeding previous records held by Merrill Lynch (NYSE:MER - news) CEO Stanley O'Neal, at $47.3 million in bonuses, and Morgan Stanley (NYSE:MS - news) chief John Mack, at $40 million.
These rival CEOs even fell short of the riches heaped on Goldman Co-Presidents Gary Cohn and Jon Winkelried, who each received $52.4 million in bonuses, stock and options.
Combining salary, bonuses and stock, Cohn received $53.2 million in compensation last year. Before his promotion, Cohn, 46, was co-head of Goldman's global securities trading.
Winkelried, 47, earned nearly $53.3 million in total pay last year. He was co-head of investment banking before moving up in June.
Blankfein, who rose through the ranks as a trader and helped build Goldman's giant fixed-income business, did not exercise any stock options last year, though he held more than $63 million in in-the-money options at the end of November.
Paulson, who had led Goldman since its initial public offering in 1999, last year earned $19.2 million in salary and bonus, but he received no restricted stock or options. He realized $34.9 million by exercising options.
Goldman discloses its windfall pay packages at a time when shareholders and governance groups accuse companies of overpaying executives. With annual meetings scheduled over the next few months, several fund managers and pension groups are pushing companies to give shareholders a voice in setting pay.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
In 2004 Alan Greenspan said, “We have greatly increased wealth, but almost all of the increased wealth is going to the owners of capital, and none to people who work for wages.”
Even as tax rates are coming down, federal spending keeps going up. Federal spending increased 7.4 percent last year and the $182 billion increase was about twice the pace of inflation.
are you serious? have you ever been to america?
exactamundo!
define poor.