Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Greed... is good? I definitely think so.      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 51
Greed... is good? I definitely think so.Page 3 of 14    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
We are WIRED to want more, to desire excess,

Wrong. You are PROGRAMMED to want more. The creation of a covetous, consumerist society was a deliberate plan. It came about when it dawned on the elite that people could be programmed through suggestion and clever marketing to desire all kindsa crap they didn't really need.


if we didn't have this constant desire to want more than we have, how many diseases wouldn't be cured? How many illnesses wouldn't we have medication for?

The pharmaceutical companies were less than happy that people like Fleming (penicillin), Banting & Best (insulin) and Salk (Polio vaccine) put their intellectual property in the public domain for the good of humanity. Name one pharmaceutical company that has come up with a single product that wasn't patented and sold at considerable markup. Name one pharmaceutical company that has developed a cure for anything. Know why they haven't?...There's no money in cures, but there's billions to be made in treatments, so guess what they produce.


How would live be without remote controls? Or airbags? Or vacuum cleaners?

Poor examples...I'm happy to do without any of those. My vintage car doesn't have airbags; it doesn't even have seatbelts, which is great, because I can't stand them. I've got a pile of remotes sitting in drawers. The only thing they seem to be good for is looking too valuable to throw out. Vacuum cleaners aren't too bad, but they make them so shoddy these days. Mine is 40 years old and works like a champ.


In your ideal society, where people are just happy when they have food, a place to sleep, and rags on their back, then the next disease epidemic or the next asteroid that comes our way will wipe our race out. Thank god for capitalists who are paving the road to give humanity a shot at survival and (hopefully) traveling to the stars.

This makes no sense. If we lived in such a way that we were happy, we likely wouldn't be living in crowded, polluted cities and would therefore be less subject to plagues (less chance of infection & spread). As far as capitalists in space, you will note that not one major corporation was willing to pony up the money for the R&D for space travel; that was done by the governments who used the tax money of the common man. Since he paid for all of the research that will enable the major corporations to exploit the resources of space, shouldn't he be considered an investor in the enterprise and therefore entitled to a share of the profits they'll make?
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 52
view profile
History
Greed... is good? I definitely think so.
Posted: 11/12/2009 2:40:29 PM

the culprit of the problem is unequal distribution of wealth

Wrong. That idea is so alluring and attractive and sounds so nice and makes so much sense. But it is a complete fallacy.

If you're going to blame unequal wealth on our economic problems, then you need to blame EVERYTHING else that is unequal. How "fair" is it that John was born with an IQ of 140 and Bill was born with an IQ of 85? How "fair" is it that Emily was born with gorgeous eyes, perfect breasts, and amazing hair, while Ethel was born with... well just flat out, butt ugly? How fair is it that Adam was born with a type-A personality, and is a confident leader and is more able to take charge than Rachel, who was born more of a shy, timid girl?

If your idea of fair is "equality", then you will be searching for it for the rest of your life.

The question at hand isn't "how can we make everyone as equal as possible". If that was our goal, then we should move the way of the Soviet Union. Sure, there was a giant disparity of income between people who were in with the party and everyone else. But the vast majority of the country was more or less equal.

But ask them how much they liked it. Less than three generations later, they begged for revolution.



what does one do with the excess?

Whatever he or she pleases. That's the goal in life. To be free, and to use that freedom to live out your own life according to your own values, so long as you don't interfere with anyone else.




Buy a large house? One larger than what you actually need? Who the heck is going to clean it? Sure, you could hire a maid service, but what about the expense of maintenance? You will have to work more in order to maintain the upkeep

If you decide for yourself that those costs are worth it, then by all means. This is EXACTLY how a market system works. Supply and demand. The more people who buy large homes, the more employment you'll have in yardkeeping, maid serves, contracting, etc. If no one wanted large homes, then those jobs would not exist.



Say, you put that excess in stock, or mutual funds. Are you not putting it in the very hands of the of the multi-corporations

After a corporation's IPO (unless they issue more stock, but that doesn't happen very often) you are buying the stock from another person. They were a partial owner of the business, and by selling their stock to you, they are transferring their ownership to you. So no, you are putting your money in the hands of another stock owner, who, chances are, is someone just like yourself.

It's actually very socialistic, if you think about it. The largest companies are owned in large part by the citizens. And (ideally) dividends (% of the profit) are shared among the stockholders. But it's based on VOLUNTARY transactions. That is the key. Freedom.


who are ruling the government?

I think it is wrong to say that corporations rule our government. GM, Leeman Brothers, Circuit City... all multi-billion multi-nationals, have gone bankrupt without government help.

What we have is a system of government that is clogged with all kinds of special interests. Business' hire lobbyists to get a law passed or changed in their favor, with spin to make it sound like it is for the public good. We all know now that Freddie and Frannie have been a failure. Their goal, according to congress, was to make housing more affordable for lower income classes and minorities. A very noble goal indeed! But home ownership rates among the lower-income classes and minorities are now back to where they were 10 years ago. But banking interests lobbied congress to "help the poor" by creating these institutions that would buy mortgages from banks, so banks wouldn't be hindered by the high risk. The banks wanted it because they wanted a place to dump the risks of lending. Politicians loved it because they could speak out like run-of-the-mill democrats, proclaiming to be the champion of the poor. But the real benefactors weren't the poor people. They were screwed by these seemingly noble institutions. The ones who benefited were the banks. The special interests. I

Suckers like the people in this thread, simply believe politicians when they say "We're going to do X Y Z for you" and the like. They know nothing of economics. When they hear an Obama say "Universal Healthcare for All", they just eat it up without seeing though the obvious spin and acknowledging that there are special interests behind the measure.

One of the best examples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk

(let me know if you want to learn more about the MW. I'd be glad to speak about it more specifically)




Pure capitalism puts profits in the hands of the laborers and its distributors

Close. Capitalism puts profits in the hands of producers, according to their (economic) value.

"Producers" is very broad. A worker is a producer. His product is his skill and his labor. The more skilled workers, and the ones who work harder/longer will tend to earn more than the average worker. Why? Because a skilled worker is more valuable to an employer than an unskilled one.

An investor is also a producer. His product is his investment.. which is an enabler for the production of capital. When a company goes public, it sells a large % of it's ownership to the public. And based on the company's value, people will pay X amount of dollars for each stock. By selling the stock, the company, now has a large sum of money that it is LEGALLY REQUIRED to spend for the best interest of the stock holders.

That's all a corporation is. It is a highly developed organization of capital that serves it's stockholders by producing products and/or services that people want to buy and willingly purchase.

It's a beautiful thing, really.




that this is a form of capitalism we have now, and is also a form of corporatism

Capitalism turns into corporatism when the citizens elect politicians who doll out favors to special interest, who spend money on projects the government has no business being involved in (housing!), and who raise taxes too high.

High taxes = high government income. High government income = bait for special interests, since everyone wants a piece of the pie.

My uncle is a lobbyist. It makes me sick know that he gets a shit ton of money working for private companies to get congress to spend TAX PAYER dollars on projects that benefit themselves at the expense of the tax payer.




I don't know what your laptop is like...I might even like it...but gosh I really want a macbook. I guess that makes me a hypocrite. Above all else, I have to be honest with myself, as much as I can. It provides an endless supply of amusement...

That doesn't make you a hypocrite at all. Apple is a fabulously run company. Their products don't suit me... but if you decide that a Mac is the best choice for you, based on your personal value system, then you should get one!

I'm all about freedom. Free to buy what you want, from whom you want - and the freedom to sell what you want (with some obvious limitations) to whom you want. Let the market decide where investments should go, where capital should be allocated, and how profits should be distributed.

Truth be told. The greatest sources of wealth today come from businesses, and the greatest sources of poverty and limitations of freedom come from government.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 53
Greed... is good? I definitely think so.
Posted: 11/12/2009 2:59:29 PM

The ones who benefited were the banks.

So it was their idea, they sold it to the politicians, who sold it to the people, who fell for it and are now paying for it via the bailouts. Sounds like a deliberate plan to me. Next question Who's really running the country? Answer...the central bank. Who's robbing it of its wealth?...The central bank. Who causes the "business cycle" through currency manipulation?...The central bank. Who owns the central bank?...A bunch of private investors, but in the case of the Fed, it is 57% owned by Rothschild.

"Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws." — Mayer Amschel Rothschild
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 54
view profile
History
Greed... is good? I definitely think so.
Posted: 11/12/2009 3:29:48 PM

So it was their idea, they sold it to the politicians, who sold it to the people, who fell for it and are now paying for it via the bailouts. Sounds like a deliberate plan to me.

Of course it's deliberate. But the fact remains that without government getting it's hands into the market, it never would have happened.

And since so much of our country is filled with people who feel butterflies in their stomachs each time they hear a slick politician who wants to tax business so they can "supposedly" help the poor, we get a distorted market.

It makes me sick knowing what special interests do. But I can't blame them. They see a way to make money legally, so they go for it. The real problem is government power.

Government should be involved only in:
-Protecting against foreign threats (Military)
-Protecting against civil coersion (Police)
-Providing a way for citizens to settle disputes (Justice System)
-Defining personal property and rights (Passing ((basic)) laws)
-Providing basic infrastructure (roads, airports, docks...)
-Assuming (some) scientific exploration (NASA...)

Everything else... housing, food, cellphones... is best left to the market.

Once government gets involved, shit hits the fan.

I believe you mentioned a while ago, the cost of a college education. It has skyrocketed in recent years? Why? My uncle was able to work his way though a private college as a waiter during the weekends. That is impossible today.

Why?

Government student aid. FASFA.

Cant afford college? The government will give you a loan. All of a sudden, more people can "afford" college. Demand spikes. This results in higher tutitions. There are a limited number of seats, after all.

That creates an even greater need for a loan to go to college. And government grants it. And the process coninues over and over.

The original goal was noble. To make college more affordable and to allow more people to go gain a higher education. But the limited suply of classrooms forced the prices higher.

Now people sometimes take 20-30 years to pay off their student loans. And good ol' politicaians come in, claiming to be the heros by expanding student aid.

Government is an expert at breaking your leg, then giving you a cast and taking the credit for fixing you.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 55
Greed... is good? I definitely think so.
Posted: 11/12/2009 4:45:43 PM
Hey Paul

Interesting factoid: George Washington was one of Ho Chi Minh's greatest heroes! He kept a portrait of him in his office.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 56
view profile
History
Greed... is good? I definitely think so.
Posted: 11/12/2009 5:34:26 PM

If you decide for yourself that those costs are worth it, then by all means. This is EXACTLY how a market system works. Supply and demand. The more people who buy large homes, the more employment you'll have in yardkeeping, maid serves, contracting, etc. If no one wanted large homes, then those jobs would not exist.
So if all those people didn't buy those big homes, that there would be nothing to do? No. Then all the money that they would save, would either sit in the bank and do little for them, or they would spend it, and then that money would go back into the economy.

Moreover, those yardkeepers and maids would have less money. But they'd have to find something else to do with their time. They'd have to utilise that time by getting other jobs. So they would end up with the same money anyway.

I think it is wrong to say that corporations rule our government. GM, Leeman Brothers, Circuit City... all multi-billion multi-nationals, have gone bankrupt without government help.
A President can die in office. Having great power doesn't mean you are immortal at all. But it does mean that you have access to greater sources of methods to keep you alive, and that increases your likelihood of longevity. Lehman Brothers ran from 1847 to 2008, 161 years old. General Motors ran from 1908 to today, 101 years old, and is not yet bankrupt, so it shows signs of continuing beyond that. Circuit City, which only had stores in the US and Canada, still started as a store in 1932 and ran to 2008, making it 76 years old. 2/3 of companies go bankrupt in the first few years. Most companies are considered "established" if they have been going for only 10 years. Let alone 76 years old! Let alone 101 years old. Let alone 161 years old. Compared to most companies, these 3 were giants that lived several lifetimes long. Yes, they did have a very long run due to their power.
 Super_Eve
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 57
Greed... is good? I definitely think so.
Posted: 11/12/2009 7:38:24 PM
In other words, you don't want an actual discussion or debate, you want all of us to say "My! What a clever boy you are. You're absolutely right."


I simply wanted to re-quote this.


Wrong. That idea is so alluring and attractive and sounds so nice and makes so much sense. But it is a complete fallacy.


Really? I guess you are assuming I have not researched it enough, since so far my reasoning is sound, since you said it was alluring, attractive, sounds nice and makes so much sense. (Although some might beg to differ...) I take it, that you are inferring that the fallacy lies in the realistic application of such.


Whatever he or she pleases. That's the goal in life. To be free, and to use that freedom to live out your own life according to your own values, so long as you don't interfere with anyone else.


Exactly.


After a corporation's IPO (unless they issue more stock, but that doesn't happen very often) you are buying the stock from another person. They were a partial owner of the business, and by selling their stock to you, they are transferring their ownership to you. So no, you are putting your money in the hands of another stock owner, who, chances are, is someone just like yourself.


And who are you? So far, other than the hyperbole you have presented, (which I admire by the way, not many people could pull off a 4 page thread in two days, based upon hyperbole. It is almost like an unintentional use of the Socratic method...)


Pure capitalism puts profits in the hands of the laborers and its distributors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Close. Capitalism puts profits in the hands of producers, according to their (economic) value.


I cross-referenced. Purist capitalism puts it the hands of the producers. Which includes laborers and distributors, which combine to make producers. If it is a beautiful thing, when the distribution of wealth is more equal...


The question at hand isn't "how can we make everyone as equal as possible". If that was our goal, then we should move the way of the Soviet Union. Sure, there was a giant disparity of income between people who were in with the party and everyone else. But the vast majority of the country was more or less equal.


But that is capital with governmental control. Weren't you arguing against this? Weren't you earlier advocating a free-market system?


In a free market, this wouldn't be the case.



It makes me sick know that he gets a shit ton of money working for private companies to get congress to spend TAX PAYER dollars on projects that benefit themselves at the expense of the tax payer.


Government controlled privater-ism. Or rather...actually, privater-ism controlled government. Isn't that what you were saying earlier?


It's actually very socialistic, if you think about it. The largest companies are owned in large part by the citizens. And (ideally) dividends (% of the profit) are shared among the stockholders. But it's based on VOLUNTARY transactions. That is the key. Freedom.


This sounds like a good argument for a capitalistic socialistic economy to me. Except, aren't you a proponent for non-governmental regulations for business owners?


That doesn't make you a hypocrite at all. Apple is a fabulously run company. Their products don't suit me... but if you decide that a Mac is the best choice for you, based on your personal value system, then you should get one!


It does make me a hypocrite. If my single action reflected my personal value system, I would buy a laptop from you, a small business owner, and not slobber and covet a macbook.


Truth be told. The greatest sources of wealth today come from businesses, and the greatest sources of poverty and limitations of freedom come from government.


I thought that is what you were saying...

But when you started the discussion off with greed, you are inviting a scrutinization of morality...

 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 58
view profile
History
Greed... is good? I definitely think so.
Posted: 11/12/2009 10:01:52 PM
RE: krebby2001

I agree with you in theory, but in practice it doesn't work out.

Here is why:


So, government should not be involved in: Consumer Safety

It already is. It's called a justice system. If a company negligently produces a product that does harm to individuals, the government can (and is obligated to) force that company to pay very heavy expenses. Regulation simply forces manufacturers to file report after report, hire lawyers, comply with (and pay for) inspections, etc, which forces the costs of manufacturing up. The company already has a massive incentive to deliver a safe product, but they are now forced to pay heavy fees to comply with, what is in the vast majority of cases, arbitrary regulation. What they spend on regulation compliance could have gone into producing a better product.

Moreover, when you give the government the ability to regulate in this way, a funny thing happens. Business tries to use that power. So a big toy company (Big Toys) will send lobbyists, pay politicians, or even get their own executives elected to office to use that regulating body's power for their own interests. So once Big Toys has the ability to exercise it's influence over the regulating body, it will inevitably loosen the restrictions on it's own products and tighten the restrictions on it's competitors products.

This happens all the time. Chris Dodd (Senator of CT, head of the Senate Banking Committee) was given tons of money by Freddie/Frannie to support them. Just weeks before it was announced that they needed a 20+billion dollar bailout, he was on TV preaching that they were "sound" and had "adequate capital" and that we should have faith in them.

Why would a politician do that? Because he sold out to business.

This is the norm in congress. Regulating bodies start out fine. But they are taken over.

It happens a lot more than you think. And when it does, the regulating body ceases to function as it was intended, but acts as an arm of big business. But now that business has an unfair (and improper) advantage over its competitors.

Ultimately, regulating bodies turn toxic and wind up hurting consumers by restricting competition.



Regulation of the greasy types of derivatives that almost sunk our economy to the ground

They sure did a good job, didn't they?

Like what was stated above, government-run regulating bodies can't work. They are always taken over by business, as you would expect. Humans act upon personal interest. If there is an interest for a business to control a part of government, it will happen.

The goal should be to reduce government power, so that businesses must compete fairly.

The government has no business in the lending industry. HOWEVER, if you have a central bank, as we do, then regulation is necessary.

BUT (and this is a huge 'but') we would all be much better off without a central bank in the first place. It distorts our market. It was the single reason businesses were able to leaverage up the way they were (borrow money to invest). Private banks would never have lent to hedge funds 30:1, let alone at a lousy 1% interest rate. This was what was happening under Greenspan. And thus the bubble would never had been formed in the first place.

And guess what our regulating bodies have been calling-for recently? 0% interest rates. That's right. Free money. Literally. And Bernanke (Fed chairman) has been giving it to them.

Corporatism sucks.



Regulation from Credit Card abuse

There is no reason for the government to regulate credit cards. HOWEVER, I will agree with you in a way. I believe that the current practice of pages and pages of fine print, with extremely important information buried deep within obscure paragraphs, is absurd, and should be forced to change with the fist of government.

I think our justice department should require breif summaries of ALL pertinent information to be listed at the top of "User Agreements" and "Terms/Condition" lists.

On the one hand, the customer has signed stating "I have read and agreed to the above".. but it never happens and never will. Its time our justice department caught up to reality.

And if government weren't involved in so many things it shouldn't be involved in, it could run a much better legal system. And trust me, there is a lot of room for improvement.

I had over $16,000 dollars stolen from me by two separate credit card processors when I first began accepting credit card payments. It took a little over 6 months to get it back, despite the fact that it was a cut-'n-dry case.

It shouldn't be that hard or take that long to get justice.



Foundation of a system to adequately handle emergencies

This falls under "policing" in my opinion.
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 59
view profile
History
Greed... is good? I definitely think so.
Posted: 11/12/2009 10:10:00 PM
RE: Paul K

I hear ya, alright. Thank you for the support! Everyone in this thread seems to think I'm some combination of evil, twisted, and dumbass.

Oh, and P.S.

Grow a vag so we can fu*k ^_^
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 60
Greed... is good? I definitely think so.
Posted: 11/13/2009 1:33:36 AM
@ Ubiquitous

There are only two differences I can spot between your perspective and mine.

You believe that government is the top of the capitalist food chain; I believe it is the privately owned central banks who "skim off the top" by charging interest to provide the medium of exchange and who have bribed governments to give them the right to do it and to extract the debt payment through income tax.

You believe government should be minimal. I believe we should all be self-governing and government as we know it should be restructured to put self-governing individuals (the people) back on top of the power pyramid.
 Super_Eve
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 61
Greed... is good? I definitely think so.
Posted: 11/13/2009 3:52:39 AM

Everyone in this thread seems to think I'm some combination of evil, twisted, and dumbass.


What the fcuk am I...chopped liver? I am the one who first pointed out that you are brilliant. Just because I challenge you, or even disagree with you, does not mean I have changed my mind. It means that I am treating you as an intellectual and philosophical peer.


Grow a vag so we can fu*k ^_^


Okay. This visual is just going to haunt me for the rest of my life...

Back to the discussion at hand...


The company already has a massive incentive to deliver a safe product


I am curious to know, I understand the incentive to produce and distribute a product in the first place, but what is the incentive to create a "safe" product? Competitive production? Wal-mart, distributed a product from China known to have lead in it. A necessary product...like its for children product...clothes.

Even after they knew it was unsafe, they still continued to distribute the product.
It wasn't until local activist groups put pressure on the Consumer Products Safety Commission, that anything was even done about it. Meanwhile, the unsafe product was continued to be distributed, and who is Wal-mart's target market? Low income families.


Moreover, when you give the government the ability to regulate in this way, a funny thing happens. Business tries to use that power. So a big toy company (Big Toys) will send lobbyists, pay politicians, or even get their own executives elected to office to use that regulating body's power for their own interests. So once Big Toys has the ability to exercise it's influence over the regulating body, it will inevitably loosen the restrictions on it's own products and tighten the restrictions on it's competitors products.


I agree.


The goal should be to reduce government power, so that businesses must compete fairly.


But what makes you think that they will compete fairly? Just because government regulation is reduced, does not mean that they will compete fairly. Some would argue that the potential for fair competition would be even more obsolete, to corporate greed.


Corporatism sucks.


Totally agree.

So do banks. Those are the main corporations that have the most power and influence over our government.

When money was stolen from your credit card processors and were reimbursed (in a very untimely manner), where did the reimbursement come from? Did they catch the person who did it, and make them pay for the stolen money, or did the banks who issued the credit cards have to cough it up? Because if it was the banks I am betting that is why it took so long.


I think our justice department should require breif summaries of ALL pertinent information to be listed at the top of "User Agreements" and "Terms/Condition" lists.


I agree. People should be able to understand what they are agreeing to, when they take that little plastic card and begin to use. The terms and conditions should be explained in a way that was easier for people to comprehend, rather than the convoluted way that it is currently handled.

My question for the Op is, how should corruption be handled, with very restricted governmental regulation? Can a capitalistic economy exist without corruption?
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 62
view profile
History
Greed... is good? I definitely think so.
Posted: 11/13/2009 4:44:07 AM
From the outset, the OP offered foolery.
Confusing self-interest with greed. Giving selfishness and altruism values of "good" or "bad".
The subject has been studied by scientists. EO Wilson's conclusion: "Selfishness beats altruism within groups. Altruistic groups beat selfish groups. Everything else is commentary."
 Island home
Joined: 7/5/2009
Msg: 63
Greed... is good? I definitely think so.
Posted: 11/13/2009 4:48:22 AM

Selfishness trumps altruism for the individual, and altruism trumps selfishness for the group. The rest is commentary.

IMHO is not an absolute
That doesnt mean that there hasnt been a lot of cr#p discussed here
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 64
view profile
History
Greed... is good? I definitely think so.
Posted: 11/13/2009 4:58:33 AM
"Selfishness beats altruism within groups. Altruistic groups beat selfish groups. Everything else is commentary.
I corrected with the exact wording from Wilson.
I agree it's not an absolute.
You could take it to mean that in every single case it's so, or you could take it as a principle that is shown to be true on larger scale.
Of course, any particular example of single or repeated or even group wide selfish act(s) could "backfire", and the same with altruistic acts.

However, in the context of making a generality, EO Wilson's statement is good.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 65
Greed... is good? I definitely think so.
Posted: 11/13/2009 7:14:27 AM
Saw this:


It already is. It's called a justice system. If a company negligently produces a product that does harm to individuals, the government can (and is obligated to) force that company to pay very heavy expenses. Regulation simply forces manufacturers to file report after report, hire lawyers, comply with (and pay for) inspections, etc, which forces the costs of manufacturing up. The company already has a massive incentive to deliver a safe product, but they are now forced to pay heavy fees to comply with, what is in the vast majority of cases, arbitrary regulation. What they spend on regulation compliance could have gone into producing a better product.


Wow...so someone has to die or get sick before the system can work? You're kidding, right?

Not saying the government is perfect but do you honestly believe that corporations...who's profits and shareholders by law come first....are going to have the best interests of the consumer in mind? Seriously?

How many times have we heard of companies cutting corners in order to save a buck and increase profits, usually at the expense of the consumer? And that is with a fully functioning judiciary and a litigious society that will sue someone at the drop of a hat.

It's about having a balance. Some government regulation is required, as the crash of the U.S. banking system clearly demonstrated. Canada's didn't. Why? Because our system has more regulation.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 66
view profile
History
Greed... is good? I definitely think so.
Posted: 11/13/2009 8:22:31 AM
Melamine inclusion to save on costly protein. Melamine contains nitrogen, which is measured by the "protein" test.
As it turns out, the melamine itself was not as dangerous as the further cost saving measure of using "dirty" melamine, which produced the most dangerous affects.
Melamine was added in China and in the U.S. feed distributor's facilities.

Now in Canada, The food safety authority demands full inspection and compliance with our regulations...we send our inspectors to China to help them get it right before they ship. Our experts are over there doing something like Underwriter's lab stuff, helping them set up and helping us avoid unnecesary work and danger.
But right now China is not allowing our food inspectors access to their factories.
They've been found to be using sewage to make stinky tofu, hospital refuse to make soy sauce.
so I think it's QUITE understandable, for us to demand standards and regulations be strictly enforced or "NO SALE".

As for U.S. product > we accept U.S. authorized full inspection..i.e. right down to source, and initial factory for let's say, the wheat that is in a product. Nothing less.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 67
view profile
History
Greed... is good? I definitely think so.
Posted: 11/13/2009 8:27:38 AM

Government should be involved only in:
-Protecting against foreign threats (Military)
-Protecting against civil coersion (Police)
-Providing a way for citizens to settle disputes (Justice System)
-Defining personal property and rights (Passing ((basic)) laws)
-Providing basic infrastructure (roads, airports, docks...)
-Assuming (some) scientific exploration (NASA...)

Everything else... housing, food, cellphones... is best left to the market.
You're talking about minimalism in government intervention. I get that you believe the government should be less involved in our lives. But let's be honest: we cannot be the arbiters of that. The goverment has to intervene in some measure, like the police. The government has to adjust its intervensionism to the changing face of the country, just like your body has to cool you down when you get too hot or your blood will boil and you'll die. As that level of intervensionism changes, some will say it's not enough and some wil say it's too much. Right now there are a lot of people (including you) saying it's too much, and a lot of other people saying that government is not intervening enough in the current credit crunch to ensure the bankers won't lead us down the same roads again.

You're like a guy complaining that the government is putting income tax too high, even if it was at 10%. Someone is bound to say that it needs to be more. Someone is bound to say it needs to be less. It just so happens that you're a guy who says it should be less.
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 68
view profile
History
Greed... is good? I definitely think so.
Posted: 11/13/2009 9:00:31 AM

Wow...so someone has to die or get sick before the system can work?

You must be in favor of preemptive wars. You must think we should jail all children who wet their beds past age 6, since they are 10x more likely to become a serial killer. You must think that anyone who drinks a beer should be thrown in the slammer, because they COULD drive a car and end up killing someone.

Preemption is a slippery slope. If I believed government could actually save lives by doing X Y Z regulation, then I would be all for it. But it doesn't work that way.

Let's take another example of government regulation. The FDA.

We all think the FDA protects us, by preventing bad drugs onto the market. We think the FDA saves lives that way. And you could argue that it does.

But the suppose after 5-7 years of testing, the FDA eventually approves a good drugs (which is what happens most of the time). How many lives could have been saved during those 5-7 years, had the drug been allowed onto the market sooner? There are people literally dying, waiting for these medications.

Are those lives any less real than the lives the FDA "saves" by rejecting bad drugs, which it rarely does to begin with?

There is enormous evidence that the FDA causes more deaths by its late approvals than saves by its rejections (which are rare to begin with). Moreover, the FDA makes it extremely expensive to develop drugs, making it impossible for smaller pharmaceutical companies to start up.




Not saying the government is perfect but do you honestly believe that corporations...who's profits and shareholders by law come first....are going to have the best interests of the consumer in mind? Seriously?

Of course. Have you ever worked for one of the big corporation? A McDonalds? A Wal-Mart?

ALL they talk about is the customer. How they can serve the customer, how they can make each customer's experience better. What they could improve on the make the customer happier.

That is how well-run companies operate. You don't think Wal-Mart got to the top by exploiting its customers, do you? People shop there for a reason. They get excellent an excellent deal.

This isn't theory.





How many times have we heard of companies cutting corners in order to save a buck and increase profits

You expect this to never happen? Heh.

Companies do the opposite, just as often. Companies sell at a loss (sacrifice for the customer) all the time, just to build a happy customer base.

Seriously. Companies compete with each other toon-and-nail to please their customers the most. "Whose ice cream tastes the best?", "Which computer is the fastest?", "Who offers the best gas price?"




Some government regulation is required, as the crash of the U.S. banking system clearly demonstrated.

Our banking/financial services industry is already the most regulated industry in the country.

Government regulation. Does. Not. Work.

Had the fed been out of the picture, had Frannie and Freddie never been created, we would never have been in this mess. Period.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 69
Greed... is good? I definitely think so.
Posted: 11/13/2009 9:27:13 AM

You must be in favor of preemptive wars. You must think we should jail all children who wet their beds past age 6, since they are 10x more likely to become a serial killer. You must think that anyone who drinks a beer should be thrown in the slammer, because they COULD drive a car and end up killing someone.


Clearly, you think ad hominem attacks are a means to forward your argument. Throw in ridiculous "examples"...what, did you learn your debate style in Grade School? Or Bill O'Reilly?

Well, you're young. You're allowed to see things in black and white. *pats head*

Okay...so to talk about your FDA example...would you prefer they not submit drugs to rigorous testing? Okay, so is your family going to be at the front of the line? Feel free to roll up your sleeves.


Of course. Have you ever worked for one of the big corporation? A McDonalds? A Wal-Mart?


Um...yes. I have. Ever seen "The Corporation?"


That is how well-run companies operate. You don't think Wal-Mart got to the top by exploiting its customers, do you? People shop there for a reason. They get excellent an excellent deal.

This isn't theory.


Nowhere near the point I was making.


Seriously. Companies compete with each other toon-and-nail to please their customers the most. "Whose ice cream tastes the best?", "Which computer is the fastest?", "Who offers the best gas price?"


And we should let them put in whatever sweetener they want into the icecream, even if it is carcinogenic, or use faulty cheap components that don't pass safety inspection which then causes a house fire, and we should let oil companies set any price they want...why?
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 70
view profile
History
Greed... is good? I definitely think so.
Posted: 11/13/2009 9:31:27 AM
Seven thousand people die every year because the FDA hasn't approved the Ambu CardioPump, a CPR device that is available in just about every other industrialized country.

* Nine hundred people die every year because the FDA hasn't approved the OmniCarbon heart valve, which also is in use just about everywhere else.

* From November 1988 to May 1992, about 3,500 kidney cancer patients died waiting for the FDA to approve the drug Interleukin-2, which was already available in France, Denmark, and seven other European countries.

* In 1988 alone, between 7,500 and 15,000 people died from gastric ulcers caused by aspirin and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, waiting for the FDA to approve misoprostol, which was already available in 43 countries.

* And 22,000 people died between 1985 and late 1987 waiting for streptokinase, the first drug that could be intravenously administered to reopen the blocked coronary arteries of heart-attack victims.



This shit makes me sick to my stomach. Part of it is simply a failure of government. The other part is deliberate abuse of power via special interests to control competition.



You can't have it both ways. You can't "balance" it. Either you acknowledge that when you give government power over the market, that power ends up working for the big interests in that market.... or you choose to ignore this and believe somehow it is "government vs business" and that the two do not mix.
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 71
view profile
History
Greed... is good? I definitely think so.
Posted: 11/13/2009 9:55:51 AM
would you prefer they not submit drugs to rigorous testing?

They already, are, dumbass.

You honestly know thing about the pharmaceutical industry. Companies spend YEARS and YEARS developing and testing new drugs.

After a 10-15 years of R/D, they finally send the drug to the FDA, along with millions of dollars to let the government run its own tests.

Idiots like you think companies profit somehow by releasing awful, harmful products. That if they hurt someone, they must gain.

It's not a zero-sum game, ****tard. Companies benefit from benefitting others. When a company winds up hurting it's customers, it hurts itself.





Ever seen "The Corporation?

Yep. It's a twisted, scare-tactic "documentary".

I challenge you to show a clip here. I will be glad to give you my commentary on it.




And we should let them put in whatever sweetener they want into the icecream, even if it is carcinogenic

Yeah, ice cream manufacturers really benefit from putting poison in their product


Grow up.





or use faulty cheap components that don't pass safety inspection which then causes a house fire

I bet you can't list 10 examples of this. Yet we as consumers pay upwards of 15% more for products simply to pay for regulation compliance. In some industries, the costs of meeting regulation is upwards of 30% of the cost of the product. And that doesn't include taxes.

You cannot put an infinite value on an individual life. Just because a regulation might save one person's life doesn't mean it was worth the 50 million in taxpayer dollars.

You act as if the costs of these regulations don't cause harm. They do. They contribute to poverty (much higher costs), unemployment (businesses can't sell as much), and yes, even death. People who spend more of their income on products have less to spend on a safer car. Or to move to that better neighborhood. Or to buy more healthy food. Or yes, even afford their medication.


But medication... that's a whole different subject altogether. The government has ****ed that market up beyond belief.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 72
view profile
History
Greed... is good? I definitely think so.
Posted: 11/13/2009 10:02:10 AM
This shit makes me sick to my stomach.
Sick to stomach ? Less people means more for you, less burden on public health if they pass away. Just so long as you're not getting sick due to the injustice , and a smashed-down altruism is rearing it's ugly head. How neurotic that would be, eh ?

To a person who really is into greed, fires is good news, just check your own Christmas lights for safety. Old people kicking off like flies sue to delays by FDA, that is surely good news to The Greedy Man.

You're young still. there's hope.

 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 73
Greed... is good? I definitely think so.
Posted: 11/13/2009 10:07:05 AM

Grow up.


Good idea. You might want to follow your own advice.
 Super_Eve
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 74
Greed... is good? I definitely think so.
Posted: 11/13/2009 10:48:02 AM
Not only am I chopped liver, I am now invisible chopped liver.



A Wal-Mart?
ALL they talk about is the customer. How they can serve the customer, how they can make each customer's experience better. What they could improve on the make the customer happier.
That is how well-run companies operate. You don't think Wal-Mart got to the top by exploiting its customers, do you? People shop there for a reason. They get excellent an excellent deal.


Did you miss this?



Wal-mart, distributed a product from China known to have lead in it. A necessary product...like its for children product...clothes.
Even after they knew it was unsafe, they still continued to distribute the product.
It wasn't until local activist groups put pressure on the Consumer Products Safety Commission, that anything was even done about it. Meanwhile, the unsafe product was continued to be distributed, and who is Wal-mart's target market? Low income families.


Wal-mart only has the consumer in mind when it is convenient, or when they are held accountable.



use faulty cheap components that don't pass safety inspection which then causes a house fire
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I bet you can't list 10 examples of this.


I thought it would be fun to try...

This is the safety procedures for electrical and home inspectors:

http://www.inspect-ny.com/electric/ElecSafety.htm

Here is another list:

1. 060-2009, Cream of Mushroom Soup (mislabeling / undeclared allergen)
2. # November 12, 2009 - Synthes USA, Ti Synex II Vertebral Body Replacement - Class I Recall
3. November 09, 2009 - Edwards Lifesciences CardioVations EndoClamp Aortic Catheter - Class 1 Recall
4. October 27, 2009 - Qualitest Pharmaceuticals Issues a Voluntary Nationwide Recall of All Accusure® Insulin Syringes
5. October 20, 2009 - American Regent Voluntarily Recalls All Lots of Ketorolac Tromethamine Injection
6. October 06, 2009 - Unomedical Issues Worldwide Recall of Certain Manual Pulmonary Resuscitators
7. October 01, 2009 - Neuron 6F 070 Delivery Catheter [Penumbra]
8. September 28, 2009 - Philips Issues Worldwide Recall of Select Heartstart Fr2+ Automated External Defibrillators
9. September 21, 2009 - Portex Uncuffed Pediatric-Sized Tracheal Tubes (sizes 2.5, 3.0 and 3.5 mm)
10. September 16, 2009 - FDA Requires Boxed Warning for Promethazine Hydrochloride Injection

...all recalls. Issued to corporations, whom you cannot tell me would leave it on the market, if they thought that they could get away with it.

Just saying...
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 75
view profile
History
Greed... is good? I definitely think so.
Posted: 11/13/2009 10:51:14 AM
oh, PLEASE ! Can't you leave our embattled Anti-Hero with a shred of dignity ? :)
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Greed... is good? I definitely think so.