“Do you really think a high bar of ethical standards has been set on Wall St, among bankers and CEOs, politicians, lobbyists and tax evading Corporations, dark money and many billionaires?
Even their counterparts in other nations are more regulated by standard decency and laws than ours - and they too are hardly angels.
A Chairman of the Board is much more likely to be despicable than a ditch digger.
Where there is great wealth and power there is great crime.”
Andy Grump on Dec 9, 2013 at 15:08:24
“I think a chairman of the board has more opportunitties to be a crook is the only reason. A person is what he is regardless of his job. I think the most unethical people of all are in the US Congress. Be they Democrats or Republicians How many members of Congress go in to Congress a poor man and become rich . Simple selling their vote on issues that makes everone money except the people they repersent. Congress is the only people that can do insider trading and its not againest the law and you can bet they take advantage of knowing what bill they are going to pass and what companies are going to benfit from it. Don't dare mention Obamacare to a member of Congress its not good enoungh for them. Well thats my sermon for the day”
“I don't say the criminals will always get the guns. Their is no analogy here.The Rich will always evade taxes much more easily than criminals will get guns IF we enforce the proper oversight.The Rich commit far more crime than street criminals do with far greater consequences unfortunately.Where there is great wealth there is great crime.”
“So they are gifted leaders of men then in your opinion?I find most of them nullities and mediocre compared to many who could easily replace them and be ethical at the same time.Being ethical while running a business to you would be like chewing gum and walking at the same time.........a difficult task.”
Andy Grump on Dec 8, 2013 at 20:45:17
“What position you have has nothing to do with being ethical. People can be ethical or unethical if the are ditch digger or chairman of the board! Most people like you that think every one is unethical is because they are unethical theirself”
“Although not as scatalogical, Palin and her Right Wing chorus is so guilty of a constant stream of foul mouthed attacks they can't really object too strenuously to Martin's lone, stray gaffe.
Even THEIR hypocrisy has some limits.”
“In theory that sounds good. But The Rich, who purchase the most stuff, would just find ways to get around paying their tax just as they do now.”
comfortablyxxxnumb on Dec 5, 2013 at 14:29:40
“I see you are pro gun as well. After all, isn't that what they always say? The criminals will always find a way to get the guns not unlike the rich will always find a way to get around paying their share.
It would seem, however, that it would be quite simple. Rich or poor. Buy a steak, pay the tax. Buy a side of beef and cook your own stake, pay the tax on the beef. Buy a car, pay the tax. Buy some land, pay the tax. The tax could be charged to the seller so if the seller did not collect the extra tax money, then they would be the ones responsible for paying it.”
“You forgot another alternative.
Raise taxes on the overpaid executives that run the companies.”
Andy Grump on Dec 6, 2013 at 19:46:08
“If your worried about overpaid executives why don't you become one of them. All you have to do is let them know you would like to be an executive. The fact that you don't know your ABC's or can't add 2&2 and get 4 should not stop you from getting that executive position.”
comfortablyxxxnumb on Dec 5, 2013 at 13:35:02
“Actually, how about just do away with all income tax to everyone and put either a user tax (tax any and everything you buy...more ya buy, the more tax you pay) or if you insist on an income tax, do it with a flat rate. 10-12% of every dime one makes....no deductions & no exemptions.”
“The Plutocrats might already have consolidated their power and if history has any lesson they won't give it up.
They have perverted trade laws and the tax code to benefit only themselves.
They own the Supreme Court and Congress.
They own the economy. And the Media.
Could there be a popular uprising, a sense of outrage?
Is Walmartization going to have any pushback?
Amazon has probably destroyed as many small businesses as Walmart but at least it aso has provided a platform for many vendors and is an efficient educator when it comes to consumer choices.
It's two or three-fold. Make lobbyists illegal and limit the electoral season and campaign contributions so we actually have elected citizen representatives.
50% more of the electorate vote in the elections of most developed nations than they do in America despite their abbreviated electoral periods, compared to our endless cycles, which are fueled by media bombardment.
That speaks volumes. We are numbed by this deluge but the result is not more information, but misinformation.
PR and advertising, the basis of our economy and way of life, have only the aim of making us make irrational decisions, whether it is the products we buy or politicians we elect.
Secondly, raise the minimum wage.”
DKCOON on Dec 4, 2013 at 13:54:20
“All good ideas that Republicans will Block with all their might..............”
Dec 1, 2013 at 21:54:13
“This article is of limited use because it neglects some important considerations.
One is discussing the merits of the fad Greek Yogurt if any.
Real Greek Yogurt is thicker. That is because it is double strained, resulting in more solids.
But I suspect that two ingredients which I always avoid are added to artificially thicken it: Caregean (sp?) and locust bean gum.
Just get the FULL FAT (it is less processed) yogurt with probiotic bacterial cultures and milk and/or cream.”
“CEOs of the Fortune 500 top companies now make 400 times more on average than the average wage of their employees.In the 1950s that ration was 40 to 1.Does that means that the Ceos of today are therefore worth ten time more than the CEOs of yore?The 40 to 1 ration is close to what CEOs in other advanced nations make on average. Does that mean that our CEOs are worth ten times more their counterparts in these other nations?”
“Your celebratory views of the rich and "successul" are the lynchpin of your skewed views.
But for every overpaid CEO there are thousands who could replace them and exceed their skills in resourcefulness and skill if given the opportunity.
What we are talking about here the Peter Principle.
Anyone with the basic capacity for sociological observaton would contradict your faith in the Uberclass.”
54Cheyenne on Nov 29, 2013 at 09:37:07
“If pigs had wings they could fly. Your construct is artificial. No one gave most successful people "the chance". You seem to be operating under an assumption that successful people, wealthy people were simply given that wealth. That is an easy and necessary thing for you to assume, however false, since it is the premise of most of your posts. There are millions of low paid or poor people. They have the same opportunities for education as everyone else up through high school - how many actually use it? I worked with the poor, the inner city for years. I can tell you the vast majority are poor and unsuccessful by choice. They are born into poverty and choose to remain there. The effort others apply are too much for them.”
“I will turn the tables on you. Those "creators" are as easily expendable and replaceable as a burger flipper. They have risen to their positions of power and wealth through luck, conniving, birth and connections. Not from any skills that easily be duplicated by others if they were given the same opportunities.”
54Cheyenne on Nov 28, 2013 at 11:43:52
“To turn the tables you need to start out with facts. Your supposition is unsupportable. Most people rise through effort, through "smarts" and certainly with luck. Anyone who says luck doesn't play a role is lying, but often one creates their own luck. CEOs earn there way to the top. Some have been born into it, but only after members of their families worked and created the wealth. If you are talking about the wealthy families, I have personal knowledge of several who created their business and worked and sacrificed to achieve what are now world wide mega billion businesses. You assume too much with too little facts to support it. Your bias blocks both your reason and your use of valid facts. The rich are not wealthy by accident. They are wealthy by effort, by ingenuity and creativity, by sheer smarts. What they evidence is exactly what your sainted poor do not. Your assumptions only demonstrate bias and ignorance krocklin. The massive replaceable labor pool have the same opportunities - they lack the will to make it happen. Sam Walton wasn't born rich and his empire did not grow by accident. The Mars family were poor - they created their wealth through effort and tenacity that began in a small kitchen in a house. Your bias and your emotions taint your reason sometimes . .. like now. Happy Thanksgiving. Are you working in a soup kitchen today to feed your sainted poor? Donating your excess funds?”
“The most moral thing we could do as a nation is round up all libertarians, TPartiers and Republicans and put them in reeducation camps, subjecting them to a heavy curriculum of 2500 years of Western Humanistic thought and writings on ethics.”
54Cheyenne on Nov 27, 2013 at 16:52:55
“Who would create? You would eliminate the most productive and economically successful people. You would eliminate the tax base and those who pay it. Humanistic thought is a luxury, a philosophy that one indulges in once fundamental needs are met. Strip away those fundamental needs and watch what happens to those ever changing, ever manipulated, ever flexible "ethics" you are so fond of. You aren't a Buddhist Monk are you? If you live in America, it is a direct result of those republicans (think Abraham Lincoln, Flagler) and libertarians that you enjoy what you enjoy.”
“Supply and demand is not the overarching moral standard I adhere to when it comes to people making a decent living. Mine would be one unfamiliar to you.”
54Cheyenne on Nov 27, 2013 at 10:50:59
“Yes. That would be because its feel good nonsense. Morals are entirely flexible and personal. They are hardly the standard to operate the world by. It was moral to force American citizens into concentration camps because they were of Japanese extraction. Morality is such a fragile concept. Want to make a decent living - get a decent job. Use all those talents and skills and get a job that pays what one thinks they are worth. If they don't, then clearly they aren't worth it and simply want a hand out, charity, welfare form someone - the government, private industry, whomever.”
“Walmart definitely hurts America economically and and morally.
The unemployed workforce today is far more educated than the workforces of earlier decades, and many of them are in their 20s.
Are you really going to blame their plight on the lack of personal responsibility?
Your really need to take a class in Sociology 101.”
54Cheyenne on Nov 27, 2013 at 09:23:10
“You should take economics 101. Have you been to a Walmart? Go in and be dazzled by the demonstration of higher learning, endless skill and talent that works there. They are all part of an easily replaceable labor pool. Fundamental economics with respect to supply and demand dictate the wage of these jobs. Yes, the lack personal responsibility is a significant factor. Want something - work for it. Unless of course you are a union member, in which case you get paid more than the job is worth - kind of a mandated privatized welfare system. I would urge you to take an Econ 101 course or even read a book.”
“Just because economics is often determined by ruthless profiteers doesn't mean I have to condone their methods, much less extol them like you do.
Let's take two businesses that are run along the lines of your model and then two more that are not.
The first two clearly damage the social fabric of the nation and also its economy by driving competition out of the market place, including independent businesses, and suppressing wages and benefits.
That would be Walmart and the fast food industry. Both of which drain taxpayers' money because its employees can't survive without government assistance.
The second two are closer to my model. Trader Joe's and Costco.
The Ceos and executives make a fraction of what their counterparts make. And yet the Ceos of Costco were also the founders. Their counterparts are 6 members of the founding Walton Family who combined are twice as rich as the richest man in the world.
They pay over double the wages and much more than that in benefits.
As a result the morale of the employees is high. They don't demonstrate in front of their place of work,
Also the quality of their products has a reputation for being very high. They do not cater to dubious and inferior products made by conglomerates. They are innovative organizations that don't ask tax payer's for anything and to the contrary contribue to tax revenues greatly.”
54Cheyenne on Nov 26, 2013 at 16:25:29
“You make a fundamental and obvious flaw in your assumptions. First, they are different businesses and offer different business models. To the untrained they are merely stores, however the differences are massive. Costco makes 2/3rds of its revenue from membership. They only carry 3,000 items. They are a unique model that is limited to the club format. Your choices are limited and the number of items available are limited. Trader Joes is a private label store selling only their own products. Walmart carries hundreds of thousand items in many more categories at a variety of price points providing choice and cost options. Your flaw is believing you know more than you do. It is similar to comparing two doctors and thinking them the same - one is a heart specialist and the other a proctologist. You would have them treating the same medical problem with your example. Most of your examples are again, compassionate but lacking fundamental understanding of economics.
The fast food industry and walmart harm no one. Those who are on taxpayer subsidies would be unemployed or employed in low wage jobs and STILL on taxpayer subsidies. If there is harm it is caused by the abundance of low skill undereducated in the labor pool. The problem isn't the Fast Food industry or Walmart. It is the over abundance of low skill, low talent, low education easily replaceable workers. It is a failure of personal responsibility, an embrace of that which you seem to love to support, "victimhood".”
“Value is determined by real values. Yours are out of some economics textbooks.”
54Cheyenne on Nov 26, 2013 at 15:09:14
“Mine is out of life. There is no such thing as "real values". There are only economic measures such as I provided or subjective evaluations which in most instances are meaningless. It must be very frustrating for you to live in a world that has equations and mathematics and laws of physics en lieu of "feelings".”
“People are not paid on the value of the job they perform, unless you define value as what is best only for me me me me.
You are reading from some irrelevant script or tract I think is nonsense.”
54Cheyenne on Nov 26, 2013 at 14:46:14
“Clearly economics is not your strong suit. Value is determined by the market, not an individual. It is predicated on either an intrinsic worth or a worth conditioned on impact, scope, ease of replacement, experience, education, revenue generation and the like. YOU are reading from some irrelevant script or tract that IS nonsense. You remain a compassionate person but somehow your compassion trips you up with fundamental economics.”
“Yet another flaw in your rigid heartless ideaology is that the average McDonalds or Walmart worker is a hell of lot more industrious than your average trust fund baby, who comprise most of the upper class.They are striking in German at Amazon currently, and the voters in Switzerland just drove the highest paid bank CEO in Switzerland into resignation. Naturally he is moving to America.It seems to have escaped you why unions are necessary and so feared and suppressed by the UberClass.”
54Cheyenne on Nov 26, 2013 at 13:36:21
“So what? One is not paid based on an evaluation of "how hard they work". They are paid based on the value of the job. Your constant lack of understanding fundamental economics limits your views. Jobs stratify based on impact, scope, responsibility, ease of replacements, education and experience requirements . . . not on how hard a person works. Your fear of the rich (and even the middle class who you have refused to define) and your hugging onto a socialistic point of view ignores the reality of the world.”
“The Founding Fathers believed in Western Humanism, the principles laid down since Aristotle.You clearly do not.This belief not only fostered Democracy, but a system of values which would not condone the poor being exploited by the rich.Their writings bristle with distrust of such exploitation.In Europe people protest of their wealthy classes get too wealthy. That is why they have a much larger and more prosperous middle class.Americans are much more docile and brainwashed.What you can't see is that ANY job if consistent with the values of Western Humanism MUST provide a living wage. ANY job.”
54Cheyenne on Nov 25, 2013 at 16:35:51
“Even your history is slanted. The Founding Fathers mistrusted large government, e.g. the king. They were wealthy farmers, merchants and landowners. There was not an ounce of charity in their slave owning bones. They mistrusted the common man, which is why we are not a democracy but instead a republic and it is why there is an Electoral College that elects the president regardless of what the popular vote is. Your understanding of history is a flawed as your understanding of economics krocklin.
Any job is not consistent with rational economics. All jobs are not created equal. What you can't see is that concepts of individual performance, personal excellence, education, tenacity, personal responsibility, scope of responsibility, impact and influence all play into the value of a job. You focus on the person, not the job. Any job is NOT equal to all jobs. Jobs stratify naturally but you focus on the person. A low level job performed by a PhD is still a low level, low wage job. ALWAYS.”
“Your amoral and rigid ideaology will never be able to validate one fact: The Rich are way over paid and the Middle Class and Poor are way underpaid.And no one is sainting The Poor.In 19th c. literature, such as Dickens, the most reprobate characters are The Poor because that is what Society has reduced them to.”
54Cheyenne on Nov 25, 2013 at 09:37:32
“Or that fate has borne them into it and they failed to overcome. Millions have overcome poverty, physical and emotional handicaps and mental handicaps to succeed. You like seeing the poor as victims of the evil rich. You embrace the concept of victimhood and mandate the "victims" be adopted and taken care of by everyone else. Compassionate view. Unrealistic, economically unsupportable and one that encourages a lack of effort and achievement . . . but compassionate.”
“I am not against industriousness at all.I am in favor of everyone getting according to their contributions.Someone making $7 an hour is being valued way below to what he or she contributes.And those who see to it that they make many $Ks an hour are being paid in excess of what they contribute.Just because they earn so much doesn't mean that they deserve it proportionately compared to someone making one thousandth of what they make.A Walmart worker is contributing far more to society and the economy than a shady financial criminal on Wall St.”
54Cheyenne on Nov 25, 2013 at 09:34:10
“How do you know someone making $7 an hour is being valued way below what they contribute? What piece of fact supports that conclusions? They may be being overpaid. Given the ease with which they can be replaced, I bet those jobs could be done for $5 an hour. The collective efforts of the thousands of $7 employees may result in the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. Your conclusion is merely based on a belief that everyone who works for a highly profitable company should be paid more because the company can afford to pay it - not because their efforts merit it. You ARE against industriousness. You ARE against PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. You are in favor of wealth redistribution and the concept that equality applies to economics, whether earned or not. You believe in charity and handouts. Not merit.”