Well, the part that is wrong is "now it seems to be making a high-tech comeback." It started a comeback decades ago, and it was all the rage for a while. More accurate, but less functional as advertising, would be to say, "It was popular in the 19th century, made a comeback in the 80s, and people continue to do it."
"Making a comeback" means it is new and exciting, a scrappy little underdog technology pioneered by forward thinking individuals. "Hasn't caught on like we want it to yet, despite our decades of effort to convince you that it is awesome" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
Have you not read about Bhopal? Management knew exactly what they were risking, but they didn't care. Any source outside of UC itself will back that up. Same at love canal. Then we have the Pinto: Ford new people would die, but they also knew a recall would cost more than the expected number of wrongful death suits. The we have Thalidomide. And Enron. People died from heat because they had no electricity, and the traders their laughed about the possibility. The savings and loan scandal. The housing crisis. The military industrial complex. It's a continuing pattern, yet each time it happens, people like you act surprised and talk about the few bad apples.
I don't so much admit to engaging in class warfare as say, okay, if merely criticizing corporate behavior is class warfare, then that's what I'm doing. But seeing as how the wealthy in the USA have gotten so much wealthier in the last thirty years while regular folks' wages have stagnated, I'm not the one who started the war. You steal all the extra value created by my society, I will call you on it, yes.
Face facts: the corporate structure shields individuals from the consequences of their actions. It defuses responsibility. People see everyone else investing in corporations that lie, cheat, steal, and yes, even kill, and they feel like it must be okay. When the corporation does something horrendous, they don't feel in any way personally responsible, even though their money funded the crimes.
Corporate malfeasance is not rare or isolated, it is endemic. The system guarantees it will be. It is not a few 'bad apples' spoiling the barrel. The whole barrel is rotten and it is the rare board member or CEO of a large corporation who isn't corrupt. I'm not talking about mom and pop operations here. I'm talking large multi-nationals.
What have I said that even approaches hyperbole? Which of my facts aren't straight? You make claims against me, but you don't back them up. Perhaps you know that your intended audience will believe you without proof, because their whole world view, and their view of themselves, is based on believing that the world as it exists is fundamentally fair. You tell them, "This guy is full of shit, don't listen to him, the world is fair and you aren't a bad person for supporting the status quo," and they automatically believe, because to believe otherwise is to admit that they are part of the problem.
If I've got cake on my face, you've got a brown nose from kissing fascist ass.
This is nothing new at all. Companies have been making stuff like this for decades. This is not going back to some forgotten technology. For crying out loud, look in the back of any Popular Mechanics from the last twenty years and you will see ads for this kind of thing along with the lawn mower hovercrafts and folding boats.
Why change policies when you can hire a PR firm and change perceptions? That is what corporations do, and it is because of greed.
When a corporation attempts to do the right thing, as (possibly, who knows what these corporations actually did as opposed to what they said) illustrated in your examples, that isn't greed, just like it isn't rape when you fuck someone who wants it, and it isn't stealing when you buy something.
Enlightened self interest is good. Self interest is neutral. Greed is bad. You can redefine red to mean blue, but then everyone will think you're crazy.
In my experience, people who defend greed are not defending enlightened self interest. Enlightened self interest leads to cooperative, fair, and reciprocal behavior. The defenders of greed are usually trying to conflate their own short sighted, selfish, manipulative and dishonest behavior with the kind of behavior that stems from real enlightened self interest.
So, are you just trying to muddy the waters here, conflating greed with cooperative, reciprocal, and fair self interest? If not, why do you insist on using the word greed in ways that most other people do not? The only reason I can come up with is that you are trying to make the definition of "greed" less clear so that you can justify certain behaviors.
But maybe I'm wrong. If so, what is your motivation here?
Why hurt the employees or customers? In fact, seize the companies assets and give them to the employees and customers. The shareholders should be punished for funding an illegal enterprise. The business will continue, but people will get the message. You'd better watch who you invest in, or pay someone to watch, or you may lose your shirt. It's called due diligence. There should be no excuse for funding crime, and no possibility that shareholders can keep electing corrupt boards who will hire corrupt individuals who will commit fraud. In any other situation, if I keep hiring criminals over and over again to make me money, I would go to jail.
Are you honestly saying that the people who profit from the crimes should not pay for them? If I invest in a company, and we find out that company is actually the mob, and that money was invested into drugs, whores and hit men, should I get my money back and get off scott free?
Where do you draw the line as far as people funding criminal activities? Is it okay because everyone is doing it? Is it okay because punishing it would be too inconvenient? How much crime does someone need to fund before there are consequences?
Let me ask you a question before we get into this, so I know if I'm wasting my time or not: in your world view, is there such a thing as excessive desire? Is there such a thing as undeserved reward? If you don't think desires can be excessive, or you think all rewards are deserved, then we can't have a conversation. If you think desires can be excessive, or rewards undeserved, then we are in agreement and we can stop this pedantry.
What it boils down to is this: when I use the word "greedy" I am saying, in my opinion, that someone's desires are excessive, or their sought after rewards undeserved. When you say it, it is your standard. That's how words like greed, or good, or love, or freedom work. There is a large element of personal interpretation to all such words.
There does not need to be a standard. The whole idea that there is some invisible line, this side of which is greedy, and the other side selfless, is ludicrous. Words like greed don't work that way.
Face it: greed is bad. Its in the definition of the word. There is no standard, nor does there need to be. When someone uses the word greed, it is understood by most people to be a personal opinion, not some absolute.
And it is understood to be a bad thing by most people. Most people do not like greed. Most people would rather punish the greedy, and would not like to be seen as greedy themselves. Only a few nut cases revel in their greed and celebrate it as a virtue.
That is just the way people are, they don't like greed and selfishness. People are natural cooperators, and part of being a natural cooperator is the desire to punish free riders.
It's the damn definition, if you don't like it, use another word. It's meant to be negative, and I'm sick of selfish fucks trying to "reclaim" it as a positive thing. It isn't.
Who's standards? Normal, cooperative, non-selfish people's standards. The standards 90% of people in the world use. The standard standards.
Here's an idea: rather than try to make people think greed is good, how about not being greedy?
I'm talking about multi nationals, not just American corporations. When I say murder, I guess I mean homocide. With corporations it boils down to a cost benefit analysis, and people's lives are just estimated entries in a debit column somewhere.
I take offense at your tone. I can only assume you are uncultured and haven't traveled much outside the USA. I'm rather moderate by world standards. Corporations' days as a shield from individual responsibility are numbered.
Are you always ready with an excuse for the status quo? Corporations shield people from responsibility for their actions. This kind of thing is fucking routine because of that, it's not some isolated case of negligence, or even an isolated case of malfeasance. The only thing unusual about this is that Dell got caught.
Seize the assets and give it to the employees and customers, who will probably run it better than a corrupt management. Make it an ESOP, let them elect their own board. The owning class sees that happen a few times, they'll make sure they stay squeaky clean.
Right, because the fact that they voluntarily closed their door illustrates What exactly? The free market at work? C'mon, they were ostracized because they got caught, not because they did anything different than dozens of other firms did.
It was honestly a mistake. I'm still not used to the new discussion system, and I just clicked the most prominent "reply" button I saw. I'm just surprised you're the first person to call me on it:)
I guess there's nothing wrong with a little class warfare, as long as it's the rich and powerful doing it, but when the average guy speaks up about the unfairness, well, that's beyond the pale. Is there anything I could say about the rich and powerful besides "They're awesome and I want to be one!!!" that wouldn't be class warfare?
Seriously, class warfare used to mean sabotage and strikes and, you know, actions, not words. Now, any criticism of the rich or powerful is "class warfare." Which is rich-speak for "shut the hell up, peasant." It's gotten to the point where only staunch defenders of the status quo use that phrase, and only when they want to belittle an idea without actually coming up with a valid argument.
So, are you saying that the rich and powerful, in general, get the same type of justice the rest of us get? Maybe because they've proven they are better than the rest of us by making more money than us, they shouldn't be subject to the same justice as us peasants.
Was the government of India was anything more than a shareholder? Did they actually have any control over the day to day operations? And are you claiming that no one in America has ever died because of corporate malfeasance because our system is just that good? Because if you are suggesting that the status quo is just fine as far as keeping corporations from killing citizens, I think you should read the news a bit more.
What's with this idea that dissolving a corporate charter would somehow make the infrastructure disappear? In reality, the offending company would be broken up and sold off. People might be let go, but it isn't a certainty. It would be sort of like a chapter 11 bankruptcy.
The kyklos is not inevitable. The fact that it is ubiquitous only points to a failure of imagination, not some kind of natural law. There are systems that will work better, we just haven't thought of them yet.
Can you say Bhopal, boys and girls? I knew you could! Now, who here knows who went to prison for those 15,000 homicides? Anyone? That's right, those were rich important men, and rich important men don't go to jail! Don't you wish you were rich and important? Maybe if you put yourself and your possessions ahead of everything else in in the whole world, you can!
Seth Rightmer, that's my name, it's on my info page and it always has been. Thankfully, people with morals beyond that of a starving weasel tend to like my ideas and I've never had a problem getting a job.
Why would the employees be out of a job just because the corporate charter is dissolved? The board, officers and stockholders would be rightfully fucked, but all that infrastructure isn't going to just disappear.
How about you keep your mouth closed until your brain is engaged, so you don't look like a fucking clown in public?
Greed (noun): A selfish or excessive desire for or pursuit of more than is needed or deserved, especially of money, wealth, food, or other possessions. What is wrong with greed? It's in the definition of the word: Excessive desire for more than is needed or deserved. You can try to redefine it to make it seem more palatable, but thankfully most of humanity is never going to get on the "greed is good" bandwagon.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the part that is wrong is "now it seems to be making a high-tech comeback." It started a comeback decades ago, and it was all the rage for a while. More accurate, but less functional as advertising, would be to say, "It was popular in the 19th century, made a comeback in the 80s, and people continue to do it."
"Making a comeback" means it is new and exciting, a scrappy little underdog technology pioneered by forward thinking individuals. "Hasn't caught on like we want it to yet, despite our decades of effort to convince you that it is awesome" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
Have you not read about Bhopal? Management knew exactly what they were risking, but they didn't care. Any source outside of UC itself will back that up. Same at love canal. Then we have the Pinto: Ford new people would die, but they also knew a recall would cost more than the expected number of wrongful death suits. The we have Thalidomide. And Enron. People died from heat because they had no electricity, and the traders their laughed about the possibility. The savings and loan scandal. The housing crisis. The military industrial complex. It's a continuing pattern, yet each time it happens, people like you act surprised and talk about the few bad apples.
I don't so much admit to engaging in class warfare as say, okay, if merely criticizing corporate behavior is class warfare, then that's what I'm doing. But seeing as how the wealthy in the USA have gotten so much wealthier in the last thirty years while regular folks' wages have stagnated, I'm not the one who started the war. You steal all the extra value created by my society, I will call you on it, yes.
Face facts: the corporate structure shields individuals from the consequences of their actions. It defuses responsibility. People see everyone else investing in corporations that lie, cheat, steal, and yes, even kill, and they feel like it must be okay. When the corporation does something horrendous, they don't feel in any way personally responsible, even though their money funded the crimes.
Corporate malfeasance is not rare or isolated, it is endemic. The system guarantees it will be. It is not a few 'bad apples' spoiling the barrel. The whole barrel is rotten and it is the rare board member or CEO of a large corporation who isn't corrupt. I'm not talking about mom and pop operations here. I'm talking large multi-nationals.
What have I said that even approaches hyperbole? Which of my facts aren't straight? You make claims against me, but you don't back them up. Perhaps you know that your intended audience will believe you without proof, because their whole world view, and their view of themselves, is based on believing that the world as it exists is fundamentally fair. You tell them, "This guy is full of shit, don't listen to him, the world is fair and you aren't a bad person for supporting the status quo," and they automatically believe, because to believe otherwise is to admit that they are part of the problem.
If I've got cake on my face, you've got a brown nose from kissing fascist ass.
This is nothing new at all. Companies have been making stuff like this for decades. This is not going back to some forgotten technology. For crying out loud, look in the back of any Popular Mechanics from the last twenty years and you will see ads for this kind of thing along with the lawn mower hovercrafts and folding boats.
Why change policies when you can hire a PR firm and change perceptions? That is what corporations do, and it is because of greed.
When a corporation attempts to do the right thing, as (possibly, who knows what these corporations actually did as opposed to what they said) illustrated in your examples, that isn't greed, just like it isn't rape when you fuck someone who wants it, and it isn't stealing when you buy something.
Enlightened self interest is good. Self interest is neutral. Greed is bad. You can redefine red to mean blue, but then everyone will think you're crazy.
In my experience, people who defend greed are not defending enlightened self interest. Enlightened self interest leads to cooperative, fair, and reciprocal behavior. The defenders of greed are usually trying to conflate their own short sighted, selfish, manipulative and dishonest behavior with the kind of behavior that stems from real enlightened self interest.
So, are you just trying to muddy the waters here, conflating greed with cooperative, reciprocal, and fair self interest? If not, why do you insist on using the word greed in ways that most other people do not? The only reason I can come up with is that you are trying to make the definition of "greed" less clear so that you can justify certain behaviors.
But maybe I'm wrong. If so, what is your motivation here?
Why hurt the employees or customers? In fact, seize the companies assets and give them to the employees and customers. The shareholders should be punished for funding an illegal enterprise. The business will continue, but people will get the message. You'd better watch who you invest in, or pay someone to watch, or you may lose your shirt. It's called due diligence. There should be no excuse for funding crime, and no possibility that shareholders can keep electing corrupt boards who will hire corrupt individuals who will commit fraud. In any other situation, if I keep hiring criminals over and over again to make me money, I would go to jail.
Are you honestly saying that the people who profit from the crimes should not pay for them? If I invest in a company, and we find out that company is actually the mob, and that money was invested into drugs, whores and hit men, should I get my money back and get off scott free?
Where do you draw the line as far as people funding criminal activities? Is it okay because everyone is doing it? Is it okay because punishing it would be too inconvenient? How much crime does someone need to fund before there are consequences?
Let me ask you a question before we get into this, so I know if I'm wasting my time or not: in your world view, is there such a thing as excessive desire? Is there such a thing as undeserved reward? If you don't think desires can be excessive, or you think all rewards are deserved, then we can't have a conversation. If you think desires can be excessive, or rewards undeserved, then we are in agreement and we can stop this pedantry.
What it boils down to is this: when I use the word "greedy" I am saying, in my opinion, that someone's desires are excessive, or their sought after rewards undeserved. When you say it, it is your standard. That's how words like greed, or good, or love, or freedom work. There is a large element of personal interpretation to all such words.
There does not need to be a standard. The whole idea that there is some invisible line, this side of which is greedy, and the other side selfless, is ludicrous. Words like greed don't work that way.
Face it: greed is bad. Its in the definition of the word. There is no standard, nor does there need to be. When someone uses the word greed, it is understood by most people to be a personal opinion, not some absolute.
And it is understood to be a bad thing by most people. Most people do not like greed. Most people would rather punish the greedy, and would not like to be seen as greedy themselves. Only a few nut cases revel in their greed and celebrate it as a virtue.
That is just the way people are, they don't like greed and selfishness. People are natural cooperators, and part of being a natural cooperator is the desire to punish free riders.
It's the damn definition, if you don't like it, use another word. It's meant to be negative, and I'm sick of selfish fucks trying to "reclaim" it as a positive thing. It isn't.
Who's standards? Normal, cooperative, non-selfish people's standards. The standards 90% of people in the world use. The standard standards.
Here's an idea: rather than try to make people think greed is good, how about not being greedy?
I'm talking about multi nationals, not just American corporations. When I say murder, I guess I mean homocide. With corporations it boils down to a cost benefit analysis, and people's lives are just estimated entries in a debit column somewhere.
I take offense at your tone. I can only assume you are uncultured and haven't traveled much outside the USA. I'm rather moderate by world standards. Corporations' days as a shield from individual responsibility are numbered.
Are you always ready with an excuse for the status quo? Corporations shield people from responsibility for their actions. This kind of thing is fucking routine because of that, it's not some isolated case of negligence, or even an isolated case of malfeasance. The only thing unusual about this is that Dell got caught.
Seize the assets and give it to the employees and customers, who will probably run it better than a corrupt management. Make it an ESOP, let them elect their own board. The owning class sees that happen a few times, they'll make sure they stay squeaky clean.
Seize the assets and give it to the employees then, they can probably run it better than a corrupt management, don't you think?
The name Love Canal mean anything to you? If not, look it up.
Right, because the fact that they voluntarily closed their door illustrates What exactly? The free market at work? C'mon, they were ostracized because they got caught, not because they did anything different than dozens of other firms did.
It was honestly a mistake. I'm still not used to the new discussion system, and I just clicked the most prominent "reply" button I saw. I'm just surprised you're the first person to call me on it :)
I guess there's nothing wrong with a little class warfare, as long as it's the rich and powerful doing it, but when the average guy speaks up about the unfairness, well, that's beyond the pale. Is there anything I could say about the rich and powerful besides "They're awesome and I want to be one!!!" that wouldn't be class warfare?
Seriously, class warfare used to mean sabotage and strikes and, you know, actions, not words. Now, any criticism of the rich or powerful is "class warfare." Which is rich-speak for "shut the hell up, peasant." It's gotten to the point where only staunch defenders of the status quo use that phrase, and only when they want to belittle an idea without actually coming up with a valid argument.
So, are you saying that the rich and powerful, in general, get the same type of justice the rest of us get? Maybe because they've proven they are better than the rest of us by making more money than us, they shouldn't be subject to the same justice as us peasants.
Since when does speaking out against corrupt corporations equal class warfare?
Was the government of India was anything more than a shareholder? Did they actually have any control over the day to day operations? And are you claiming that no one in America has ever died because of corporate malfeasance because our system is just that good? Because if you are suggesting that the status quo is just fine as far as keeping corporations from killing citizens, I think you should read the news a bit more.
What's with this idea that dissolving a corporate charter would somehow make the infrastructure disappear? In reality, the offending company would be broken up and sold off. People might be let go, but it isn't a certainty. It would be sort of like a chapter 11 bankruptcy.
The kyklos is not inevitable. The fact that it is ubiquitous only points to a failure of imagination, not some kind of natural law. There are systems that will work better, we just haven't thought of them yet.
Can you say Bhopal, boys and girls? I knew you could! Now, who here knows who went to prison for those 15,000 homicides? Anyone? That's right, those were rich important men, and rich important men don't go to jail! Don't you wish you were rich and important? Maybe if you put yourself and your possessions ahead of everything else in in the whole world, you can!
Tell me, who went to jail for the Bhopal disaster?
I concede the point.
Seth Rightmer, that's my name, it's on my info page and it always has been. Thankfully, people with morals beyond that of a starving weasel tend to like my ideas and I've never had a problem getting a job.
Why would the employees be out of a job just because the corporate charter is dissolved? The board, officers and stockholders would be rightfully fucked, but all that infrastructure isn't going to just disappear.
How about you keep your mouth closed until your brain is engaged, so you don't look like a fucking clown in public?