So if you live in a country where it's legal to torture and murder certain people,..
Right.
Murder and torture.
Sure.
When you are in a position to make money for someone other than yourself, re-read my post to see if you feel differently on your ethical responsibilities.
After all, the employees who depend on the paychecks from their jobs will appreciate the fact that you will not do something you feel is unethical to keep food on their table.
And the pensioner who relies on the investment in your company to keep their medication filled will appreciate how you shunned doing a financial transaction because you felt it was "unethical".
...but Corporate Darwinism makes for an unpleasant life.
More unpleasant than scraping out an existence on an unfertile piece of land somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa?
Most people don't want wealth qua wealth, they want wealth as a means to a pleasant life.
Thanks for speaking for 'most' people.
Most people want wealth as a means to a pleasant life until they amass wealth. Their views change at a certain financial tipping point.
I have to wonder, is there some reason you *want* to live in a world of mercenaries?
If you mean financial mercenaries, then yes there is a reason.
Financial mercenaries are working to lower costs to drive up profits. Because there are financial mercenaries in the world we have a just-in-time inventory system, instead of a just-in-case inventory system. That means lower costs, lower prices, and more jobs.
Because we have a system that encourages financial mercenaries to abound, we have financial institutions who spread cash around to get a higher return on investment. That ensures that risky investments have a chance to get funding, instead of the way things USED to be done (pre-1980).
Because of financial mercenaries, I have a wealth of choice. I walk through the aisles of the local hardware megamart and can select from dozens of different items, not just the few that were available to the middle- and lower-class just 20 years ago.
Or are you just too faithful to question Holy Laissez-Faire?
You bet!
And when you find a laissez faire system, you'll let me know, won't you?
What's wrong here is that there is no honor in this type of employment.
In your opinion....
If I were in his place, and found that I could not get my company to do anything worthwhile, such as produce quality products, sell them, and improve the world somehow, then I would keep my honor and resign my position.
And leave hundreds of innocent investors holding the bag?
Great. I'm glad you don't run a company.
The problem with western society,
Here we go.....
at least in business, is that there is no honor at all, and corporate executives are perfectly happy to do anything they can to make money,
BECAUSE IT IS THEIR JOB!!!!
Cripes, man! Here's your statement reformatted:
"..and computer programmers are perfectly happy to do anything they can to write code..."
Does that sound as bad with YOUR profession in it?
no matter how unethical it is,
Now you are inserting your own impressions. What this guy did, as far as is evident from the Register's article, is legal and ethical.
as long as they don't get caught and go to prison.
Now you are implying that what he did is illegal.
You've just introduced a "non-fact" into the argument.
This is really an article about corporate predators and the nature of Business As Usual (TM).
WHINE ALERT!!!!
And what would you have done in his place? Folded the company?
What many of the posters on this thread fail to realize is that this guy, and thousands of CEOs like him, have a FIDUCIARY responsibility to their shareholders to return value. That is how capital markets work. If they fail to do their jobs, they will be terminated. If they are negligent in carrying out their duties, they will be sued.
These people are tasked with doing everything within the bounds of the law to return value to the shareholder.
Your 401K wouldn't be worth a dime if it weren't for them.
Unfortunately, not all of them operate above the law. That's what makes them such easy targets for anti-capitalists.
1) 'no-knock' warrants, 2) government confiscation of private property, 3) suspension of habeous corpus, 4) increasing the federal debt, and 5) wildly out-of-control federal spending.
I don't call that 'conservative'
Libertarian's, like myself, call that "liberal"......just like Kerry.
>>William W. O'Dell [...] has stated publicly that he will do "everything he can" to get George W. Bush re-elected.
No he has not. He said that he will do everything he can to deliver the votes to the president.
If he does "everything he can" (you both agree on *that* much of the quote) to deliver votes, doesn't that imply that he will do "everything he can" to get Bush re-elected?
After all, if O'Dell is successful, then he will have done "everything he can" to get Bush re-elected.
Kerry is much more unilateral action and supports working through the UN.
Contradiction alert!
Kerry said he would have focused on Afghanistan, and not distracted to Iraq, but of course past-tense speculation doesn't mean anything.
I don't think you have made your case for Item#1. You seem to have confirmed my point: they both would have supported the War in Iraq, but they would have done it differently.
If what you're looking for is a tax revolution, you're probably not likely to get that from any candidate because they'd need widespread congressional support to drastically change the tax code.
Which means either candidate can say anything and then blame Congress for not getting anything done. Perfect.
What happend to leadership?
Your Item#2 fails as well.
Items #3 and #4 just aren't that central to most Americans.
Thanks for making the decision for 99.999999999999999999% of America.
Now you know why I don't support either party. They are filled with people who think they know what the rest of us need. Perhaps you would like to ask the government if you can buy a new home, or develop your property in a way that benefits you? Oh, wait.... you already have to ask the government!
Keep your invasive government to yourself, thank you.
**Gay Rights
Democrats and Log Cabin Republicans....
**Abortion
Democrats and moderate Republicans
**Environmental Protection
Democrats and Republicans (just not all of them)
**Privatizing Medicare
One marginal faction of the Democratic Party.
**Respect for the UN and International Stage
Virtually no one.
**Choosing responsible vs ultra-conservative judges in the judiciary
That statement is just as narrow-minded as the people you criticize.
**Building a cabinet of ultra-conservative businessmen or of responsible policy makers
Versus building a cabinet of ultra-liberal whackos.
Yep, you've sold me. There is NO difference between the two parties.
Why are you so much alike, yet you campaign in a way that makes the American public think that there is a significant difference. I can think of several important areas where you are virtually indistiguishable:
1) Use of Military Power: Both approve of foreign intervention, but one party prefers to get the tacit approval of the international community before invading.
2) Tax Policy: Moving the marginal rates around only makes a difference of a few bucks to the average tax payer. The user fees are almost exclusively a middle-class burden, and neither party looks to decrease any of them.
3) Intellectual Property: Both parties are rushing to become the poster child for media conglomerates. They constantly chastize the 'media', but can't wait to lick their boots when it comes time to pass legislation regarding extending copyright protection (as one sleazy congressperson said: "Forever minus one year").
4) Drug policy: Neither party can put a stop to the madness that the drug war has brought us. Nothing useful has been accomplished in 30 years of police-state enforcement of drug laws. That is, unless you consider the fact that the US leads in per-capita encarceration as a 'positive' social gain.
These are just a few. Why shouldn't we view the Demopublican or Republicratic Parties as two sides of the same bad penny?
The Technik Museum Sinsheim already has a Concorde, the Tupolev TU144 (soviet counterpart of the Concorde), and a Porsche 959, "The blue Flame" and a lot of others tech stuff.
"...it's rather naive to talk about "tax percentages"
So are you saying that the discussion is irrelevant, or just too complex to discuss at all?
I thought his point was well taken: "If you want MY vote, tell me how your policies will affect ME". That's incredibly relevant.
As for all the other taxes loaded on to the federal rate, this GP candidate is running for a federal office, so his views on state and local taxation are completely off the radar. He can't affect local or state taxes except in a negative way (i.e., decreasing funding back to states and municipalities increases the local funding burden).
I think that providing an answer to the parent's post would be illustrative of how tax policy would affect everyone, despite being rather narrowly focused on one tax bracket.
You know what slippery slope we're on? The one that'll kill us? The one were everyone constantly get 1 more right and 1 less responsibility.
You have a poor understanding of the Constitution.
The government doesn't hand out rights; we have intrinsic rights as humans and citizens. The Constitution enumerates those rights we (the People) grant to the government, not the other way around.
Your attitude definately determines your worth to the company. If you are willing to work hard, look for avenues to increase revenues, and slash costs, there isn't a company that will not compete to get you on their staff.
Look around the corporate world and you see people employed for long-term engagements for only one reason: they are valuable, or invaluable, to their companies. The dead wood eventually move along to another company who is unaware of their stunning lack of ambition or dedication to their job. The dot-bomb was a blessing in disguise for companies looking to shed these boat-anchors.
The reason I only *partially* agree with the parents post is that degrees mean everything where I work. In academia and the national laboratories, you cannot advance without an advanced degree. Both ambition and education is how you rise above your colleages in this market. I am a lowly Bachelors and have to fight twice as hard as the Masters employees to get recognition. I bring in more money than most of them as well.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. He sounds like someone who'd fit in really well in the Mafia.
How nice.
I disagree with you and now I am a muderer.
I urge everyone to avoid an argument with this guy lest you be compared to Hitler.
So if you live in a country where it's legal to torture and murder certain people,..
Right.
Murder and torture.
Sure.
When you are in a position to make money for someone other than yourself, re-read my post to see if you feel differently on your ethical responsibilities.
After all, the employees who depend on the paychecks from their jobs will appreciate the fact that you will not do something you feel is unethical to keep food on their table.
And the pensioner who relies on the investment in your company to keep their medication filled will appreciate how you shunned doing a financial transaction because you felt it was "unethical".
...write viruses, spyware, trojans or pr0n-diallers for their employers
Of course, this line was started with the impression that I advocated illegal activities of any kind.
Read the parent before banging your chest.
I think the original poster was trying to say that "fiduciary responsibility" is not a valid ethical defense.
For what? Returning value to investors?
Great. Send me your money. I will only do what YOU consider ethical with it.
And you will probably lose it all in a year.
...but Corporate Darwinism makes for an unpleasant life.
More unpleasant than scraping out an existence on an unfertile piece of land somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa?
Most people don't want wealth qua wealth, they want wealth as a means to a pleasant life.
Thanks for speaking for 'most' people.
Most people want wealth as a means to a pleasant life until they amass wealth. Their views change at a certain financial tipping point.
I have to wonder, is there some reason you *want* to live in a world of mercenaries?
If you mean financial mercenaries, then yes there is a reason.
Financial mercenaries are working to lower costs to drive up profits. Because there are financial mercenaries in the world we have a just-in-time inventory system, instead of a just-in-case inventory system. That means lower costs, lower prices, and more jobs.
Because we have a system that encourages financial mercenaries to abound, we have financial institutions who spread cash around to get a higher return on investment. That ensures that risky investments have a chance to get funding, instead of the way things USED to be done (pre-1980).
Because of financial mercenaries, I have a wealth of choice. I walk through the aisles of the local hardware megamart and can select from dozens of different items, not just the few that were available to the middle- and lower-class just 20 years ago.
Or are you just too faithful to question Holy Laissez-Faire?
You bet!
And when you find a laissez faire system, you'll let me know, won't you?
What's wrong here is that there is no honor in this type of employment.
In your opinion....
If I were in his place, and found that I could not get my company to do anything worthwhile, such as produce quality products, sell them, and improve the world somehow, then I would keep my honor and resign my position.
And leave hundreds of innocent investors holding the bag?
Great. I'm glad you don't run a company.
The problem with western society,
Here we go.....
at least in business, is that there is no honor at all, and corporate executives are perfectly happy to do anything they can to make money,
BECAUSE IT IS THEIR JOB!!!!
Cripes, man! Here's your statement reformatted:
"..and computer programmers are perfectly happy to do anything they can to write code..."
Does that sound as bad with YOUR profession in it?
no matter how unethical it is,
Now you are inserting your own impressions. What this guy did, as far as is evident from the Register's article, is legal and ethical.
as long as they don't get caught and go to prison.
Now you are implying that what he did is illegal.
You've just introduced a "non-fact" into the argument.
Congratulations on your smear job.
This is really an article about corporate predators and the nature of Business As Usual (TM).
WHINE ALERT!!!!
And what would you have done in his place? Folded the company?
What many of the posters on this thread fail to realize is that this guy, and thousands of CEOs like him, have a FIDUCIARY responsibility to their shareholders to return value. That is how capital markets work. If they fail to do their jobs, they will be terminated. If they are negligent in carrying out their duties, they will be sued.
These people are tasked with doing everything within the bounds of the law to return value to the shareholder.
Your 401K wouldn't be worth a dime if it weren't for them.
Unfortunately, not all of them operate above the law. That's what makes them such easy targets for anti-capitalists.
I didn't see my name on the list.
I'm sure it is just an oversight.
(Score:-5, Conservative)
...just like Kerry.
If conservative means:
1) 'no-knock' warrants,
2) government confiscation of private property,
3) suspension of habeous corpus,
4) increasing the federal debt, and
5) wildly out-of-control federal spending.
I don't call that 'conservative'
Libertarian's, like myself, call that "liberal"...
>>William W. O'Dell [...] has stated publicly that he will do "everything he can" to get George W. Bush re-elected.
No he has not. He said that he will do everything he can to deliver the votes to the president.
If he does "everything he can" (you both agree on *that* much of the quote) to deliver votes, doesn't that imply that he will do "everything he can" to get Bush re-elected?
After all, if O'Dell is successful, then he will have done "everything he can" to get Bush re-elected.
It's simple mathematics....
And then goes on to show how it isn't.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.
The rich tried that before and their wealth ended up being nationalized by the countries they fled to.
If they hate paying their "generous" share of the taxes, let them leave to a safer, more business friendly country.
When you find one, let me know.
Because it's still condemned in the New Testament.
They why does Bush cite Leviticus?
The original poster illustrates well the dangers of ignorance...
Ignoring the context of an argument does this as well.
Because if you go through the UN you demonstrate that your cause has some degree of international legitimacy to it.
Yeah, like stealing oil-for-food money.
You can get the UN to agree to sponsor that.
Kerry is much more unilateral action and supports working through the UN.
Contradiction alert!
Kerry said he would have focused on Afghanistan, and not distracted to Iraq, but of course past-tense speculation doesn't mean anything.
I don't think you have made your case for Item#1. You seem to have confirmed my point: they both would have supported the War in Iraq, but they would have done it differently.
If what you're looking for is a tax revolution, you're probably not likely to get that from any candidate because they'd need widespread congressional support to drastically change the tax code.
Which means either candidate can say anything and then blame Congress for not getting anything done. Perfect.
What happend to leadership?
Your Item#2 fails as well.
Items #3 and #4 just aren't that central to most Americans.
Thanks for making the decision for 99.999999999999999999% of America.
Now you know why I don't support either party. They are filled with people who think they know what the rest of us need. Perhaps you would like to ask the government if you can buy a new home, or develop your property in a way that benefits you? Oh, wait.... you already have to ask the government!
Keep your invasive government to yourself, thank you.
**Gay Rights
Democrats and Log Cabin Republicans....
**Abortion
Democrats and moderate Republicans
**Environmental Protection
Democrats and Republicans (just not all of them)
**Privatizing Medicare
One marginal faction of the Democratic Party.
**Respect for the UN and International Stage
Virtually no one.
**Choosing responsible vs ultra-conservative judges in the judiciary
That statement is just as narrow-minded as the people you criticize.
**Building a cabinet of ultra-conservative businessmen or of responsible policy makers
Versus building a cabinet of ultra-liberal whackos.
Yep, you've sold me. There is NO difference between the two parties.
The 5% of pay 60% of the total federal income tax.
But if you look at the "law", we are all guaranteed equal protection (14th Amendment).
If that is the case, why do most tax code changes benefit only 5% of the population?
Which was abandoned by Jesus Christ(Yes, THE Jesus Christ) who laid down the New Covenant.
The why does the Commander-in-Faith continue to use the abandoned code as justification for harrassing homosexuals?
"Use of military power: If going to war with Iraq was so important, why was a declaration of war not asked for?"
That would put Congress on the spot and would require all 535 of them to put their asses on the line.
Better to authorize use of force and then back peddle if things go wrong, or gesticulate how 'right' their vote was if thing go well.
I suppose the 6 months spent lobbying those 3 countries to get on board isn't enough for you to say "prefers approval"
Where did you get that impression?
Sounds to me like you're projecting.
Mod parent UP please.
This person just extended and further defined all third party supporter's sense of outrage at the current system.
Why are you so much alike, yet you campaign in a way that makes the American public think that there is a significant difference. I can think of several important areas where you are virtually indistiguishable:
1) Use of Military Power: Both approve of foreign intervention, but one party prefers to get the tacit approval of the international community before invading.
2) Tax Policy: Moving the marginal rates around only makes a difference of a few bucks to the average tax payer. The user fees are almost exclusively a middle-class burden, and neither party looks to decrease any of them.
3) Intellectual Property: Both parties are rushing to become the poster child for media conglomerates. They constantly chastize the 'media', but can't wait to lick their boots when it comes time to pass legislation regarding extending copyright protection (as one sleazy congressperson said: "Forever minus one year").
4) Drug policy: Neither party can put a stop to the madness that the drug war has brought us. Nothing useful has been accomplished in 30 years of police-state enforcement of drug laws. That is, unless you consider the fact that the US leads in per-capita encarceration as a 'positive' social gain.
These are just a few. Why shouldn't we view the Demopublican or Republicratic Parties as two sides of the same bad penny?
The Technik Museum Sinsheim already has a Concorde, the Tupolev TU144 (soviet counterpart of the Concorde), and a Porsche 959, "The blue Flame" and a lot of others tech stuff.
Yes, but do they have a Sinclair 1000?
"the actual volume of radioactive waste is greater"
Greater than what?
Shutting down nuclear power reactors will not stop the generation of nuclear waste.
Are you against nuclear medicine as well?
(yes, this is a legitimate question)
"...so isn't really applicable."
"...it's rather naive to talk about "tax percentages"
So are you saying that the discussion is irrelevant, or just too complex to discuss at all?
I thought his point was well taken: "If you want MY vote, tell me how your policies will affect ME". That's incredibly relevant.
As for all the other taxes loaded on to the federal rate, this GP candidate is running for a federal office, so his views on state and local taxation are completely off the radar. He can't affect local or state taxes except in a negative way (i.e., decreasing funding back to states and municipalities increases the local funding burden).
I think that providing an answer to the parent's post would be illustrative of how tax policy would affect everyone, despite being rather narrowly focused on one tax bracket.
"the actual volume of radioactive waste is greater"
Greater than what?
Shutting down nuclear power reactors will not stop the generation of nuclear waste.
Are you against nuclear medicine as well?
Pro-Green Party = Anti-Human beings
You have no constitutional right to anonymity.
Really?
You know what slippery slope we're on? The one that'll kill us? The one were everyone constantly get 1 more right and 1 less responsibility.
You have a poor understanding of the Constitution.
The government doesn't hand out rights; we have intrinsic rights as humans and citizens. The Constitution enumerates those rights we (the People) grant to the government , not the other way around.
Partially true.
Your attitude definately determines your worth to the company. If you are willing to work hard, look for avenues to increase revenues, and slash costs, there isn't a company that will not compete to get you on their staff.
Look around the corporate world and you see people employed for long-term engagements for only one reason: they are valuable, or invaluable, to their companies. The dead wood eventually move along to another company who is unaware of their stunning lack of ambition or dedication to their job. The dot-bomb was a blessing in disguise for companies looking to shed these boat-anchors.
The reason I only *partially* agree with the parents post is that degrees mean everything where I work. In academia and the national laboratories, you cannot advance without an advanced degree. Both ambition and education is how you rise above your colleages in this market. I am a lowly Bachelors and have to fight twice as hard as the Masters employees to get recognition. I bring in more money than most of them as well.