Originally posted by Soothfast If you uncorked your ears which way would the air flow, I wonder?
I've never heard of anyone just sitting back and enjoying themselves whilst receiving unemployment checks. Income is effectively cut in half, and the clock is ticking. If you think it's all palm fronds and pina coladas you're an idiot.
Originally posted by no1marauder I suggest you find a history book rather than the Randian fantasies you seem to believe in. Banks exist only because of the State and would not exist without one. The government "took" nothing away from the banks; it stopped them from gouging retailers in the future - they kept their ill-gotten gains of the past.
To your last question: a just and equitable one.
A just and equitable one. Of course, it's so simple. All hail the magnificent wisdom that spews forth from no1's keyboard. Also, stopping banks from "gouging" as you say is taking away a revenue stream. It's simple accounting, we were making this much from "gouging", now that laws prevent us from "gouging" we are only making this much. What are Randian fantasies, no1? You seem to know a lot about them. Perhaps you dream of being ravaged by the handsome industrialist? You can start with the wiki entry on the history of banking. After that, maybe you'll be ready for some big boy reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking
Originally posted by KazetNagorra A realistic view. Competent people in upper management are very rare - most of them got there by, you've guessed it, sucking up to people. That, and getting some business or law degree where you learn nothing about economics or running a business (though legal knowledge can be useful). Your view is utopian and extremely naive.
Your views seem very populist and very extreme.
I find it hard to believe that it is very rare that competent people get to upper management. Is it far more common to have competent people doing other tasks or do you just believe everyone is incompetent? It also is an extreme position to argue that you learn nothing about economics or running a business in business school or law school. Do you think people learn anything in any school? Do you think business pay a premium for people who serve no purpose and could get the same or a better job from just anyone.
This is certainly contrary to my experience in law and business. I think the established business world is far more competent and well run than you indicate.
Originally posted by rwingett A free exchange of goods would require the abolition of private property, which in its essence is the restriction of the free exchange of goods.
Of course, by free I mean that you are free to choose who you trade with rather than all the goods are free. Private property is indeed a thorny issue. I wonder how you would abolish it?
Originally posted by quackquack Your views seem very populist and very extreme.
I find it hard to believe that it is very rare that competent people get to upper management. Is it far more common to have competent people doing other tasks or do you just believe everyone is incompetent? It also is an extreme position to argue that you learn nothing about economics or running a bu ...[text shortened]... s. I think the established business world is far more competent and well run than you indicate.
Competent people do tasks that require competence. Management is not one of them.
Do you think people learn anything in any school?
Sure. But not in business school - business school is extremely easy because silver spoon kids need to be able to get the degree, and in between sniffing cocaine they have little time for studying.
Do you think business pay a premium for people who serve no purpose and could get the same or a better job from just anyone.
Yes. How else could, for instance, Enron's or Parlamat's or (pre-almost-bankrupcy) GM's board get to where they got? They were woefully incompetent, yet they had high-paying upper management jobs. A random hobo from the street would have done a better job. Even if he was an alcoholic. And dead.
This is certainly contrary to my experience in law and business. I think the established business world is far more competent and well run than you indicate.
What is your experience in law in business, and how could you possibly have missed the general incompetence of management and the bloated bureaucracy?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Competent people do tasks that require competence. Management is not one of them.
[b]Do you think people learn anything in any school?
Sure. But not in business school - business school is extremely easy because silver spoon kids need to be able to get the degree, and in between sniffing cocaine they have little time for studying.
Do you ...[text shortened]... you possibly have missed the general incompetence of management and the bloated bureaucracy?
Enron was corrupt but they did amazing things too. I read some of the things they did with weather derivatives and was amazed that a firm with that kind of skill ended up derailing itself by doing things illegitimate. Enron may have had lots of "bad" people but they were certainly not unskilled.
I went to law school and practiced for seven years. I used to speak with Asistant DIstrict Attorneys all the time and they are amazingly skilled at speaking and presenting cases. I never worked for a big business but I speak with some of the biggest law firms in the world and it is amazing how smart and talented the people I speak with are. Maybe I only met the smart ones but I certainly have a different position. The people who I have met with MBAs (business school) are also amazingly skilled. Finance is very competitive and to go to a top business school you have to be sharp. To say they snort all day and don't do homework is simply 100% slanderous.
Originally posted by quackquack Enron was corrupt but they did amazing things too. I read some of the things they did with weather derivatives and was amazed that a firm with that kind of skill ended up derailing itself by doing things illegitimate. Enron may have had lots of "bad" people but they were certainly not unskilled.
I went to law school and practiced for seven years. ...[text shortened]... ave to be sharp. To say they snort all day and don't do homework is simply 100% slanderous.
"Not unskilled"? Lmao! They ruined the company, broke the law, and destroyed the savings of many people, how is that "not unskilled"?
Yeah, you have to be sharp. As in: look sharp. If you really think getting an MBA is a challenge you have little self-respect. Finance is very competitive, but that's not because the people in it know what they are doing. For every Warren Buffett there are 1000 douchebags who just shuffle around money randomly and wear a nice suit.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra "Not unskilled"? Lmao! They ruined the company, broke the law, and destroyed the savings of many people, how is that "not unskilled"?
Yeah, you have to be sharp. As in: look sharp. If you really think getting an MBA is a challenge you have little self-respect. Finance is very competitive, but that's not because the people in it know what they are doi ...[text shortened]... fett there are 1000 douchebags who just shuffle around money randomly and wear a nice suit.
Enron did lots of ground breaking cutting edge legitimate work. Those people had real talent. The fact that the firm also did many illegal things does not mean that they did not have people who were really talented doing valuable legal and interesting work. I am not against them being punished for their illegal acts but (1) Enron is famous because it stands out from the norm for its illegal activity (2) the fact that it was and should be punished for its illegal acts does not mean everything done there was criminal and every single person there was a criminal and had no talent.
I know and work with plenty of people who aren't as wealthy as Warren Buffett with MBAs who aren't douchebags. They know a great deal about business and finance and I find their ideas very useful in a business context.
It is amazing that you feel it is OK to negatively stereotype sucessful businessmen, lawyers and people with MBAs and feel that it is OK. If you used the same language to describe unemployed people, minorities or less sucessful groups there would be 1000 posts talking about how prejudice your views are. I am not sure if you are being anti-intellectual, jealous or just over critical of some of the most talented people in our sociaty but I disagree with your characterization of businessmen and attorneys.
Originally posted by quackquack Enron did lots of ground breaking cutting edge legitimate work. Those people had real talent. The fact that the firm also did many illegal things does not mean that they did not have people who were really talented doing valuable legal and interesting work. I am not against them being punished for their illegal acts but (1) Enron is famous because it st ...[text shortened]... people in our sociaty but I disagree with your characterization of businessmen and attorneys.
Where did I claim "every single person" working for Enron was a criminal with no talent? I claim every single person in upper management was either untalented, or did have talent but was blinded by greed (in which talent isn't really worth anything). And of course, many people in middle management knew as well (and as a consequence were guilty of a criminal conspiracy).
I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by confronting you with reality. Also, I'm baffled by your insinuation that an MBA is an "intellectual" - LOL! By the way, I said little about attorneys, but hey, if the shoe fits...
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Where did I claim "every single person" working for Enron was a criminal with no talent? I claim every single person in upper management was either untalented, or did have talent but was blinded by greed (in which talent isn't really worth anything). And of course, many people in middle management knew as well (and as a consequence were guilty of a crim ...[text shortened]... ellectual" - LOL! By the way, I said little about attorneys, but hey, if the shoe fits...
You did not offend me. I am simply amazed that you believe that people with high degrees and high skills are untalented. The fact that some people use their talents dishonestly does not mean that they are untalented (perhaps they are even more morally culpable because they could have used lucrative and useful skills properly) or that most people with similar talent sets would and have done anything dishonestly.
If you could operate a big organization without attorneys, management and MBAs and get better results than you should do so. It would save lots of money as traditionally talented people are expensive and I am sure many people would like to see you succeed and stick it to the establishment. I just think you'd be overestimating the values of the skill sets you are foregoing.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra "Not unskilled"? Lmao! They ruined the company, broke the law, and destroyed the savings of many people, how is that "not unskilled"?
Yeah, you have to be sharp. As in: look sharp. If you really think getting an MBA is a challenge you have little self-respect. Finance is very competitive, but that's not because the people in it know what they are doi ...[text shortened]... fett there are 1000 douchebags who just shuffle around money randomly and wear a nice suit.
That is exactly right. I've taught business majors. They're not the sharpest tools in the shed. But they were always "dressed to impress". They were also the most likely, statistically, to cheat on take home tests (even in introductory ethics classes, hilariously). The pre-law students were much, much better.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra "Not unskilled"? Lmao! They ruined the company, broke the law, and destroyed the savings of many people, how is that "not unskilled"?
Yeah, you have to be sharp. As in: look sharp. If you really think getting an MBA is a challenge you have little self-respect. Finance is very competitive, but that's not because the people in it know what they are doi ...[text shortened]... fett there are 1000 douchebags who just shuffle around money randomly and wear a nice suit.
The SEC was complicit in the Enron scandal. A fact often overlooked. If you haven't read A Conspiracy of Fools by Kurt Eichenwald, I highly recommend it.
Originally posted by dryhump A just and equitable one. Of course, it's so simple. All hail the magnificent wisdom that spews forth from no1's keyboard. Also, stopping banks from "gouging" as you say is taking away a revenue stream. It's simple accounting, we were making this much from "gouging", now that laws prevent us from "gouging" we are only making this much. What are Randian ll be ready for some big boy reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking
Grow up; your posts sound like a ten year old. I guess I got another poster here upset. BOO HOO.
My comments stand and remain factual. Banks exist in economies because of the government and would not exist without it. This particular bank even more so (if possible). Usury used to be a "revenue stream" if allowed by law, but when it was outlawed banks weren't allowed to simply find an equally offensive way to rape customers. "Simple" is what you certainly are; banks have plenty of money to dole out bonuses to their fat cats - they don't need another "stream of revenue" that screws up the economy.
The purpose of an economy is to provide things for the people. ALL of them, not a few rich ones. A society that has an economy that has systemic and chronic unemployment is failing at its basic task. This might be "magnificent wisdom" to someone as apparently dim as you, but it's really common sense.
Originally posted by dryhump The SEC was complicit in the Enron scandal. A fact often overlooked. If you haven't read A Conspiracy of Fools by Kurt Eichenwald, I highly recommend it.
"Complicit" in they didn't regulate enough. But people like you scream if there are any regulations that upset the "stream of revenue" of such companies.
When you have a system focused on short term profits, its natural the people in it are going to be greedy and shortsighted as the people at Enron and in the financial service industry were and are. The people in the latter were "smart" in their technical field designing all sort of complex products that could be sold to investors (generally rich folks who were in search of easy short term profits, too) but they were myopic as to what the ultimate result would be. This applies to almost all economists at the time who are trained to be highly supportive of the capitalist system.
02 Nov '11 16:47
Bank of America defeated
Back to Top