Greed is good. Who remember that line?

[A.F.F.]

Well, I do. Gordon Gekko played by Michael Douglas' Oscar winning role.

From the midst 80's to early 90's Oliver Stone ruled. Salvador, The Platoon, Talk Radio, Wall Street, The Doors, JFK, NBK... all brilliant movies IMO. Then something happened and the recent list tells a sad story, Alexander, World Trade Center, W. Unbelievably boring and poor movies...

Now, Stone has written a sequel to Wall Street and based on what I have read from The Empire and Total Film magazines and also the trailer, I feel optimistic for the movie. I actually really wish it'll be good movie not only because I loved the first one but also, I'd like to see Oliver Stone's comeback to making good movies :)

A trailer

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps
http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi875627545/

[wedge]

Appears to be a kind of post-modern film satire a la 'Scream'

[veeten]

Sort of reminds me of Newman's reprise of the character 'Fast' Eddie Felson in 'The Color of Money', or as I call it... 'The Hustler Returns'.

Even though Gordon Gekko was a fictional character, there were many examples of those that tried to emulate some of the actions & persona exuded.

[Eki]

I thought the line was by anthonyvop.

[Camelopard]

I wouldn't be at all suprised if Bernie Madoff hadn't uttered it on at least one occassion!

[Camelopard]

I'm fairly sure it was Bernie Madoff!

[Rudy Tamasz]

the recent list tells a sad story, Alexander, World Trade Center, W. Unbelievably boring and poor movies...

Alexander is a pretty good one actually. If you know some history and can relate to what is going on on the screen, you can appreciate it.

[wedge]

Even though Gordon Gekko was a fictional character, there were many examples of those that tried to emulate some of the actions & persona exuded.

OCP boardroom dialogue in 'Robocop'

[Hondo]

Greed is great! If it wasn't for greed, you couldn't have socialism. There would be no rich man to steal from. You'd have to do things for yourself. But if you were willing to do things for yourself, you wouldn't need socialism.

Dog chasing tail.

[Eki]

Greed is great! If it wasn't for greed, you couldn't have socialism. There would be no rich man to steal from. You'd have to do things for yourself. But if you were willing to do things for yourself, you wouldn't need socialism.

Dog chasing tail.
Rich men don't do things for themselves. They pay someone to do things for them instead. If work was fun, the rich would do it by themselves. Dog catching the tail.

[SportscarBruce]

Greed is good, Who remember that line?

I remember it. I also remember this line -

e9mWAxHpeew

[SportscarBruce]

Greed is great! If it wasn't for greed, you couldn't have socialism. There would be no rich man to steal from. You'd have to do things for yourself. But if you were willing to do things for yourself, you wouldn't need socialism.

Dog chasing tail.

Greed either must check itself or have in place a system to keep it in check, if not the inevitable consequences of a ruling class gone amok;

kz_A4JgNcqU

[anthonyvop]

leslie Mouch would be proud of you guys.

[Hondo]

Rich men don't do things for themselves. They pay someone to do things for them instead. If work was fun, the rich would do it by themselves. Dog catching the tail.

Rich men pay someone to do things they took the risk in pioneering. Rich men create popular things that other people want and have to hire other people to supply the demand. Work is fun for for rich people, that is why they continued to explore and create after they are already rich. Thats why musicians continue to make music long after they are rich. It's what they do.

Dog bit tail, found out it was his.

[A.F.F.]

Alexander is a pretty good one actually. If you know some history and can relate to what is going on on the screen, you can appreciate it.

Well, I know some of the history but relating it was the problem. And this is just my personal opinion, I think the first problem with Alexander was the casting. The chosen actors made it very difficult to relate to the characters and I especially hated Colin Farrell's performance. I realize Stone wanted a big or huge movie, a saga-like but the plot was soooooo slow and the whole movie was just too damn long. Simply just way too boring.

Iäm really looking forward Wall Street II but yet I'm very cautious... I wouldn't like to be too disappointed :mark:

I know, I'm difficult :D

[Eki]

Rich men pay someone to do things they took the risk in pioneering. Rich men create popular things that other people want and have to hire other people to supply the demand. Work is fun for for rich people, that is why they continued to explore and create after they are already rich. Thats why musicians continue to make music long after they are rich. It's what they do.

Dog bit tail, found out it was his.

Some rich men are rich just because their parents, grand parents or some ancestors did something, not because they did something themselves. Some rich men are rich just because they did something illegal or at least something in the "gray area".

Dog forgot it was his tail, and started chasing it again.

[janvanvurpa]

Rich men pay someone to do things they took the risk in pioneering. Rich men create popular things that other people want and have to hire other people to supply the demand. Work is fun for for rich people, that is why they continued to explore and create after they are already rich. Thats why musicians continue to make music long after they are rich. It's what they do.

Dog bit tail, found out it was his.

I suggest you read a book called "The Culture of Contentment" by John Kenneth Galbraith.

[Hondo]

Some rich men are rich just because their parents, grand parents or some ancestors did something, not because they did something themselves. Some rich men are rich just because they did something illegal or at least something in the "gray area".

Dog forgot it was his tail, and started chasing it again.

Some rich men are rich because the rich men they worked for treated them decently. They took the money the rich men paid them and made shrewd investments instead of drinking it or buying every new toy that came on the market. They paid attention to their investments and handled them theirselves without trusting to the likes of the Madoffs. They were balanced enough so that the current cycle did not wipe them out completely. They harbor no ill feelings for rich men, because they know they will have the opportunity to be rich again, unlike the small, petty man that waits for riches to come to him.

The Dog will remember.

[A.F.F.]

Guys... about that upcoming movie.... :D

[anthonyvop]

I find it amusing how so many people approve of the message of the Movie Wall street.

They seem to forget that Oliver Stone has made millions of $$$ working with the "corporate" studio system.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I think the first problem with Alexander was the casting. The chosen actors made it very difficult to relate to the characters and I especially hated Colin Farrell's performance.

Farrell's performance wasn't bad but the problem with Farrell is that he acts the same in every movie. I noticed that's the case with many modern actors. Older guys like Dustin Hoffman or Paul Newman, or Alain Delon could act anybody. Modern day actors simply act like themselves and use their natural charm to engage the viewer. There isn't much real acting here.

That's why Farrell's Alexander is very emotional and very Irish. The real Alexander was a much more calculated, cold-blooded and ruthless person.

[Rudy Tamasz]

If work was fun, the rich would do it by themselves.

It was finding fun in what they did for living that made many people rich. It also separated them from socialists. :p :

[Hondo]

I am constantly amazed by the number of socialists that condenm greed while not only wanting more for themselves, but also insisting somebody else give it to them.

Greed is in the eye of the beholder.

[A.F.F.]

Farrell's performance wasn't bad but the problem with Farrell is that he acts the same in every movie. I noticed that's the case with many modern actors. Older guys like Dustin Hoffman or Paul Newman, or Alain Delon could act anybody. Modern day actors simply act like themselves and use their natural charm to engage the viewer. There isn't much real acting here.


I have to agree with you.

[Garry Walker]

I am constantly amazed by the number of socialists that condenm greed while not only wanting more for themselves, but also insisting somebody else give it to them.

Greed is in the eye of the beholder.

That is because most socialists are so unbelieveably stupid and worthless people that they deserve a bullet (and even that would be a waste of a perfectly good bullet, although it would be for a great cause).

[Eki]

Some rich men are rich because the rich men they worked for treated them decently.
Those rich men they worked for weren't greedy, which makes them off topic.

Old dog doesn't learn new things.

[Hondo]

You can be both greedy and decent. It's a question of balance.

My old dog has learned many new things, although holding her chunk of sweet & sour pork long enough to dip it in the sauce, before gobbling it down seems to be beyond her.

[anthonyvop]

All greed has ever done is provide jobs, feed people, double life expectancy, cure disease and limit casualties in time of war.

Other than that greed is bad.

[Eki]

You can be both greedy and decent. It's a question of balance.

No, it's even questionable if a robber baron who steals from the poor and gives to the rich is greedy. The only thing that's sure is that a robber baron who steals from everyone and keeps it all himself is greedy. Greed is one of the seven deadly sins, but I've never heard that decency is. Yes, Jesus was the first socialist.

[Eki]

Moderate socialism and moderate capitalism are questions of balance. Communism and plutocracy are questions of greed.

[Hondo]

No, it's even questionable if a robber baron who steals from the poor and gives to the rich is greedy. The only thing that's sure is that a robber baron who steals from everyone and keeps it all himself is greedy. Greed is one of the seven deadly sins, but I've never heard that decency is. Yes, Jesus was the first socialist.

I doubt he was the first. I'm sure there were others before him that spent their days engaged in idle philosophizing instead of holding a job.

[Eki]

I doubt he was the first. I'm sure there were others before him that spent their days engaged in idle philosophizing instead of holding a job.
He was just like kids these days, he lived with his parents until he was 30 and if he ever did anything, it was a miracle.

[SportscarBruce]

Part One of a Two Part Series;

The Economic Elite Have Engineered an Extraordinary Coup, Threatening the Very Existence of the Middle Class


David DeGraw,
February 15, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/145667/

"The American oligarchy spares no pains in promoting the belief that it does not exist, but the success of its disappearing act depends on equally strenuous efforts on the part of an American public anxious to believe in egalitarian fictions and unwilling to see what is hidden in plain sight." -- Michael Lind, To Have and to Have Not

We all have very strong differences of opinion on many issues. However, like our founding fathers before us, we must put aside our differences and unite to fight a common enemy.

It has now become evident to a critical mass that the Republican and Democratic parties*, along with all three branches of our government, have been bought off by a well-organized Economic Elite who are tactically destroying our way of life. The harsh truth is that 99 percent of the U.S. population no longer has political representation. The U.S. economy, government and tax system is now blatantly rigged against us.

Current statistical societal indicators clearly demonstrate that a strategic attack has been launched and an analysis of current governmental policies prove that conditions for 99 percent of Americans will continue to deteriorate. The Economic Elite have engineered a financial coup and have brought war to our doorstep...and make no mistake, they have launched a war to eliminate the U.S. middle class.

...America is the richest nation in history, yet we now have the highest poverty rate in the industrialized world with an unprecedented amount of Americans living in dire straights and over 50 million citizens already living in poverty.

...We also currently have over 50 million U.S. citizens without health care. 1.4 million Americans filed for bankruptcy in 2009, a 32 percent increase from 2008. As bankruptcies continue to skyrocket, medical bankruptcies are responsible for over 60 percent of them, and over 75 percent of the medical bankruptcies filed are from people who have health care insurance. We have the most expensive health care system in the world, we are forced to pay twice as much as other countries and the overall care we get in return ranks 37th in the world.

...In total, Americans have lost $5 trillion from their pensions and savings since the economic crisis began and $13 trillion in the value of their homes. During the first full year of the crisis, workers between the age of 55 - 60, who have worked for 20 - 29 years, have lost an average of 25 percent off their 401k. "Personal debt has risen from 65 percent of income in 1980 to 125 percent today." Over five million U.S. families have already lost their homes, in total 13 million U.S.

...The government unemployment rate is deceptive on several levels. It doesn't count people who are "involuntary part-time workers," meaning workers who are working part-time but want to find full-time work. It also doesn't count "discouraged workers," meaning long-term unemployed people who have lost hope and don't consistently look for work. As time goes by, more and more people stop consistently looking for work and are discounted from the unemployment figure. For instance, in January, 1.1 million workers were eliminated from the unemployment total because they were "officially" labeled discouraged workers. So instead of the number rising, we will hear deceptive reports about unemployment leveling off.

...The millions struggling to find work are just part of the story. Due to the fact that we now have a record high six people for every one job opening, companies have been able to further increase the workload on their remaining employees. They have been able to increase the amount of hours Americans are working, reduce wages and drastically cut back on benefits. Even though Americans were already the most productive workers in the world before the economic crisis, in the third quarter of 2009, average worker productivity increased by an annualized rate of 9.5 percent, at the same time unit labor cost decreased by 5.2 percent. This has led to record profits for many companies. Of the 220 companies in the S&P 500 who have reported fourth-quarter results thus far, 78 percent of them had "better-than-expected profits" with earnings 17 percent above expectations, "the highest for any quarter since Thomson Reuters began tracking data."

...According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the national median wage was only $32,390 per year in 2008, and median household income fell by 3.6 percent while the unemployment rate was 5.8 percent. With the unemployment rate now at 10 percent, median income has been falling at a 5 percent rate and is expected to continue its decline. Not surprisingly, Americans' job satisfaction level is now at an all-time low.

....There are now well over 150 million Americans who feel stress over these things on a consistent basis. Over 60 percent of Americans now live paycheck to paycheck.

These are all basic things every person should be able to easily afford in a technologically advanced society such as ours. The reason we struggle with these things is because the Economic Elite have robbed us all. This amount of suffering in the United States of America is literally a crime against humanity.

http://www.alternet.org/story/145667/the_economic_elite_have_engineered_an_extraordinar y_coup%2C_threatening_the_very_existence_of_the_mi ddle_class

* both parties had a hand through one-sided trade policies, lax immigration policy, deconstructing financial sector regulation, etc.

Hey Fiero & Co., when is this trickle down #### supposed to kick in? Seems to me it's all trickle UP and OUT

[Eki]

It was finding fun in what they did for living that made many people rich. It also separated them from socialists. :p :
You mean like professional sports persons, rock musicians, movie stars and other essential people for humanity? It's insane that for example one racing driver can make more than the whole yearly budget of a hospital or a school. I once read that Michael Jordan got more money for wearing some sneakers than all the poor sods put together who made them in Vietnam.

[Hazell B]

All greed has ever done is provide jobs, feed people, double life expectancy, cure disease and limit casualties in time of war.

Other than that greed is bad.

That's a whole other film's point ;)
Anyway, you forgot the aquaducts.

Wall Street didn't move me an inch as a film. It was probably one of the few 80's films I didn't like much. The new version will be a DVD watch for me and not a cinema trip.

[anthonyvop]

You mean like professional sports persons, rock musicians, movie stars and other essential people for humanity? It's insane that for example one racing driver can make more than the whole yearly budget of a hospital or a school. I once read that Michael Jordan got more money for wearing some sneakers than all the poor sods put together who made them in Vietnam.

So?

The only truly moral system is capitalism. Greed drives everything including the most altruistic charity. Mother Theresa was greedy in her own way as are you Eki.

[SportscarBruce]

So?

The only truly moral system is capitalism. Greed drives everything including the most altruistic charity. Mother Theresa was greedy in her own way as are you Eki.

Greed is an intrinsic quality for all animals. What separates humans from animals (or used to) is a human's ability to rationalize and modify their own behavior in order to create a plateau of human interaction above that of common beast.

A hard-core, unapologetic capitalist is nothing more than a thug gorilla in a three-piece suit.

[Hondo]

Part One of a Two Part Series;

The Economic Elite Have Engineered an Extraordinary Coup, Threatening the Very Existence of the Middle Class



http://www.alternet.org/story/145667/the_economic_elite_have_engineered_an_extraordinar y_coup%2C_threatening_the_very_existence_of_the_mi ddle_class

* both parties had a hand through one-sided trade policies, lax immigration policy, deconstructing financial sector regulation, etc.

Hey Fiero & Co., when is this trickle down #### supposed to kick in? Seems to me it's all trickle UP and OUT

Instead of waiting for it to come to you, go get it. You sound like a Haitian refugee.

[SportscarBruce]

Instead of waiting for it to come to you, go get it. You sound like a Haitian refugee.

Go get what, a job making something that was once made here which is now produced in a Chinese factory where western journalist are prohibited?

BTW there are factories in Haiti, sweatshops that pay on the order of pennies/hr. Must be their fault.

[Hondo]

You mean like professional sports persons, rock musicians, movie stars and other essential people for humanity? It's insane that for example one racing driver can make more than the whole yearly budget of a hospital or a school. I once read that Michael Jordan got more money for wearing some sneakers than all the poor sods put together who made them in Vietnam.

Michael Jordon, like every other celebrity, got the most he could get out of a fool that was willing to pay him. The fact that paying Jordon to wear the shoes to sell more was probably more profitable than having you or I as their spokesman, or footsman as it were.

If you want fair and equal, go to prison.

[Hondo]

Go get what, a job making something that was once made here which is now produced in a Chinese factory where western journalist are prohibited?

BTW there are factories in Haiti, sweatshops that pay on the order of pennies/hr. Must be their fault.

All things being relative, those sweatshop jobs are not mandatory and in fact very much sought after. Look at wages in California as compared to Louisiana. They look pretty good. They look damn good. But now compare the cost of living and those wages get eaten up fast. In Louisiana my property taxes last year were $37.00. It costs $25.00 for license plates and registration for my truck for 5 years. Any trailer can be registered for life for $160.00. Regular unleaded where I am is $2.49 gal. Full coverage insurance for both motorcycles is $500.00 a year. Full coverage for the pickup is $1050.00 a year. Cigarettes are $29.00 a carton and food is plentiful and cheap, especially produce. All things considered, the guy in CA may make more than I do on paper, but I have a better quaility of life.

You're preaching to the choir about jobs going overseas. I have been warning about that since the migration started. Anybody with half a brain should have seen this coming but as long as their 401k continued to make huge gains in value and they had their job, they didn't care. They care now.


As far as the labor laws go in foreign countries, thats their business. If you think it's wrong don't buy the products. If you get enough people to do that then you can help those abused workers lose their jobs completely when the factory shuts down and moves again. The labor laws in emerging countries are what helps them emerge to start with. China is already losing jobs to India.

[anthonyvop]

You sound like a Haitian refugee.
Do not insult Haitian Refugees.
Many of the ones I know here in Miami are extremely hard working and look with disdain at welfare looters. They don't buy into the "woe is me" mentality of other groups. Many are even ashamed of their self-appointed Haitian community leaders who blame everything on the US while cashing their assistance checks.

[anthonyvop]

A hard-core, unapologetic capitalist is nothing more than a thug gorilla in a three-piece suit.
A hard-core, unapologetic, socialist, liberal is no more than a common thief. They hide their crimes behind a banner of caring for the weak when in fact they are committing the same crimes as a common crook.

BTW Nobody wears a 3 piece suit anymore.

[anthonyvop]

Go get what, a job making something that was once made here which is now produced in a Chinese factory where western journalist are prohibited?

BTW there are factories in Haiti, sweatshops that pay on the order of pennies/hr. Must be their fault.

And who's fault is that? The Chinese? The Business owner?

No, it is the worker who priced themselves out of the market.

[Eki]

http://www.bcfed.com/node/1929


“Official Restaurant” of the Olympics pays lowest wages in the country
February 18, 2010
B.C. Federation of Labour President, Jim Sinclair is calling on the "Official Restaurant" of the Olympics to stop paying new employees less than BC's minimum wage which is already the lowest in Canada.

"I talked to several McDonald's workers in the past few days who are making less than $7 an hour and they are not impressed with the company," Sinclair said. "These workers deserve a fair wage and respect. That's the real Olympic spirit."

British Columbia has the lowest minimum wage in Canada at $8 an hour. It has been frozen for eight years. However, McDonald's in the Lower Mainland use the so-called training wage to lower starting salaries to as little as $6.35 an hour. The Liberal government introduced the training wage by lowering the minimum wage by 25 percent for new workers and immigrants.

"For those watching the McDonald's commercials celebrating the spirit and values of the Olympics, it might come as a surprise that one of the largest global restaurant chains pays new employees the lowest wages in Canada," Sinclair said. "The company can't just pay lip service to the spirit of the Olympics."

"As part of our Olympic sponsorship we honour the hard work and exceptional performance of our restaurant crew...." said McDonald's Senior Vice-President of Global Marketing, Dean Barrett. Sinclair called on McDonald's to honour the hard work of all its employees by eliminating the low wages.

"This company can find hundreds of millions of dollars to sponsor and promote the Olympics but they pay less than the lowest minimum wage in Canada to new workers," Sinclair said.

I'm sure McDonald's would outsource their Olympics burger sales to China if that only was possible.

[Eki]

And who's fault is that? The Chinese? The Business owner?

No, it is the worker who priced themselves out of the market.
No, it's the Chinese workers who sold themselves short.

[anthonyvop]

No, it's the Chinese workers who sold themselves short.

Really? They sold themselves short? Hmmmmmmm...So that is why there has been a massive migration of peasants from the Chinese countryside to the cities for higher paying jobs.

You do realize that the economic standard of living has been increasing in leaps and bounds?

So let me guess. You expect a Chinese Autoworker to hold out until they pay him what an American or european autoworker gets?

[Eki]

Really? They sold themselves short? Hmmmmmmm...So that is why there has been a massive migration of peasants from the Chinese countryside to the cities for higher paying jobs.

You do realize that the economic standard of living has been increasing in leaps and bounds?

So let me guess. You expect a Chinese Autoworker to hold out until they pay him what an American or european autoworker gets?
No, I don't expect. I just said they sold themselves short, because they are willing to work for less than the Americans or Europeans. No matter how much the Chinese economic standard of living has been increasing, it's still nowhere near the level of the American or the European economic standard of living.

[anthonyvop]

No, I don't expect. I just said they sold themselves short, because they are willing to work for less than the Americans or Europeans. No matter how much the Chinese economic standard of living has been increasing, it's still nowhere near the level of the American or the European economic standard of living.

So you believe that workers everywhere should earn the same?

[janvanvurpa]

No, I don't expect. I just said they sold themselves short, because they are willing to work for less than the Americans or Europeans. No matter how much the Chinese economic standard of living has been increasing, it's still nowhere near the level of the American or the European economic standard of living.

But Eki, the important thing for EVERYBODY there from factory girls to taxi drivers to management class, EVERYBODY is that they all have seen steady increases in material standard of EVERYTHING within recent living memory---even folks in the mid 30s can remember when they were kids 20 years ago and the change is nothing short of phenomenal---and everybody see it, and has expectations that as the CCP becomes less relevant, that things will continue the trend.

Eki, I have trabvelled all over the place except Beijing in the last 7 years and I talk to everybody i can---drives my wife nuts sometimes but sometimes I see something like a machine shop of a diesel repair place and I gotta look and so I'll stop and share a cigarette and ask---Chinese are not shy and most have refreshing self confidence and so they talk frankly.
They know workers in the West have more, but they go "pfffft!" that's not important, I have more now than I had 5 years ago" is what they say.

It really is something to be in a country so young on average and with such cheerful confidence...

[chuck34]

I have more now than I had 5 years ago" is what they say.


Playing a bit of Devil's Advocate here. Doesn't that make them just as greedy as the Wall Street Banker? I mean all the Wall Street Banker really wants is more than he had 5 years ago too. So the guy working in the machine shop in rural China is just as big a piece of greedy scum as the fat cat banker, right?

[Eki]

Playing a bit of Devil's Advocate here. Doesn't that make them just as greedy as the Wall Street Banker? I mean all the Wall Street Banker really wants is more than he had 5 years ago too. So the guy working in the machine shop in rural China is just as big a piece of greedy scum as the fat cat banker, right?
Except that the fat cat banker's more is much more than the Chinese machine shop worker's more. If someone who was paid $1 a day 5 years ago gets now $2 a day, that's 100% more. If the fat cat banker made $100,000 a day 5 years ago, he must now get $200,000 a day to reach that 100% more.

[chuck34]

Except that the fat cat banker's more is much more than the Chinese machine shop worker's more. If someone who was paid $1 a day 5 years ago gets now $2 a day, that's 100% more. If the fat cat banker made $100,000 a day 5 years ago, he must now get $200,000 a day to reach that 100% more.

So? 100% more for the Chineese worker is ok, but not for the banker? Why? What is the limit? Is there a limit to greed?

[Eki]

So? 100% more for the Chineese worker is ok, but not for the banker? Why? What is the limit? Is there a limit to greed?
No, there is no limit to greed, but there is a limit to moderation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderation

Beyond the limit, moderation becomes greed.

The Swedish word "lagom" describes it well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagom


Lagom is a Swedish word with no direct English equivalent, meaning "just the right amount".

The Lexin Swedish-English dictionary defines lagom as "enough, sufficient, adequate, just right". Lagom is also widely translated as "in moderation", "in balance", "optimal", "suitable", and "average". But whereas words like "sufficient" and "average" suggest some degree of abstinence, scarcity, or failure, lagom carries the connotation appropriateness although not necessarily perfection. The archetypical Swedish proverb "Lagom är bäst", literally "Lagom is best", is translated as "Enough is as good as a feast" in the Lexin dictionary. That same proverb is translated as "There is virtue in moderation" in Prismas Stora Engelska Ordbok (1995).

[chuck34]

No, there is no limit to greed, but there is a limit to moderation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderation

Beyond the limit, moderation becomes greed.

The Swedish word "lagom" describes it well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagom

So define for me moderation. What about lagom, does it have a monitary value? You seem to think that $100,000 is too much, yet $2 is too little. How so? The man in China that makes $2 a day has enough to feed himself, and his family. Enough to put a shelter over his head, and cloths on his families back. So $3 is too much for him to ask then? What about the family in New York City of a fireman and a public school teacher, combined they make just over $100,000, does that make them greedy? What if I want just a little more than I make, after all I've contributed to my company making more money, does that make me greedy? How about 50% more? Does the percentage matter, or is it the absolute amount? How much is too much? Who decides? If I make over that amount is it your right to confiscate it? On who's authority? What ramifications will that have on society?

What if I think you make too much? Do I have the right to take it from you? I'm sure you make much more than most in the poorer parts of the world. How can you sleep at night with your non-essential computer and internet, while others go without food?

[Jag_Warrior]

I loved the original. Including yours truly, a lot of kids my age wanted to be Bud Fox back then (minus the going to jail part). I thought there was a good lesson to be learned from the movie and from the Go-Go '80's, which some picked up on and others didn't... and others still haven't. I learned late (the 80's didn't end for me until about 1994), but I did learn. Between ambition and greed, there's a very fine line... but one hell of a difference. Ambition won't cause you to lose your soul. Greed will. If you're willing to do anything for money, then what's on your financial statement sums up your value as a human being. Greed has nothing to do with being rich or poor, successful or unsuccessful. Greed only describes where your moral compass sets.

Anyway, I can't stand Shia LaBeouf, but with Michael Douglas and Charlie Sheen back again, maybe this will be worth seeing. I have a friend who is close enough to my age and with a similar background, so she may be able to relate to it too. On the drive over, I might even play Sinatra's "Fly Me To the Moon" for old time's sake.
9ZL7gF86tBo&feature

[Camelopard]

The greed of Papa Doc and his family did a hell of a lot of good for the average Haitian.

The greed of Mobutu Sésé Seko Nkuku Ngbendu wa Za Banga did heaps for the average person from Zaire/Congo.

The greed of the Somoza family did real good (sic) for the average Nicaraguan.

North Korea's current leadership, I reckon greed plays a big part there.

Mugabe, who can say he isn't a greedy ratbag along with all the other greedy despots in the world of all political persuasions?



Need I go on?


As for Madoff, I'd like to see him kept on life support until his sentence is served...... :)

[anthonyvop]

The greed of Papa Doc and his family did a hell of a lot of good for the average Haitian.

The greed of Mobutu Sésé Seko Nkuku Ngbendu wa Za Banga did heaps for the average person from Zaire/Congo.

The greed of the Somoza family did real good (sic) for the average Nicaraguan.

North Korea's current leadership, I reckon greed plays a big part there.

Mugabe, who can say he isn't a greedy ratbag along with all the other greedy despots in the world of all political persuasions?



Need I go on?


As for Madoff, I'd like to see him kept on life support until his sentence is served...... :)

For every despot you list I can name dozens of Captains of industry that worked within reasonable laws and powered economies.

For every Mugabe there are dozens of Henry Fords. For every Papa Doc there are dozens of Bill Gates.

Walmart has done more to feed and cloth people than any government program.

[Jag_Warrior]

greed
Pronunciation: \ˈgrēd\
Function: noun
Etymology: back-formation from greedy
Date: 1609
: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed



av·a·rice
Pronunciation: \ˈa-və-rəs, ˈav-rəs\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin avaritia, from avarus avaricious, from avēre to crave — more at avid
Date: 14th century
: excessive or insatiable desire for wealth or gain : greediness, cupidity

_____________________________________

Years ago, there was an HBO film about the Wannsee Conference called "Conspiracy". Great film, if you enjoy historical pieces. But the reason I mention it now is because there was a line spoken by one of the characters that's stayed with me... and seems rather appropriate in this thread: "it is important to know what words mean."

[Eki]

So define for me moderation.
It's the point where you don't have to think what you can afford or what to do with extra money and still your bank account stays in balance. If money starts building up on your bank account without you purposely cutting down expenses, then you've passed the point of moderation. It's like continuing eating after you're already full.

[Garry Walker]

It's the point where you don't have to think what you can afford or what to do with extra money and still your bank account stays in balance. If money starts building up on your bank account without you purposely cutting down expenses, then you've passed the point of moderation. It's like continuing eating after you're already full.

How dare someone collect money for rainy days or for big purchases.

[Eki]

How dare someone collect money for rainy days or for big purchases.
If you want to save money for rainy days, you cut down expenses. If you need a big purchase, you take a loan or save until you get it. Making so much money you can buy a new house or a new car every day is in excess, making that money in a year is still within moderation.

[Alexamateo]

It's the point where you don't have to think what you can afford or what to do with extra money and still your bank account stays in balance. If money starts building up on your bank account without you purposely cutting down expenses, then you've passed the point of moderation. It's like continuing eating after you're already full.

I'm sorry, this statement is silly. My bank account is growing because I have built up a bank of business and clientele, and my income has increased. According to you, because I didn't cut expenses to do this though I am past the point of moderation.

It's like when people talk about "affordable" housing. Well what is that?

In my life, since I've moved out from my parents, I have lived in a dorm room on campus, a fraternity house, in a room rented in one of my professor's house, in a room of a lady who converted her house to a boarding house, in a two bedroom duplex, in a three bedroom 1800 sq. ft house, and now in a 3 bedroom 2500 sq.ft. house with an office that I work out of. We might just have another baby and get a bigger house in the future. All were (or will be) what I could afford at the time and thus "affordable", but they are definitely not equal.


Making so much money you can buy a new house or a new car every day is in excess, making that money in a year is still within moderation.

Let's put that in perspective. Last year, one of my customers did a landscape project in which they spent more than $100,000 in materials cost alone with me, and I don't sell annuals or sod or mulch or anything like that. The total contract was for at least $300,000 plus. Someone with an attitude similar to yours said "Oh that's just too much, some people are too rich." I told her to bite her tongue. Let's look at what that $100,000 provided:

$85,000 or so was direct cost of goods sold that went to growers and all of the people they employ not to mention freight brokers, truck lines, truck drivers etc. $10,000 went directly to me, $5000 went to my financial backer, part of this money also keeps the woman who does all of our paperwork employed. The balance of the contract goes to other suppliers and their delivery people. It kept two crews of 8-10 people that work for my customer directly employed for 3 months doing the project and rewarded the owner of that company profits for his investment of starting the company more than 25 years ago not to mention indirectly affects his 50 total year round employees.

But according to you this is excess, because they spend more than 90% of us make in one year, but if that is excess, God Bless them, because my life is better for having worked for them.

[Eki]

But according to you this is excess, because they spend more than 90% of us make in one year, but if that is excess, God Bless them, because my life is better for having worked for them.
Actually I said $100,000 a day MORE when you already make $100,000 a day is excess.

Let's put that in perspective. If somebody buys two $100,000 landscape projects a DAY for his/her personal use, I'd say that's excess (or nuts).

[Alexamateo]

Actually I said $100,000 a day MORE when you already make $100,000 a day is excess.

Let's put that in perspective. If somebody buys two $100,000 landscape projects a DAY for his/her personal use, I'd say that's excess (or nuts).

Not to the salesman or person or company providing the product or services. :p :

Put another way, I have a customers who'll buy thousands of dollars worth of Palm Trees and tropicals that I'll load up from Anthony's neck of the woods and ship up here to Memphis. They'll use them as annuals because they will die in the winter.

Is that a waste or excessive? I mean some of these trees cost $1000's each, and they'll just die when it gets below freezing.

[markabilly]

In 2007, the avarage person in the fortune 400 made 1.5 million more per week then he did in 2006; that is about $200k MORE per day than he got the year before.

average yearly income in the group was 345 million or almost a million ($1,000.000) per day (actually about $945,000 per day), but that was 2 years ago. Today, probably over a million per day.

To quote mr Wall street, chump change, thought that was all the money in the world...

[markabilly]

Actually I said $100,000 a day MORE when you already make $100,000 a day is excess.
.
Lord help me it appears I may be sort of agreeing with Eki :( , except I am talking about people who make 200k more per day from one year (2006) to the next year (2007) than just a mere 100k more per day over five years........

[chuck34]

It's the point where you don't have to think what you can afford or what to do with extra money and still your bank account stays in balance. If money starts building up on your bank account without you purposely cutting down expenses, then you've passed the point of moderation. It's like continuing eating after you're already full.

So how much is in your bank account?

I'll ask a question I asked you before, and you did not answer. How can you look at your greedy little face in the mirror everyday when you have a computer and an internet connection while there are starving people all over the world? I bet you have a TV too. And a car. Shouldn't you stop with all those greedy little indulgences to provide for those who are starving?

What gives you the right to tell anyone what they should make? What gives you the right to call people who work hard for their money greedy? Don't you see your hypocracy? You have sooo much more than people in poorer areas of the country, yet you call people that have more than you greedy. Couldn't that mechanic in China just as easily condemn you for being greedy?

[Eki]

What gives you the right to tell anyone what they should make? What gives you the right to call people who work hard for their money greedy?
I haven't called people who work hard for their money greedy, I call people who make other people work hard to make them rich without a fair share of the riches greedy. For example, the CEO of a supermarket chain in Finland makes over 100 times more than an average worker in that chain. Do you believe he works over 100 times harder than his employees in average?

[chuck34]

I haven't called people who work hard for their money greedy, I call people who make other people work hard to make them rich without a fair share of the riches greedy. For example, the CEO of a supermarket chain in Finland makes over 100 times more than an average worker in that chain. Do you believe he works over 100 times harder than his employees in average?

In order to become CEO, he probably did.

You seem to think that there is a maximum amount of money one can make. So what is that number?

[Eki]

In order to become CEO, he probably did.

You seem to think that there is a maximum amount of money one can make. So what is that number?
No, I don't think there's a limit to greed, at least not to all people. As I said in the other thread, I don't object rich but some ways people use to become rich. It's easier to become rich by cheating and exploiting others than by being honest and fair.

[chuck34]

No, I don't think there's a limit to greed, at least not to all people. As I said in the other thread, I don't object rich but some ways people use to become rich. It's easier to become rich by cheating and exploiting others than by being honest and fair.

So it's up to you to judge how one becomes rich? And then if you don't agree with their means, or how much they've made, then it's ok for you to confescate it?

Eki for dictator I guess.

[BDunnell]

In order to become CEO, he probably did.

Really? I wasn't aware that there was a direct correlation between salary and how hard one works. I suspect the notion is another example of someone having a bit too much respect for money (and the moneyed).

[Eki]

Really? I wasn't aware that there was a direct correlation between salary and how hard one works. I suspect the notion is another example of someone having a bit too much respect for money (and the moneyed).
True. I suspect that he became a CEO mainly because he had the required skills, right connections and was at the right place at the right time rather than working over 100 times harder than his average employee. Like they say, work smarter not harder.

[chuck34]

So you guys really think that you become a CEO just because? That somehow it's not a reward for doing a good job in a lower position, which itself was a reward for doing well in an even lower position? You honestly think that there is some sort of "class" system at work? That no one ever works up through a company?

I know that in some cases that sort of thing does happen (promotion without justification). But the vast majority of CEO, and Presidents of companies got there through hard work, long hours, little vacation, etc. You may not believe it, but the reward for hard work and dedication is usually more money and more responsibility. You should try it some time.

[BDunnell]

So you guys really think that you become a CEO just because? It's not a reward for doing a good job in a lower position, which itself was a reward for doing well in an even lower position? You honestly think that there is some sort of "class" system at work? That no one ever works up through a company?

I know that in some cases that sort of thing does happen. But the vast majority of CEO, and Presidents of companies got there through hard work, long hours, little vacation, etc. You may not believe it, but the reward for hard work and dedication is usually more money and more responsibility. You should try it some time.

So you believe that the boss of my employer is automatically harder-working than I am merely because of his status? I think this view of yours indicates a lack of understanding of the world of work, rather than a superior one.

[Rollo]

Playing a bit of Devil's Advocate here. Doesn't that make them just as greedy as the Wall Street Banker? I mean all the Wall Street Banker really wants is more than he had 5 years ago too. So the guy working in the machine shop in rural China is just as big a piece of greedy scum as the fat cat banker, right?

The guy working in the machine shop in rural China is producing something.

Please enlighten us how the creation of "credit default swaps" and repackaged "mortgage securitisations" as a result of offering mortgages to people who really could not afford the terms has produced anything other than a national debt spiraling into the trillions across the world.
Those people produced something too... apparently.

[chuck34]

So you believe that the boss of my employer is automatically harder-working than I am merely because of his status? I think this view of yours indicates a lack of understanding of the world of work, rather than a superior one.

I know nothing about the boss of your employer. But I'd say on average more people get to positions of power and wealth by working hard than are there simply because they were born into it or something. Please realize that hard work does not always translate into sweating on a factory floor, it takes many forms. CEO's of successful firms almost always put in more hours at their jobs than the hourly guy does. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean he's not working.

Take my company as an example. The CEO/President is a mean SOB that hasn't done a damn thing for going on a decade now. But he started the company from literally NOTHING in the 50's to where it is a mulit-million dollar company now. I promise you that in his day he worked harder than probably at least 90% of the people on this board. But you guys would damn him now for his wealth and the fact that he has turned over control so that he can be "retired" now.

[chuck34]

The guy working in the machine shop in rural China is producing something.

Please enlighten us how the creation of "credit default swaps" and repackaged "mortgage securitisations" as a result of offering mortgages to people who really could not afford the terms has produced anything other than a national debt spiraling into the trillions across the world.
Those people produced something too... apparently.

Those people created wealth for a lot of people. I bet that if you had been in the US, your 401k would have had those stocks in it. So you would have been "richer" by owning those stocks. Now the fact that they were actually worthless should have ment that those guys all lost their jobs, and had there been any justice in the world they wouldn't have ever worked again. THAT is how the free markets SHOULD work. But our "wise" leaders in Washington see things differently I guess. I sure don't though.

So if you're going to rail against bailouts, I'm with you. But count me out if you're going to damn people who are producing thing, either machinery, or monetary instruments.

[BDunnell]

I know nothing about the boss of your employer. But I'd say on average more people get to positions of power and wealth by working hard than are there simply because they were born into it or something. Please realize that hard work does not always translate into sweating on a factory floor, it takes many forms. CEO's of successful firms almost always put in more hours at their jobs than the hourly guy does. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean he's not working.

Excuse me, but where did I suggest that the boss of my company 'isn't working'?

[chuck34]

Excuse me, but where did I suggest that the boss of my company 'isn't working'?


So you believe that the boss of my employer is automatically harder-working than I am merely because of his status?

That's the way I read that. Now that I read it again I suppose that it could be suggesting something else. The other thing to consider is time. Yes, you may work as hard, or harder than your boss, but he's simply been around longer. The world's not fair like that I suppose, but at some point either he'll move along or you'll be recognized for your true contribution. You can't expect to be the CEO right now if the guy in that position is doing an adequate job. Doesn't mean he's a greedy SOB that should be taxed to death either.

[Garry Walker]

If you want to save money for rainy days, you cut down expenses.
I have worked hard enough for my money, why should I cut down on anything. I`d much rather just earn enough so that I dont have to change my lifestyle one bit.


I haven't called people who work hard for their money greedy, I call people who make other people work hard to make them rich without a fair share of the riches greedy. For example, the CEO of a supermarket chain in Finland makes over 100 times more than an average worker in that chain. Do you believe he works over 100 times harder than his employees in average?

The CEO has far more responsibility than your average worker, if he chooses the wrong direction for the company, there might be hundreds of people out of work. Now I dont know about finland, but board members can also be held personally liable (meaning their own fortune is at stake) when they cause damages.
If your average worker makes an error what will happen? Usually the damage is non-existant.

Every idiot can do your average workers job, but not many have the right skills and persona to be a CEO of a large corporation. Have you ever lead any organization? I think it is obvious you have not. I recommend that if you once have a chance, then try it. It is not as easy as your little brain thinks it is. If you experienced it, maybe you would show a bit of respect.

Out of curiosity, what job do you have?


No, I don't think there's a limit to greed, at least not to all people. As I said in the other thread, I don't object rich but some ways people use to become rich. It's easier to become rich by cheating and exploiting others than by being honest and fair.

What is honest and fair to you? If I take 750 000 euros out as dividends, but share nothing of it with the workers (well, they are not entitled to it anyway, as they are not shareholders), is that not fair in your view? Is that exploiting?

Why should I share it? They did not start the company, I did. They took no personal risks, I did. Sure, they have helped to make that money, but for that they get a salary. If they dont like it, there is always the option of fcking off.
Nobody forbade them from starting their own business, but they just did not have enough ambition, brains, dedication and drive for it. Tough luck.


True. I suspect that he became a CEO mainly because he had the required skills, right connections and was at the right place at the right time rather than working over 100 times harder than his average employee.
Well, what a d1ck he must be for having the required skills to be a CEO, for having studied in a university, for showing ambition, rather than show no ambition or creativity at all like your typical public sector worker.



You may not believe it, but the reward for hard work and dedication is usually more money and more responsibility. You should try it some time.

You are telling it to the wrong people.


So you believe that the boss of my employer is automatically harder-working than I am merely because of his status?

No, but I do think he is an idiot for not having dumped your sorry ass.

[BDunnell]

No, but I do think he is an idiot for not having dumped your sorry ass.

My goodness, Garry thinks someone is an idiot or stupid. Hold the front page!

[Rollo]

The CEO has far more responsibility than your average worker, if he chooses the wrong direction for the company, there might be hundreds of people out of work.

Who is more likely to be put out of work as a result of that choice? Who is also more likely to be given a bonus?

[janvanvurpa]

My goodness, Garry thinks someone is an idiot or stupid. Hold the front page!

I'm confused.
He seems to think everybody is all simultaneously the most idiotic persons in the world....

How can everybody be the most idiotic?

[Jag_Warrior]

Who is more likely to be put out of work as a result of that choice? Who is also more likely to be given a bonus?

I don't know that I want to put my dog in this fight. But if one looks at the ratio of earnings of the average American CEO/average American worker and compares that to the same ratio most anywhere else in the world, there appears to be something quite hinky on this side of the pond.

I mean let's face it, the average American CEO doesn't have anymore company responsibility than the average Japanese or the average German CEO. As a shareholder, I very much want to have a greater influence over executive pay (yeah, I realize that's not really what this thread is about, but still...) - but even large shareholders are usually locked out of those decisions. Smaller investors aren't even a consideration. BoD's over here are far too often loaded with golfing buddies and old frat brothers, who rubber stamp the wishes and desires of the Chairman and CEO. My hope is that the SEC will help break that "management class" club into small(er) pieces.

I have no problem with paying for top performance. But I do have a problem with a CEO (the one at my former company comes to mind) making more money in 2009 than 2008, after his ass headed decisions helped ride the stock down from $60 to $3.50. If memory serves, he raked in over $12 million last year. There's a reason that sumbeach lives in a gated community and doesn't go out on the town as much as he used to: somebody would probably shank him (and nobody would call 911). I'd be lying if I said that replaying Caesar's final day in the Roman Senate, and making him play Julius, hadn't crossed my mind a time or ten. :vader:

[chuck34]

I don't know that I want to put my dog in this fight. But if one looks at the ratio of earnings of the average American CEO/average American worker and compares that to the same ratio most anywhere else in the world, there appears to be something quite hinky on this side of the pond.

I mean let's face it, the average American CEO doesn't have anymore company responsibility than the average Japanese or the average German CEO. As a shareholder, I very much want to have a greater influence over executive pay (yeah, I realize that's not really what this thread is about, but still...) - but even large shareholders are usually locked out of those decisions. Smaller investors aren't even a consideration. BoD's over here are far too often loaded with golfing buddies and old frat brothers, who rubber stamp the wishes and desires of the Chairman and CEO. My hope is that the SEC will help break that "management class" club into small(er) pieces.

I have no problem with paying for top performance. But I do have a problem with a CEO (the one at my former company comes to mind) making more money in 2009 than 2008, after his ass headed decisions helped ride the stock down from $60 to $3.50. If memory serves, he raked in over $12 million last year. There's a reason that sumbeach lives in a gated community and doesn't go out on the town as much as he used to: somebody would probably shank him (and nobody would call 911). I'd be lying if I said that replaying Caesar's final day in the Roman Senate, and making him play Julius, hadn't crossed my mind a time or ten. :vader:

Let me guess, did that company happen to get some federal "bailout" money.

[Eki]

Who is more likely to be put out of work as a result of that choice? Who is also more likely to be given a bonus?
Good point. Some corporations seem to lay of people just to give the shareholders more, and they get big bonuses for it. These days it seems CEOs have no responsibilities towards their employees, just towards the shareholders.

[Jag_Warrior]

Let me guess, did that company happen to get some federal "bailout" money.

The one I used to work for? No. We had a finance unit (which is what caused most of the damage), but AFAIK, it didn't qualify for any TARP funds. The Chairman and CEO built a house of cards, which allowed him to hit performance metrics, which inflated his bonus. The house of cards collapsed when the economy sank, taking the stock with it. But somehow his bonus formulation was changed (by his pals on the BoD), and the rat bastage got an even bigger bonus after he tanked the stock! :angryfire

But there's always a "solution"... :)

Sic semper tyrannis
http://shop.fraziermuseum.org/u_products/703033.jpg

Oh BTW, what he did was an example of greed. He also cheated on his wife with a younger woman!!! He's a greedy cheat through & through.

[anthonyvop]

For those who despise those greedy, rich fat-cats I have a question.

Do you know how many people have jobs because of those Fat-Cats? Everything from food & housing to Luxury Yachts and 1st class flights. Part of every dime they spend goes to somebody's paycheck.

Even if they just stick it in the bank that money works. Bankers and tellers need to work also. That money is used for loans.

As I have stated before....Wal-Mart has provided more jobs than any government program.

[Jag_Warrior]

I provided the definition of the word "greed" for a reason - I guess I wasted my time in doing that. There is a difference between being greedy and being a high earner. They are not necessarily one and the same.

As for jobs, if one wants to suspend disbelief, one could claim that Bernie Madoff provided jobs for people. :rolleyes: And it's rather foolish to equate the jobs provided by a corporation, in its course of doing business, with what the CEO makes. The CEO could die tomorrow, but the corporation would (should) live on. The corporation is owned by the shareholders, not the CEO or Chairman (although he may be a shareholder). But the purpose of a corporation is not to provide jobs... or save bunny rabbits. The purpose of a (public) corporation is to increase shareholder value. Any CEO or Charman of the Board who enriches himself, while shareholder value is being decimated, is a POS and going against the stated purpose of that, or any other corporation.

[Rollo]

For those who despise those greedy, rich fat-cats I have a question.

Do you know how many people have jobs because of those Fat-Cats? Everything from food & housing to Luxury Yachts and 1st class flights. Part of every dime they spend goes to somebody's paycheck.

Is it right though?

Who actually generates the profits for that company? Is it those "fat cats" or the people doing real work?

Secondly who ends up paying for it? Is it the shareholders who find that instead of profits that would have been due to them by virtue of the fact that they actually own the company, now find that that money has gone somewhere else? Or is it the consumer who finds that the goods and services they purchase rise in cost to them, because those "Luxury Yachts and 1st class flights" become on-costs and business expenses?


As I have stated before....Wal-Mart has provided more jobs than any government program.

Yes, and those people work for Wal-Mart, a concept which you almost seem to forget.

[anthonyvop]

Is it right though?

Who actually generates the profits for that company? Is it those "fat cats" or the people doing real work?
The Fat Cats......Not debatable.
It is the right of the person smart enough or dedicated enough to partake of the enterprise in a position of maximum profit.

The man who went to business school or worked hard to achieve the high paying position deserves it more than the average Joe who just took a job as a factory worker.

The people who are doing "the work" as you put it are doing just that...The work. Totally voluntary. The market decides the value of their work. Nobody is forcing them to work there. Nothing is preventing them from leaving except their own situation which is , for the most part, of their own creation.


Secondly who ends up paying for it? Is it the shareholders who find that instead of profits that would have been due to them by virtue of the fact that they actually own the company, now find that that money has gone somewhere else? Or is it the consumer who finds that the goods and services they purchase rise in cost to them, because those "Luxury Yachts and 1st class flights" become on-costs and business expenses?
That is a totally different issue. If a Corporate head uses company money for his own personal enjoyment it is either illegal or an issue for the Stockholders to address



Yes, and those people work for Wal-Mart, a concept which you almost seem to forget.

What about the over 2 million Wal-Mart employees? Wal-Mart doesn't seem to have a problem finding workers. In fact they have had a glut of applicants over the past few decades.

They work and paid a fair wage for the work they do. The only people who seem to complain about Wal-Mart are either Union Organizers who hate the fact the Wal-Mart employees aren't interested or Business owners who aren't smart enough to compete.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Loathe as I sometimes am to agree with some of Tony's theory, Wal Mart gets a bad rap. You look at how big that company is, how many stores they have, and you look at them in Canada where the unions can get a foothold....and how many stores are unionized? ONE...in Quebec where Union's are a way of life and their economy reflects it.

Wal Mart pays better than people think, and has room for advancement if you have half a brain. They don't pay a huge wage, but they are taking people with basic skills. Why would they pay big time money for those people?

Some people need to get off this Wal Mart is evil schtick. The last time I looked, people keep shopping there for a reason.

[markabilly]

Some people need to get off this Wal Mart is evil schtick. The last time I looked, people keep shopping there for a reason.
Yes, the reason is they do not make 945k per day, assisted by government bail-out money and pay average taxes of less than 16% :vader:

[Eki]

Lay-offs have become American export:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/233131


In the last decade layoffs have become America's export to the world. At a conference in Stockholm a few years ago, business executives told me that to become as competitive as America, Sweden needed to make it easier to lay people off. In Japan, lifetime employment, which never applied to most of the labor market, is under attack. There are daily calls for European countries to follow the U.S. and make labor markets more "flexible." But the more you examine this universally accepted tactic of modern management, the more wrongheaded it seems to be.

[anthonyvop]

Yes, the reason is they do not make 945k per day, assisted by government bail-out money and pay average taxes of less than 16% :vader:


Actually the family of the Founder of Wal-Mart are some of the richest people on the planet with their worth being measured in the Billions of $$$$

And Mark, I already explained to you how your 16% figure is way off.

[anthonyvop]

Lay-offs have become American export:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/233131

Looks like the world is finally thinking straight.

[Eki]

Actually the family of the Founder of Wal-Mart are some of the richest people on the planet with their worth being measured in the Billions of $$$$

The family? Why is the family rich? What have they done to deserve it?

[Jag_Warrior]

Loathe as I sometimes am to agree with some of Tony's theory, Wal Mart gets a bad rap. You look at how big that company is, how many stores they have, and you look at them in Canada where the unions can get a foothold....and how many stores are unionized? ONE...in Quebec where Union's are a way of life and their economy reflects it.

Wal Mart pays better than people think, and has room for advancement if you have half a brain. They don't pay a huge wage, but they are taking people with basic skills. Why would they pay big time money for those people?

Some people need to get off this Wal Mart is evil schtick. The last time I looked, people keep shopping there for a reason.

I'm completely lost on what this has to do with greed... corporate, personal or otherwise. Are Walmart's profits excessive? Does Walmart's CEO make an excessive amount of money, relative to CEO's in the same sector?

This thread has gone from the OP (greed) to a discussion on income disparity and wage fairness. While greed MAY be a factor in driving the degree of income disparity, they're not one and the same. The average neurosurgeon makes a good deal more than the average general practitioner. Greed has nothing to do with that.

We were talking about the movie Wall Street. When Gordon Gekko hatched a plan to take over Blue Star(?) airlines, using its pension fund as collateral, and then dismantle it for the value of its pieces, then bankrupt it, leaving creditors to pick up the pieces and workers with an insolvent pension fund and no jobs. That (to me) would be an example of greed in action.

[Eki]

The average neurosurgeon makes a good deal more than the average general practitioner. Greed has nothing to do with that.

Are you sure that they'd become neurosurgeons without being paid more than the general practitioners? If yes, isn't it stupid to pay them more?

[anthonyvop]

The family? Why is the family rich? What have they done to deserve it?

It was Sam Walton's decision. He earned the money and only he had the right to decide where it went after he died. Not you. Not the Government. Nobody but him.

Actually many of Mr. Walton's Family were involved from day 1.

[Eki]

It was Sam Walton's decision. He earned the money and only he had the right to decide where it went after he died. Not you. Not the Government. Nobody but him.

Actually many of Mr. Walton's Family were involved from day 1.

Isn't it unequal that everybody don't have a rich relative who can make them rich?

[Jag_Warrior]

Are you sure that they'd become neurosurgeons without being paid more than the general practitioners? If yes, isn't it stupid to pay them more?

Considering how many years it takes to become even a general practitioner, add in the many more years it takes to become a neurosurgeon, and I find it hard to believe any meaningful percentage of them are motivated by (actual) greed. Again, let's not confuse normal ambition or a passion for continuous improvement with "greed".

Neurosurgeons are probably the most skilled surgeons there are. So it is expected that those who possess that advanced skill set could command higher salaries. To me, that has nothing to do with being greedy. If a neurosurgeon schedules 4 brain surgeries per day, and half of them aren't necessary, then yeah... that's greed.

Both sides of the debate here have strayed pretty far from the actual definition of "greed", IMO. I'm putting my dog back in his pen and I'm going to go back to lurking. :D

[Garry Walker]

Good point. Some corporations seem to lay of people just to give the shareholders more, and they get big bonuses for it. These days it seems CEOs have no responsibilities towards their employees, just towards the shareholders.

You lay off people when you no longer have a use for them.
Why have 3 people do the job when 2 can do it just as easily? Business is not about charity, it is not like public service when you have 20 people do a job that 1 person can manage.

You are very unlikely to get fired if you are useful to the company you work at.


Are you sure that they'd become neurosurgeons without being paid more than the general practitioners? If yes, isn't it stupid to pay them more?

Hey, nobody stopped you or anyone else from learning to be a neurosurgeon. But it is much easier to just collect dole and attack anyone and everyone who has some success in life than spend 10-15 years studying something really difficult. It is not the fault of the successful people that so many lack drive and ambitions and settle for just any job, because they have no skills.

[Jag_Warrior]

Isn't it unequal that everybody don't have a rich relative who can make them rich?

Sure, it's "unequal"... just like it's unequal (unfair?) that you and I were born in wealthy, developed nations, while some other poor soul was born in Somalia, Haiti or Bangladesh. IMO, we are only "equal" in the eyes of God... and (hopefully) under the law. But the legal system (in the U.S. anyway) is, and has pretty much always been, full of double standards and hypocrisy. So, we're back to equality in the eyes of God. And if you don't believe in God, I guess you might as well forget about equality and fairness in this world. :dozey:

[Eki]

Sure, it's "unequal"... just like it's unequal (unfair?)
According to dictionary, unequal equaling unfair is obsolete. I guess it's because unfair has some moral connotation and moral is obsolete.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unequal

un·e·qual   [uhn-ee-kwuhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
not equal; not of the same quantity, quality, value, rank, ability, etc.: People are unequal in their capacities.
2.
not adequate, as in amount, power, ability, etc. (usually fol. by to): strength unequal to the task.
3.
not evenly proportioned or balanced; not having the parts alike or symmetrical: an unequal leaf.
4.
uneven or variable in character, quality, etc.
5.
Obsolete. inequitable; unfair; unjust.

[anthonyvop]

Isn't it unequal that everybody don't have a rich relative who can make them rich?

So? Equality means nobody is stopping you from creating your own multi-billion dollar enterprise and then leaving it to you relatives.

Equality means the same rules.....not the same breaks.

[Eki]

So? Equality means nobody is stopping you from creating your own multi-billion dollar enterprise and then leaving it to you relatives.

That's impossible. Reality is always stopping most people from creating their own multi-billion dollar enterprise.

[markabilly]

The Fat Cats......Not debatable.
It is the right of the person smart enough or dedicated enough to partake of the enterprise in a position of maximum profit.

The man who went to business school or worked hard to achieve the high paying position deserves it more than the average Joe who just took a job as a factory worker.

The people who are doing "the work" as you put it are doing just that...The work. Totally voluntary. The market decides the value of their work. Nobody is forcing them to work there. Nothing is preventing them from leaving except their own situation which is , for the most part, of their own creation.

.
deserving has nothing to do with it.

many people work their butt off harder than others, are smarter than others and are not successful. It is all a matter of luck, including the luck of being born into a rich family.

Much like clint Eastwood said when he put the finishing touches to the other bad guys, of which he was one, in Unforgiven. Deserving has nothing to do with it......and if it were not for the very ultra favorable treatment people like you get from the government, you would not possess that which you so self-righteously scream about as being something that "you deserve".

that is reality

[anthonyvop]

That's impossible. Reality is always stopping most people from creating their own multi-billion dollar enterprise.


Ahhhhh....Reality....The great equalizer.

So the only person stopping you from creating your own multi-billion dollar enterprise is......you.

[anthonyvop]

deserving has nothing to do with it.

many people work their butt off harder than others, are smarter than others and are not successful. It is all a matter of luck,

Don't believe in Luck.
Name me one example of somebody who worked harder and was smarter than others and yet did not succeed because of "luck"

[Alexamateo]

Don't believe in Luck.
Name me one example of somebody who worked harder and was smarter than others and yet did not succeed because of "luck"

How about Roger Mears? He was faster and better than Rick every step of the way coming up through off-road racing, yet his Indy Car career just sort of flamed out while Rick is arguably recognized as the best ever.

I am sure others have worked hard but have not succeeded for one reason or another, but we have not heard of them. It happens in music and art all the time that someone's genius is not recognized until years later sometimes even after their deaths.

Brian France runs a successful multi-billion dollar NASCAR because he was able to build on the success of his father, who was in turn able to build on the success of his father.

Donald Trump learned the real estate business from his already successful dad and was able to grow it to incredible heights. Would he have been able to do it if his father had not given him a good base on which to build. Maybe, but it would have taken him 20 years longer if it were necessary to start from scratch.

One of the smartest, most hard-working people I know came here to the US 12 years ago as an illegal immigrant, he now has his own business doing masonry and concrete work in construction and has built a really nice life for he and his family. He's about as far as he could go considering where he started. He will never head a multi-billion dollar enterprise but because he was able to give his kids a boost he never had, they just might.

Lots of luck and chance in this world, I am very thankful to have been born in the United States.

and Oh Yeah, Ambition is different than greed. I could be the greediest person in the whole world, but that will never make me rich, in fact it will hinder me. The more people I serve, the more connections I make, the more I do for others, the more money I make. If I am greedy, you won't trust me, and you won't buy from me.

[Eki]

Ahhhhh....Reality....The great equalizer.

So the only person stopping you from creating your own multi-billion dollar enterprise is......you.
No, the real problem is the other people not giving their dollars to me. Sam Walton didn't print the dollars by himself, did he. Besides, there aren't enough dollars to make everyone a billionaire. If there were, a dollar wouldn't be worth a peso. Furthermore, I'd bet that when Sam Walton started there wasn't as much competition from big retailers as there are now. In addition to working hard and smart he was in the right place at the right time. If he had born in 1978 in Kongo instead of 1918 in the USA, I'm sure it would have been harder to make his empire. Even if he had been born in 1978 in the US it would have been harder.

[chuck34]

No, the real problem is the other people not giving their dollars to me.

No one GAVE Sam Walton money either. He had a good idea, and people bought things from him. Or in other words, he EARNED his money.

[Eki]

Donald Trump learned the real estate business from his already successful dad and was able to grow it to incredible heights. Would he have been able to do it if his father had not given him a good base on which to build. Maybe, but it would have taken him 20 years longer if it were necessary to start from scratch.

One of the smartest, most hard-working people I know came here to the US 12 years ago as an illegal immigrant, he now has his own business doing masonry and concrete work in construction and has built a really nice life for he and his family. He's about as far as he could go considering where he started. He will never head a multi-billion dollar enterprise but because he was able to give his kids a boost he never had, they just might.

I'm sure anthonyvop won't have enough time to become a billionaire either after Castro leveled the playing field (and anthonyvop's family's plantation) and sent him running to the US.

[anthonyvop]

I'm sure anthonyvop won't have enough time to become a billionaire either after Castro leveled the playing field (and anthonyvop's family's plantation) and sent him running to the US.

I am on my way...........In fact i just started another business. that makes 6.

[anthonyvop]

One of the smartest, most hard-working people I know came here to the US 12 years ago as an illegal immigrant, he now has his own business doing masonry and concrete work in construction and has built a really nice life for he and his family. He's about as far as he could go considering where he started. He will never head a multi-billion dollar enterprise but because he was able to give his kids a boost he never had, they just might.




He is an ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT! That is where he went wrong. Now he has a small business...what is topping him from expanding and growing?

Is he still an illegal?
His choice.

Is it because he is in a business that is down because of the economy?
His choice.

[anthonyvop]

No, the real problem is the other people not giving their dollars to me. Sam Walton didn't print the dollars by himself, did he. Besides, there aren't enough dollars to make everyone a billionaire. If there were, a dollar wouldn't be worth a peso. Furthermore, I'd bet that when Sam Walton started there wasn't as much competition from big retailers as there are now. In addition to working hard and smart he was in the right place at the right time. If he had born in 1978 in Kongo instead of 1918 in the USA, I'm sure it would have been harder to make his empire. Even if he had been born in 1978 in the US it would have been harder.

Sam Walton was a child of the depression and grew up milking cows and delivering newspapers. Served in the Military during WW2.

Started with one small store in Bentonville Arkansas.

I know of literally 100's of people personally who arrived in the US from 3rd world nations with nothing but the shirts on their backs. Some succeeded. Most did Ok some failed. That is life.

I know of many in 3rd World nations who started with nothing and our now doing well. Some are quite successful.

When i lived in the Dominican Republic I knew a kid who use to sell oranges on the street from a cart made out of scrap wood and an old bicycle wheel(No Tire just the wheel). He came by every day. 7 days a week. rain or shine. He saved ever dime he made when possible. Soon he was selling all types of fruit from a Bicycle Cart. I admired his work and always tried to buy some fruit from him when possible. In a year he had bought a beat up old pickup truck and was selling fruits and vegetables.
I left the D.R. and lost touch. One time after about 3 years i visited the old neighborhood and asked about him. They directed me to his Colmado (A small grocery store) that he had started.
Long story short. 15 years have passed since then and he now owns a chain of colmados across the capital and is expanding. He lives in a fine home and has a beach condo he visits on holidays.

Not bad for a kid who use to sell from a push cart.

So what is your excuse Eki?

[Alexamateo]

I was a little off in my timeline. He was part of Reagan's amnesty in 1988, He became a citizen in 1996 or 1997. I met him 13 years ago. I am married to his wife's cousin.

[Eki]

So what is your excuse Eki?
I'm not greedy. I rather do something I enjoy instead of chasing money.

[markabilly]

LUCK????

No one GAVE Sam Walton money either. He had a good idea, and people bought things from him. Or in other words, he EARNED his money.



I knew a guy who graduated top of his MBA class from Harvard, worked 120 hours a week, started making millions in real estate and then his company died with the real estate crash in the late eighties. Went to work as a security guard and died from cancer in 1992.

Know another brilliant investor who made some good money and then his company crashed and burned because the government put a road through their prize project.

Know several dumb, lazy, too stupid to graduate from the sixth grade, drunken fools, whose grandpas had some land with minerals that an oil company came in and paid--and pays---them millions of dollars.....PURE LUCK

I have another guy I went to college with. One of the heirs to the Farmers Insurance company founders.....has millions as a pure inheritance in a trust fund. Too lazy to go to school.....and as a trust fund baby, he just spends the million or so he gets every year on stuff like cars and women.

Know another trust fund baby....same story, different names and source of money....but several divorces later, he can brag that the feds have yet to send him to prison....

I doubt that outside of feeding themselves, dressing themselves, and drinking their own booze and laying sluts who love money...they ain't worked a day in their life. Pure luck. If Walton had been less lucky with his stores, he could have easily died dirt poor.

[Jag_Warrior]

From what I've read about Sam Walton, luck had less to do with his success than pure determination and incredibly hard work. He simply out thought and out worked his competition. I'm not a huge fan of the man, but one cannot discount the importance of his work ethic and intelligence. I would say the same about Conrad Hilton... though his grandchildren (Paris and Nikki) should have been drowned at birth. In contrast, Frederick Trump's granddaughter (Ivanka) will probably take the advantages that life has handed her, as a Lucky Sperm Club winner, and turn the family fortune into something even bigger. Paris is a high school dropout. Her mind is said to operate on about a 7th grade level. If her trust fund ever hits a bump, especially as she ages, she's probably going to have to do some tawdry things just to get her next meal.

Anyway, one of the things that I think separates (self made) successful people from those who seem to have some of the same advantages, yet never quite make it to the top step: resilience. Sam Walton failed a number of times. The early concern was that he was going to be a bum. But he never gave up. I don't know if he was greedy or not. I don't know if he was a good person or not. But he was one of the great businessmen of the past century.

[anthonyvop]

LUCK????

I knew a guy who graduated top of his MBA class from Harvard, worked 120 hours a week, started making millions in real estate and then his company died with the real estate crash in the late eighties. Went to work as a security guard and died from cancer in 1992.




The fact his company went under is 100% his fault. What did he do with the Millions he made? Did he put it all back into real estate? Did he ever hear of diversification?

If he was smart he should have seen it coming and got out when he could.

[anthonyvop]

I'm not greedy. I rather do something I enjoy instead of chasing money.
Then why are you complaining?

[Jag_Warrior]

Since this thread started with a mention of the movie Wall Street, it wouldn't be complete without mentioning a man who was one of the iconic faces of 1980's greed in America: Michael Milken... an evil financial genius. Back then, Milken made more money in one year (approximately $500 million) than anyone since Al Capone. To me (at that time), he was a hero. I even opened an account with Drexel Burnham Lambert just to have a loose connection to this "great" man. Little did I know... :rolleyes:

But if you want a picture of greed (real greed... by the actual definition), Michael would be it. He will probably go down as one of the most intelligent and savvy people to have ever worked on Wall Street. But he was also probably responsible for more destruction in the American economy than any other single person over the past 50 years. The fictional character, Gordon Gekko, was a toothless, little mouse compared to Michael Milken. But back then, I thought Milken's complete obsession with money, over everything else, was cool.

Some people eventually see the light. Some people don't. Once your soul has a price tag attached to it, you're no longer much of a human being, IMO. That doesn't mean that one should live like a pauper. But anything taken to excess is usually bad. And THAT is what greed is: the excessive, obsessive pursuit of money and possessions... over everything else.

[Eki]

Some people eventually see the light. Some people don't. Once your soul has a price tag attached to it, you're no longer much of a human being, IMO. That doesn't mean that one should live like a pauper. But anything taken to excess is usually bad. And THAT is what greed is: the excessive, obsessive pursuit of money and possessions... over everything else.
Well put.

IMO when you have more money than you have time to spend it, you're being greedy.

[BDunnell]

Some people eventually see the light. Some people don't. Once your soul has a price tag attached to it, you're no longer much of a human being, IMO. That doesn't mean that one should live like a pauper. But anything taken to excess is usually bad. And THAT is what greed is: the excessive, obsessive pursuit of money and possessions... over everything else.

Very well put indeed. There is an utter soullessness about such people.

[BDunnell]

What did he do with the Millions he made?

If we're into asking questions, why the capital on millions? You accuse others of not being smart while committing some quite nasty grammatical errors.