Society should be organized by...

[Howey]

you're applying absolutes to what I'm saying.

Abstract reasoning!

[lil mike]

If it comes off disconnected or idealistic, it's because you're applying absolutes to what I'm saying.  Of course people can and will be released (fired) from companies/businesses.  If it's what's required as the only alternative of mismanaged practices or an ever turbulent part of commerce not expected.  Heck, it could be the employee themselves (and is quite frequently) that signs their own walking papers through ineptness or douche baggery.

You're equating all aspects of profit (motives, origins, pursuit of) as one defining single paradigm that ultimately has no other purpose than the bottom line, *whatever* that entails...as if its a sentient force unable to be anything other than what it is...and we're all along for a ride on the tail ...subject completely to it's whim.

That's the type of static rhetoric that excludes all other realities, even when you're living it and its brought us to this point...as it has before.  It's just barely a 100 years and we're fighting tooth and nail to repeat our previous financial explosion...except now, it's global.

I  don't think it comes off as particularly idealistic, but disconnected; yes.  I'm trying to connect your rejection of the profit motive with a viable alternative as opposed to merely a rejection of the status quo.  I didn't expect you to object to crappy employees being fired.  The other employees are glad those guys are gone.  But for example if a company finds that they can buy a software program for a price cheaper than their average employee's bi weekly wage, and it can replace 12 employees, what is the ethical boss to do?

You've stated that "You're employees are counting on you to have their best interests as part of the overall reasoning for success.  If they're viewed as just a necessary evil that can be expunged if it's more profitable to just gut and collapse their workplace for resale, insurance money, bankruptcy...you're in it for the wrong reasons."  So should the boss not buy the software program, and purposely keep those employees on the job, or is there a fiduciary responsibility to have efficient and profitable, operations?

[uselesslegs]

I  don't think it comes off as particularly idealistic, but disconnected; yes.  I'm trying to connect your rejection of the profit motive with a viable alternative as opposed to merely a rejection of the status quo.  I didn't expect you to object to crappy employees being fired.  The other employees are glad those guys are gone.  But for example if a company finds that they can buy a software program for a price cheaper than their average employee's bi weekly wage, and it can replace 12 employees, what is the ethical boss to do?

You've stated that "You're employees are counting on you to have their best interests as part of the overall reasoning for success.  If they're viewed as just a necessary evil that can be expunged if it's more profitable to just gut and collapse their workplace for resale, insurance money, bankruptcy...you're in it for the wrong reasons."  So should the boss not buy the software program, and purposely keep those employees on the job, or is there a fiduciary responsibility to have efficient and profitable, operations?

I'm not rejecting the profit motive, never have.  Making a profit AND a stable society and citizenry aren't mutually exclusive, unless you're going to set up a dynamic that MAKES them mutually exclusive and solidify that exclusivity by defining a concept (capitalism/commerce) in absolute terms.

"9 billion dollars is a hell of a fucking profit! Our companies sound, our employees are happy, our economies stable and we project 11 billion by next year!"

"9 billion dollars is a hell of a fucking profit!  BUT, we could have made 12 billion if we moved our operations overseas, paid those employees much much less, added to the destabilization of our homeland stability and we project 15 billion by next year!"

We're at a crossroads, at this point in our history.  Do we use a concept to better our society and it's citizenry or do we use a concept to justify absolutes that derail society and it's citizenry?

Greed can be a good motivator.  Heck, it can even be behind innovation, technology, goods and services when it comes to commerce...but greed devoid of any other intentions, than greed, is a run away destructive force that ALWAYS eventually has detrimental consequences.

[lil mike]

I'm not rejecting the profit motive, never have.  Making a profit AND a stable society and citizenry aren't mutually exclusive, unless you're going to set up a dynamic that MAKES them mutually exclusive and solidify that exclusivity by defining a concept (capitalism/commerce) in absolute terms.

"9 billion dollars is a hell of a fucking profit! Our companies sound, our employees are happy, our economies stable and we project 11 billion by next year!"

"9 billion dollars is a hell of a fucking profit!  BUT, we could have made 12 billion if we moved our operations overseas, paid those employees much much less, added to the destabilization of our homeland stability and we project 15 billion by next year!"

We're at a crossroads, at this point in our history.  Do we use a concept to better our society and it's citizenry or do we use a concept to justify absolutes that derail society and it's citizenry?

Greed can be a good motivator.  Heck, it can even be behind innovation, technology, goods and services when it comes to commerce...but greed devoid of any other intentions, than greed, is a run away destructive force that ALWAYS eventually has detrimental consequences.

Well the way I read your initial post was that you did reject the profit motive.  Although at this point I should ask, why not?  I quoted Adam Smith in my first post to show how everyone's "greed" satisfies what everyone wants and creates an economic system.    But you implicitedly rejected the concept of any such system didn't recognize anything in the least bit natural as to how a market works.

So given that, why tolerate the profit motive?  I mean, what do you require to have a "stable society and citizenry?"  Can you conceive of a way of doing that without the profit motive?

[uselesslegs]

Well the way I read your initial post was that you did reject the profit motive.  Although at this point I should ask, why not?  I quoted Adam Smith in my first post to show how everyone's "greed" satisfies what everyone wants and creates an economic system.    But you implicitedly rejected the concept of any such system didn't recognize anything in the least bit natural as to how a market works.

So given that, why tolerate the profit motive?  I mean, what do you require to have a "stable society and citizenry?"  Can you conceive of a way of doing that without the profit motive?

Criticism is not an unequivocal indictment. It can be in some instances, but I'm not rebuking the whole of capitalism. I never was.  I can criticize (even heavily) many things and that's not a pronouncement of patent dismantling of, or revocation of, that which I take issue with.

I think you see any criticism as an entire incrimination and that's not what I've been saying.  I thought, in-between my babbling (my apologies), my entire undercurrent was how I was heavily criticizing destructive capitalism, not capitalism.  They are separate. Perhaps to you, they are not...and if that's the case...then we're not going to find any middle ground for discourse.

[lil mike]

Criticism is not an unequivocal indictment. It can be in some instances, but I'm not rebuking the whole of capitalism. I never was.  I can criticize (even heavily) many things and that's not a pronouncement of patent dismantling of, or revocation of, that which I take issue with.

I think you see any criticism as an entire incrimination and that's not what I've been saying.  I thought, in-between my babbling (my apologies), my entire undercurrent was how I was heavily criticizing destructive capitalism, not capitalism.  They are separate. Perhaps to you, they are not...and if that's the case...then we're not going to find any middle ground for discourse.

It's not just any criticism, it's the specific criticism you made about the basis of the capitalist system, "When you're ultimate goal is profit, whether a company fails or is successful, you're in it for the wrong reasons."

All I was saying is that those are exactly the right reasons to be in business.  You see it as a bug, I see it as a feature.  It's not like you were making a critique of this or that feature, but the very basis of capitalism.  So I don't think it's unfair of me to ask, what is your alternative to the profit motive, if you don't feel that people should be in business for profit?

[Howey]

It's not just any criticism, it's the specific criticism you made about the basis of the capitalist system, "When you're ultimate goal is profit, whether a company fails or is successful, you're in it for the wrong reasons."

All I was saying is that those are exactly the right reasons to be in business.  You see it as a bug, I see it as a feature.  It's not like you were making a critique of this or that feature, but the very basis of capitalism.  So I don't think it's unfair of me to ask, what is your alternative to the profit motive, if you don't feel that people should be in business for profit?

The last time the intrinsic greed of capitalism teetered towards plutocracy ended with congressional hearings on the White House Putsch. This country is rapidly heading towards it again if the greed isn't stopped.

Sure...make all the money you want. Fuck over your employees all you want. Downsize all you want. Outsource all you want. It'll come around and bite you in the ass some day...

[ekg]

It's not just any criticism, it's the specific criticism you made about the basis of the capitalist system, "When you're ultimate goal is profit, whether a company fails or is successful, you're in it for the wrong reasons."

All I was saying is that those are exactly the right reasons to be in business.  You see it as a bug, I see it as a feature.  It's not like you were making a critique of this or that feature, but the very basis of capitalism.  So I don't think it's unfair of me to ask, what is your alternative to the profit motive, if you don't feel that people should be in business for profit?

huh... so you do do this to other ppl..

ya know, run them into the ground until there is nothing left but insults and anger because you can't seem to take the answers they've given you, ad nauseam .. ..

always digging for that 'gotcha' aren't you...

[uselesslegs]

It's not just any criticism, it's the specific criticism you made about the basis of the capitalist system, "When you're ultimate goal is profit, whether a company fails or is successful, you're in it for the wrong reasons."

All I was saying is that those are exactly the right reasons to be in business.  You see it as a bug, I see it as a feature.  It's not like you were making a critique of this or that feature, but the very basis of capitalism.  So I don't think it's unfair of me to ask, what is your alternative to the profit motive, if you don't feel that people should be in business for profit?

That particular quote of mine, "When you're ultimate goal is profit, whether a company fails or is successful, you're in it for the wrong reasons", was my admonishment of the practices, like those at Bain, where purposeful gutting at the expense of employees who didn't HAVE to be let go, or unnecessary company *restructuring*, or a host of other procedures that took place, were done specifically to not stabilize the company for the long term...but to stabilize it long enough, polish it up enough, to roll it over for cash.  Company bankruptcy or jobs be damned.  The pay off is the prize.  That lines the pockets of a few, at the expense of not only the company that's now gone, but of the workers who's livelihood were intertwined with the company...and by proxy the community or town.  Now, let's move onto the next "venture."

You're being absolute about a concept and treating any critique as an impurity that changes it to such a degree, that it now must be replaced or doesn't resemble what it use to...so what is my replacement? I don't want to replace it.  I want it to work for society, not at it's expense.  The augmentation I suggest does not kill capitalism, it stops capitalism from ravaging economies for personal enrichment at the expense of society, while STILL offering undreamed up profits that only the very few will still experience.

Does it not count as capitalism unless there's rampant fraudulent pursuits of profit? Does it not count as capitalism unless workers are fired for the singular purpose of profit...and not a companies actual viability at stake or employee ineptness?

I think I've made myself pretty clear through this back and forth.  Capitalism is an instrument, a concept...a tool.  As I've said before, it is exactly what we allow it to be.  It does not take on any form, other than that which we permit.

It's no different than a needle.  We can use it to inject things which are good or we can use it to inject poison.  The needle has zero say, it is merely the delivery device.

[lil mike]

huh... so you do do this to other ppl..

ya know, run them into the ground until there is nothing left but insults and anger because you can't seem to take the answers they've given you, ad nauseam .. ..

always digging for that 'gotcha' aren't you...

There is no "gotcha" here.  And there isn't any insults or anger either.  At least from my end.  If Chuck is angry at me or has insulted me, he's been rather subtle about it.  I know why you are angry and insulting... because you do it and can't conceive of anyone else not responding that way.  I'm just trying to dig deep and have a substantive conversation on this board.  You seem to be struggling against that.

[lil mike]

That particular quote of mine, "When you're ultimate goal is profit, whether a company fails or is successful, you're in it for the wrong reasons", was my admonishment of the practices, like those at Bain, where purposeful gutting at the expense of employees who didn't HAVE to be let go, or unnecessary company *restructuring*, or a host of other procedures that took place, were done specifically to not stabilize the company for the long term...but to stabilize it long enough, polish it up enough, to roll it over for cash.  Company bankruptcy or jobs be damned.  The pay off is the prize.  That lines the pockets of a few, at the expense of not only the company that's now gone, but of the workers who's livelihood were intertwined with the company...and by proxy the community or town.  Now, let's move onto the next "venture."

How do you know that the people that Bain let go didn't have to be let go?  That's a pretty high level accounting call I would think.  Most people who have a job depend on the livelihood it provides and would be devastated if they lost their job.  I know I would, and  I don't doubt that was true for the people who worked for the companies Bain restructured.  But I don't know how you (and I mean you, not the accountants who vett the numbers) determine that Bain got rid of too many jobs.  For any company, including healthy ones that are not being restructured, the right number of employees is the number that provides value.  That's not a personal call on what the job means to the employee, it's what the employee can do for the company.

You're being absolute about a concept and treating any critique as an impurity that changes it to such a degree, that it now must be replaced or doesn't resemble what it use to...so what is my replacement? I don't want to replace it.  I want it to work for society, not at it's expense.  The augmentation I suggest does not kill capitalism, it stops capitalism from ravaging economies for personal enrichment at the expense of society, while STILL offering undreamed up profits that only the very few will still experience.

I don't think I'm being absolute, but I don't see what sort of reforms or changes you want to implement that would provide what you want, which seems to be some other governing principle besides profit for capitalism.  I mean, what is the augmentation that allow that?

Does it not count as capitalism unless there's rampant fraudulent pursuits of profit? Does it not count as capitalism unless workers are fired for the singular purpose of profit...and not a companies actual viability at stake or employee ineptness?

I think I've made myself pretty clear through this back and forth.  Capitalism is an instrument, a concept...a tool.  As I've said before, it is exactly what we allow it to be.  It does not take on any form, other than that which we permit.

It's no different than a needle.  We can use it to inject things which are good or we can use it to inject poison.  The needle has zero say, it is merely the delivery device.

Where do you draw the line between honest profits and "rampant fraudulent pursuits of profit?"  Somewhere you have a pretty good idea of where that line is, but I don't think you've expressed it in a way that could be useful guide for business or government.

[ekg]

There is no "gotcha" here.  And there isn't any insults or anger either.  At least from my end.  If Chuck is angry at me or has insulted me, he's been rather subtle about it.  I know why you are angry and insulting... because you do it and can't conceive of anyone else not responding that way.  I'm just trying to dig deep and have a substantive conversation on this board.  You seem to be struggling against that.

hahahahha... I can't believe that went over your head like that.

I didn't say there were insults... I said you like to wear people down with your 'kazziness'... until nothing left but insults and anger because you can't seem to take the answers they've given you, ad nauseam .. . nothing in that implies there was anger or insults yet..

Chuck has said he's ok with capitalism.. only to have you continue to ask "what would you change it to since you don't like capitalism"

you're in Kaz-bot mode and looking for something from him to hold over him at a later date...and until you get that, you'll continue to 'bot' him...

it's pure money that you would go straight to the insults when answering me tho...

[Howey]

it's pure money that you would go straight to the insults when answering me tho...

Wait. Didn't he just say this?

And there isn't any insults or anger either.  At least from my end.

He would nevah insult!

Meanwhile (not that he needs it) more in support of Chuck:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/whats-at-stake-in-fridays-jobs-report/?hp

The economy has been growing now for 10 straight quarters. It has even made up the ground lost from the recession, and the United States now churns out more goods and services than it did before the downturn began in 2007. But that output is being produced with six million fewer workers, despite population growth.

As a result, the share of income produced in the country that is flowing to workers’ bank accounts has been steadily shrinking.

Of every dollar of income earned in the United States in the third quarter of 2011 — the latest period for which data is available — just 44 cents went to workers’ wages and salaries. That is the smallest share since the government began keeping track in 1947….

On the other hand, American businesses are doing extremely well.

Tepid job growth, stagnant wages for existing employees and growing international demand for American products have all helped corporate profit margins reach all-time highs.

In retrospect, I guess I should have bolded everything...

[Howey]

Wait. Didn't he just say this?

He would nevah insult!

Meanwhile (not that he needs it) more in support of Chuck:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/whats-at-stake-in-fridays-jobs-report/?hp

In retrospect, I guess I should have bolded everything...

Sounds like class warfare to me.

[ekg]

That particular quote of mine, "When you're ultimate goal is profit, whether a company fails or is successful, you're in it for the wrong reasons", was my admonishment of the practices, like those at Bain, where purposeful gutting at the expense of employees who didn't HAVE to be let go, or unnecessary company *restructuring*, or a host of other procedures that took place, were done specifically to not stabilize the company for the long term...but to stabilize it long enough, polish it up enough, to roll it over for cash.  Company bankruptcy or jobs be damned.  

ah, you mean a big company taking over another smaller company with investor's money... then using that small company's assets to take out a massive loan, and the big company using that loan to pay themselves and calling it cap gains so that they are only taxed at 15%... all the while having the leveraged smaller company being the responsible party to the loan.. and when they can't pay it, they are forced to file for bankruptcy and close up shop 2 years or so later?.. with the original investors to the buyout losing their investments as well? not too mention all the employee of that smaller company losing their jobs?

well if you don't agree with that, then you're just a communist..