SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: GerPol who wrote (232)11/9/2000 1:22:30 AM
From: Gulo  Respond to of 37053
 
>Much like a doctor makes the decision to work in a field with far longer hours and less reward then....say...CEO's?


Not true. I'm afraid that you have a very distorted view of the world.

Doctors make a decision to work in a field that is usually very rewarding, financially and otherwise. The sad fact is that most CEOs do not make very much money compared to, say, a refinery operator - and they work far more hours. That is because most CEOs are CEOs of very small companies, many of which barely eke out an existence. Only the very few CEOs of the few very large companies make the kind of money that seems to upset you, and they have less job security than most people do.

As a shareholder, I have questioned the salaries and benefits of CEOs of some public companies. Usually, the only reason they can keep an undeserved compensation plan is that individual shareholders are too lazy to vote. That, and the fact that most 'investors' hold mutual funds, which puts the power in the hands of far fewer people. I don't doubt that there is some collusion between the financial industry and the establishment companies, but I don't lose sleep over it. If I don't like what I see in a company, I don't invest in it.

-g

Edit: Re protecting rights - I don't despise government. I despise this government. It is not the concept of government itself which is offensive. Bad government is offensive. Unfortunately, government seems bent on protecting 'rights' which shouldn't even be considered rights (e.g., protecting domestic industries from competition) and neglects to protect the fundamental rights of individuals.

>Could our children be taught at a "very" young age to be less competitive, less GREEDY?

Yes. But would that be a good thing? What is 'greedy' anyways? Is there a difference between motivated self-interest and greed? Is it a matter of degree or a matter of perspective?

I think that what we normally consider to be greed is often simply a case of self-interest pursued by a person with a limited perspective of what their interests actually are. Does your typical greedy coworker really want the alienation that comes with pushing a little too hard? Or does she simply have a skewed perspective of what is important? Maybe it is important to teach our kids perspective than to teach them to not want material wealth.



To: GerPol who wrote (232)11/9/2000 1:03:12 PM
From: canuck-l-head  Respond to of 37053
 
GerPol: Curious - what's with the Zzzzzzzz?

The above is oh so true, now who is it you see controlling this unfettered GREED the police state or political state?

Actually, I believe that control of greed should remain the responsibility of the individual. Our parents instilled morals in us because they didn't want us growing up to be little pricks. And as an adult, I think that we need to continually assess our morals in the context of the life we are living at the time. There are times when I stand firm with my clients, and there are times when I let them walk all over me. I never "like" it when people run roughshod over my integrity, but I know that there are times when my clients need to let off steam, and they direct it at me. That's life.

My parents were farmers, and as such, the only fear they instilled in me was a fear of government. Government was the only thing they could not control and were powerless over. They even had some influence at the bank when they wanted to borrow more money to stay on the farm. But Government was unpredictable and unaccountable.

But my parents also instilled a sense of accepting the blame for my stupidity. Over the years, my Mom and Dad were critical of young fellows who started farming, bought all kinds of new equipment, and went bankrupt. They were the BIG WHEELS that only proved their lack of good judgement. My Dad always drove second-hand vehicles and second-hand equipment that he could maintain and fix himself. It was and is cost-effective. And because my Mom and Dad were frugal, careful, and diligent, they have retired in comfort. I applaud their foresight and the sacrifices they made.

As for myself, I personally challenge myself to NOT get greedy. I accept that the responsibility to act appropriately toward my fellow men is MY OWN RESPONSIBILITY. And that is something I applaud George W. Bush for pointing out in one of the Presidential debates - that each family has the responsibility to provide a basis of morals and values.

Just this morning, one of my favourite clients wanted some on-site tech support. I went there, taking a total of an hour out of my day. Normally, I would have billed for an hour's time. But today, I slapped him on the back and said, "Hey, Christmas is coming, isn't it? How about I not charge you for my trip today?"

He laughed and said it was entirely up to me. I could have charged. I normally do. But I know that my generosity will please my client, and he won't question my future bills. It's a win-win gesture.

Is greed not the very food capitalism depends on?

Not entirely. There are personal drives, intrinsic motivations that propel many of us to get out of bed every morning and do a little more, a little better than we did the day before. I can honestly say that I don't understand the minds of those who LIKE to sit on welfare. I see it as a waste of personal initiative, personal potential, and a shirking of personal responsibility. We all can't live "on the dole", because there always has to be someone doing the work to feed and clothe and house all those who are like kept pets waiting at their food dish. I know from life experience that nothing is free. Not even freedom.

Competition has brought many of the inventions that you benefit from today. The telephone, the airplane, penicillin, the polio vaccine (THAT one is an interesting story), the internal combustion engine. The men and women who brought these items to reality either saw a need that they could fill for themselves; saw a need they could fulfill for their fellow men; or saw the fact that someone else was about to beat them to the finish line.

Competition is healthy, free thought is healthy, and intrinsic drives are healthy. But too much of anything isn't always healthy. That's where the capacity to learn from our mistakes comes to play. Olympic athletes training for an event know when too much training is detrimental. Too much speed in a motor vehicle is detrimental, but so is NOT ENOUGH. What society needs is to instill in its children the ability to assess risks, pursue goals, and appreciate life for what it is - an exercise.

Can we agree REAL "Communism" never really existed anywhere?

Yes. I don't think pure Communism exists. It has too many contradictions within its ideology to be even true to itself.

IF...Taking greed out of human nature would communism be a viable life style? Could our children be taught at a "very" young age to be less competitive, less GREEDY?

Sure. Canadian children are already being taught to be less competitive, and it's not always good because it stifles personal creativity and gives a false impression of the real world. Communism, too, is based on a few idealistic principles that cannot be applied to the REAL world. Competition is necessary for the human race to survive.

The other untruth children are told in the formal education system is that they can go out into the real world and be anything they want. That, as you well know, is completely false, because reality always seems to get in the way.

It isn't unusual for each generation of kids to think that they have all the answers, and that their parents are stupid. But kids don't have the capacity and life experience to be able to apply their grand schemes succesfully. When reality smacks them up the side of the head, they become bitter because they get out of school, or they try to put themselves through University, and end up working at barely over the minimum wage. THAT, my friend, is reality.

I have been overwhelmed with bitterness at certain points in my own life. But I realized then and know now that what happens to me or fails to happen to me is a combination of what I expect from the world; what I put in; and whether I am being realistic.

There is nothing that can replace experience. What I offer my clients is a combination of my years of experience and my ability to learn and keep pace with technological changes. There is no way that a University graduate can do what I do, and do it as well. I am competitive. I believe I offer a service better than 95% of the people in my field in the city I live in, and I believe my clients benefit from my "drive". I am a perfectionist, and it enables me to like myself and take pride in my work.

Much like a doctor makes the decision to work in a field with far longer hours and less reward then....say...CEO's?

I think there are a lot of CEO's who work long hours, and a lot of CEO's who "cruise". I don't believe that CEO's can be painted with one brush.

As with some of my previous posts, I think it is imperative that Canadians accept PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for their lives, their actions, their successes and their shortcomings.

Government attempts to unload the burden of responsibility from the individual to the state are completely unnecessary, and will create more social problems and crises than they will ever solve. People are born with a brain, and like anything, "Use it or lose it."

And, "If it's not broke, don't fix it."

Your thoughts?

canuck-l-head