>>>>Not necessarily. I'm not claiming anything at all about sociopathic behaviour other than in order to become the CEO in a major corporation, it helps to be sociopathic to some extent. And, I expect that usually it is not so much the best interest of the company that is the goal of that CEO, but more, power and money garnered to him/herself.
>>>
>>>I always find it curious when people ascribe to others motives that are so much more base than their own <s> Isn't it just possible that CEOs are driven by the same things you are - they've just pointed their energies in another direction? Most of the petty tyrants I've met in business have been middle management and are reacting to a frustration with lack of success - and that has probably also been part of the reason.
>>
>>Curious why? I only ascribe those motives to others that I think have those motives. Had I those motives, I might also be a CEO. If they were driven by the same things I am, they wouldn't be pointing their energies in another direction, would they? As far as lack of success of some middle managers, it makes sense. One of them will ultimately become the CEO very likely, and as for the current CEO? Why would he want somebody vying with him for power?
>>
>>>>>Look at public education. It didn't happen because social reformers thought it would be nice if people could read it happened because captalists perceived a literate workforce as being good for the bottom line. Political demagogues would have preferred illiterate mobs that could be manipulated by the elite.
>>>>
>>>>I have to question that. If that were the case, then public education would only have grown up where such employees were needed. Public education in outlying areas where men were expected to go to work in the mines, in the forests, building railroads, etc should never have happened. But they did - even though kids growing up in those areas were never expected really to need to be able to read and write.
>>>
>>>Public education was first argued by the likes of Mann and Barnard as good for society because it would produce good citizens and be a unifying and stabilizing factor for society. As
>>
>>I thought your argument was that it was for economic reasons, and not for moral reasons. "good citizens" and "stabilizing factor" sound like moral reasons. Where is "it'll help our bottom line"?
>>
>>>immigrant populations increased it was seen as a way of integrating immigrants into the greater society (this, of course, was before the days of bilingual education <s> )
>>>
>>>True that rural areas didn't place the same premium on the social need - and families placed demands the time of students in farm families. The was no compulsory elementary education on a national level until about the time of WWI - 70 years after it was implemented in NY.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I think if those who were pushing the much needed healthcare reform in the US framed the argument in different terms they'd get more support where they need it. It is expensive and inefficient for out society to have anyone who does not have good health insurance and is one of those win-lose situations that is destabilizing. Good universal health care does not have to be argued strictly on theoretical or charitable grounds. It is good for everybody.
>>>>
>>>>But it's not good for those making fortunes from private health care. Universal health care might well cause a lowering in the incomes of those running the private systems now. So argued on any other basis than moral, it's unlikely to gain much traction at all.
>>>>
>>>>That's like saying that unemployment is bad for society. Yes on moral grounds, very much NO according to economic wizards.
>>>
>>>I don't know what economic wizards you are talking about but unemployment is a sign of inefficient use of resources. If you sell goods, you need people to sell them to. Unemployed people are a negative on the society. I don't think "economic wizards" would tell you 20% unemployment is better for society that 4%.
>>
>>There is a line (I'm not sure where, but I think about 6%) where unemployment is seen as economically necessary, mostly for inflationary reasons. I've never heard any economist say that 100% employment would be a good thing.
>>
>>>>>That was always a strong argument against institutional racism or sexism. Sure it's immoral, but it is also very bad for the economy and the society.
>>>>
>>>>How can you possibly say that when you consider that the fortunes of so many were built on the backs of slave labour?
>>>
>>>Rome was built on slave labor. It was one of the reasons economists will tell you Roman society suffered economically. It is not a good economic model. Moral arguments were used to
>>
>>Most societies at some point were built on slave, or near-slave labour. It made a lot of people very rich.
>>
>>>support the idea of slavery and subjugation of women as often as to oppose it. But the most compelling argument was that losing productivity of a large portion of the population would put the society at a disadvantage - as WWI and WWII proved. Having large groups of the population who are not allowed to contribute to the full extent of their abilities is obviously not good for the society. That is not to say the moral argument is not compelling, just that it is not the whole story.
>>
>>I still say that had the wars not happened, women would still be 50 years further behind. Nobody seemed to be making the argument that women in the workforce would be economically advantageous until there was no other choice.
>>
>>>My point is that there are solid economic reasons for social justice and those arguments do not get made when they should be.
>>
>>>>Do you honestly think that blacks and women won the right to vote because corporations thought it was good for the economy? Which economic gurus were preaching that? If it hadn't been for the fact that men were off fighting wars and there was, finally, no other choice, women would still be about 50 years behind where they are now.
>>
>>>>>Same with predatory practices that are actually in restraint of trade. It is bad economics. Being a ruthless businessman is not the same thing as being a good businessman. There are a lot of factors involved in business success. When they are all in line the business actually makes more money with less hassle.
>>>>
>>>>>Adam Smith actually got all that - a long time ago and with a much deeper understanding of the future than anything Marx cobbled together.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't recall who wrote it, but somebody said that in order to be the CEO of a major corporation, one needs to be relatively sociopathic. Within sane limits, I believe that, and I'm not convinced it's a good thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think to be a successful CEO you need exactly the opposite - you need to understand the long-term best interests of the corporations - and the larger the company and the further its reach the more that is intertwined with the health of the society.
>>>>
>>>>>That is not to say people always behave that way, but you can't legislate them to do so - only educate them as to their own best interests.
>>>>
>>>>>People vote with their dollars and voter turnout is high. And a lot of those voters are very offended by the self-proclaimed elite who claim they vote those dollars as they do only because they are stupid sheep who aren't sophisticated enough to understand what they want. I think there is too much emphasis on educating the unwashed masses not to shop at Walmart and not enough on educating the capitalists on the nature of intelligent capitalism.
>>>>
>>>>And why do you suppose that is? Is it not because that's what makes more sense from a greed standpoint, which is the grease on which our society runs?
>>>
>>>I'm really not sure if your point is that people (except you) are greedy and evil (except maybe also for elected officials who know best and can protect us - who are presumably less evil and/or greedy - from evil greedy people - who can be identfied by wealth or success or failure to feel guilty. This sounds like the deeply insightful "mean people suck" bumper sticker. While you may be describing certain aspects of human behavior I don't think you're describing the multiple roles we all play in society. Sounds more like a class argument and I think those hold up even less well in modern society than they did 150 years ago.
>>
>>No, my argument is not that other people are greedy and evil, only that in order to become rich and powerful in our society it helps to be greedy and evil (not counting winning powerball).
>>
>>Yes, we do all play multiple roles, but what kind of person must one be to neglect one's family, tread on one's friends, scratch and claw, and all for the sake of 'getting to the top of the heap'? I seriously do not believe that Kenneth Lay was a rare creature. If a lot of CEOs are acting more honestly these days, it's only because a few got caught, and not necessarily due to some internal moral imperative they've been successfully hiding all this time.
>>
>>These people don't get there very often by being Mr. Nice Guy. I realise I sound like I'm generalising, but that's only because I am. I know that not every individual at the top of a corporation is an amoral jerk, but I honestly do believe that the ones who are overwhelmingly outnumber those who are not. I was a middle manager at a previous firm, and I thank my stars I never had to fire anyone. I got to the point where I just had to get out of there before that could happen. What must it take to call some father or mother in and tell them they've been let go, knowing it's being done so that the upper managers can cut costs in order to increase their own bonuses.
>>
>>When CEOs and their ilk stop getting obscene bonuses on top of salaries that make no sense on any level I can imagine compared with the salaries they pay their lower staff, maybe then I'll start thinking that they're not so greedy after all. I mean, these people get huge bonuses even with poor results. The guys down below get laid off. And before you ask, no, I'm not a victim, but I've known a few.
>
>
>What happened to your belief (maybe it wasn't you) that humans are generally all good? Or does this not apply to CEOs....

That wasn't me. My belief is that people are born with instinctive priorities that are not really good or bad. Most of us learn over time that it is best for our own well being to supress some instincts and live according to societal standards. Some people don't. Those are the ones who become hit men or CEOs. ;)