Maybe Rich, Greedy, Corporate CEO's Should Be Running This Country?

reply to post by JiggyPotamus


Thank you for some sanity

I cannot understand why people are unable to see how these dynamics work

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by monkeyfartbreath

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by monkeyfartbreath

 

Apparently you don't understand the real history and industry practices of banking. Care to be enlightened?

I would love to be. So are we saying all people that are wealthy or inherited wealth became wealthy from banking?

Define wealthy in your own view, and I'll fill in the answers...

Well one could define wealth in a myriad of ways. I would say someone who wakes up to a view of a lake or an ocean is wealthy or someone who does a job they love is wealthy or someone who has a beautiful wife that is the love of their live is wealthy but I doubt that is what you are looking for.

So wealthy would be someone who doesnt have to work, because their money/assetts produces enough income for them that they do no need to work.

Does that suffice?

reply to post by monkeyfartbreath


How about a businessman whose sole purpose is to find loopholes in preexisting patients in order to postpone their insurance payout until the person is too dead to make a phone call? This leaves the family burdened with their Loved One's medical bills while he takes a bonus. To top it off... Another businessman whose sole purpose is to seize assets from the estate.

Originally posted by monkeyfartbreath

Originally posted by Daughter2

Originally posted by Alxandro
The only way this can happen is to apply the same principles that it takes to run a successful corporation and quit spending money that we don't have.

What makes you think these rich CEO's are running SUCCESSFUL corporations? Many of these super rich ran corporations into the ground all while sucking money into their bonuses.

While it's true there a few people who actually successful businesses (mainly a few in the tech industry) most were born into wealth - wealth that was created by unethical means.

What does it matter if they were born into wealth. That means their parents passed down what they earned to them. Don't most parents have a goal of leaving their children better off then they were. Very little wealth is created by unethical means and usually only lasts temporarily. You would understand this if you studied history a bit more.

Well, first it matters because the OP point is these people have a talent for running organizations. Most likely, it wasn't their talent, it was daddy giving them a check.

Second, if you want to study history of the wealthy start with the Koch brothers. Here's a bit of their history:
www.bloomberg.com...

Originally posted by monkeyfartbreath

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by monkeyfartbreath

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by monkeyfartbreath

 

Apparently you don't understand the real history and industry practices of banking. Care to be enlightened?

I would love to be. So are we saying all people that are wealthy or inherited wealth became wealthy from banking?

Define wealthy in your own view, and I'll fill in the answers...

Well one could define wealth in a myriad of ways. I would say someone who wakes up to a view of a lake or an ocean is wealthy or someone who does a job they love is wealthy or someone who has a beautiful wife that is the love of their live is wealthy but I doubt that is what you are looking for.

So wealthy would be someone who doesnt have to work, because their money/assetts produces enough income for them that they do no need to work.

Does that suffice?

Fair enough... So having ample leisure time defines wealthy in your view along with being both happy and content? Does merit or integrity play a factor?

reply to post by Daughter2


Haliburton does the same thing under an umbrella corporation named HB. That's if I'm not mistaken.

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by monkeyfartbreath

 

How about a businessman whose sole purpose is to find loopholes in preexisting patients in order to postpone their insurance payout until the person is too dead to make a phone call? This leaves the family burdened with their Loved One's medical bills while he takes a bonus. To top it off... Another businessman whose sole purpose is to seize assets from the estate.

edit on 16-10-2011 by Americanist because: (no reason given)

Well really when you think about it honestly the people that do that are just low to middle tier people in the insurance industry. This really doesnt happen that much unless there is a real basis for it. The reason is not because they are compassionate, but because the amount they would lose in being sued and or convicted if they were caught is much greater than what they would save.

My friends mom just died of breast cancer and I loved her like a mother. Her care cost millions and she had a pretty good quality of life until the end. The insurance company paid out right around 4.5 million keeping her alive. They never once refused to pay a dime, but rather they facilitated her finding the best care possible.

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by monkeyfartbreath

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by monkeyfartbreath

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by monkeyfartbreath

 

Apparently you don't understand the real history and industry practices of banking. Care to be enlightened?

I would love to be. So are we saying all people that are wealthy or inherited wealth became wealthy from banking?

Define wealthy in your own view, and I'll fill in the answers...

Well one could define wealth in a myriad of ways. I would say someone who wakes up to a view of a lake or an ocean is wealthy or someone who does a job they love is wealthy or someone who has a beautiful wife that is the love of their live is wealthy but I doubt that is what you are looking for.

So wealthy would be someone who doesnt have to work, because their money/assetts produces enough income for them that they do no need to work.

Does that suffice?

Fair enough... So having ample leisure time defines wealthy in your view along with being both happy and content? Does merit or integrity play a factor?

Good question. I think that answer would be different for each person based on their values, needs, wants, and likes and dislikes.

I can only answer for me, but leisure time for me is uncomfortable. I have a hard time thinking of fun things to do and I dont like to lay around unless I am sick or something. I think happiness and contentness come from within and are more of a factor of your spiritual health than anything external. For example, some of the richest people on earth are neither happy nor content, whereas some of the poorest people are able to attain this.

For me, I like to accomplish things and the fun is mostly in the journey getting their. Very rarely am I fulfilled by attaining something new, but rather I was fulfilled in the quest for something new or different. I would be miserable if someone gave me everything I wanted and I didnt have to work and take risk to attain it, but I know that is not true for everyone. Somebody people enjoy getting other people to pay to take care of them and feel entitled to the latest gadgets. I attribute that to a form of spiritual illness.

reply to post by Alxandro


They said the same thing about the Vietnam protestors. Without them, more troops would have lost their lives and that unpopular war would have gone on longer.

Since when do protests select who decides to join in and protest? The Tea Party has had questionable people protesting with them. Some of Sarah Palin backers were even clueless. Ron Paul has some on the fringe backers. You don't have to fill out an application to join a protest. Your thread is conveying exactly what our new media wants you to believe.

So are you not being highly selective on who you're painting with a broad brush?

People are just sick of the way things are run and want change. Not everyone there supports Obama. Its been going on for a long time, the people are tired and don't get sleep. Let people be people. This is a great country with many freedoms, but it still has alot of problems. If people want change, just let them be heard. Even if you don't agree with it, in general, they deserve some kind of respect for getting off the couch, and off the message board.

yeah, um, no, not without some regulations at least

reply to post by Alxandro


we already have greedy, corrupt, self serving lawmakers already running the country/system

they are usually Lawyers (in place of CEOs)
they are usually BS'ing with their desire to 'serve the public' (a'la Clintoneese double speak)

Originally posted by monkeyfartbreath

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by monkeyfartbreath

 

How about a businessman whose sole purpose is to find loopholes in preexisting patients in order to postpone their insurance payout until the person is too dead to make a phone call? This leaves the family burdened with their Loved One's medical bills while he takes a bonus. To top it off... Another businessman whose sole purpose is to seize assets from the estate.

edit on 16-10-2011 by Americanist because: (no reason given)

Well really when you think about it honestly the people that do that are just low to middle tier people in the insurance industry. This really doesnt happen that much unless there is a real basis for it. The reason is not because they are compassionate, but because the amount they would lose in being sued and or convicted if they were caught is much greater than what they would save.

My friends mom just died of breast cancer and I loved her like a mother. Her care cost millions and she had a pretty good quality of life until the end. The insurance company paid out right around 4.5 million keeping her alive. They never once refused to pay a dime, but rather they facilitated her finding the best care possible.

It sounds as though you consider her fortunate the flow of effort and money never ceased in the attempt to save her life. Certainly more costly than some newer and more promising treatments that haven't received continued funding.

So the CEO cutting this person's check, is ok in your book right? Knowing full well the behavior of his company sponsors draining someone's life savings subsequent to receiving client premiums for years on end. You sure this line of reasoning is what you support? You'd rather have the top tier and CEO of this successful business model run our Country?

Originally posted by WeRpeons
reply to post by Alxandro

 

They said the same thing about the Vietnam protestors. Without them, more troops would have lost their lives and that unpopular war would have gone on longer.

Since when do protests select who decides to join in and protest? The Tea Party has had questionable people protesting with them. Some of Sarah Palin backers were even clueless. Ron Paul has some on the fringe backers. You don't have to fill out an application to join a protest. Your thread is conveying exactly what our new media wants you to believe.

So are you not being highly selective on who you're painting with a broad brush?

Do you remember the boat people,?
www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
www.english.illinois.edu...
jim.com...
STATISTICS OF DEMOCIDE
Chapter 6
Statistics Of
Vietnamese Democide
Estimates, Calculations, And Sources*

By R.J. Rummel
www.hawaii.edu...

Putting together all these consolidations and calculations, I figure that for the years 1945 to 1956 the Vietnamese communists likely killed 242,000 to 922,000 people (line 347). Above this range I show two other estimates of these dead (lines 344 and 345), one at 700,000 and the other at 500,000 dead. Both are contained within the range at which I arrived.

Through torture, executions, and incarceration the French also committed democide during the Indochina War. Although while hints of this are given in the sources, there is not enough information to even estimate a minimum. We can however count the Vietnamese killed when a French heavy cruiser shelled the civilian areas of Haiphong (lines 350 to 357) and add the consolidated range (line 358) in with the total democide (line 364).

Finally, I can calculate the overall democide of Vietnam in the post-Vietnam War period (lines 762 to 764). This amounts to 346,000 to 2,438,000 Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians, probably about 1,040,000.

Originally posted by monkeyfartbreath

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by monkeyfartbreath

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by monkeyfartbreath

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by monkeyfartbreath

 

Apparently you don't understand the real history and industry practices of banking. Care to be enlightened?

I would love to be. So are we saying all people that are wealthy or inherited wealth became wealthy from banking?

Define wealthy in your own view, and I'll fill in the answers...

Well one could define wealth in a myriad of ways. I would say someone who wakes up to a view of a lake or an ocean is wealthy or someone who does a job they love is wealthy or someone who has a beautiful wife that is the love of their live is wealthy but I doubt that is what you are looking for.

So wealthy would be someone who doesnt have to work, because their money/assetts produces enough income for them that they do no need to work.

Does that suffice?

Fair enough... So having ample leisure time defines wealthy in your view along with being both happy and content? Does merit or integrity play a factor?

Good question. I think that answer would be different for each person based on their values, needs, wants, and likes and dislikes.

I can only answer for me, but leisure time for me is uncomfortable. I have a hard time thinking of fun things to do and I dont like to lay around unless I am sick or something. I think happiness and contentness come from within and are more of a factor of your spiritual health than anything external. For example, some of the richest people on earth are neither happy nor content, whereas some of the poorest people are able to attain this.

For me, I like to accomplish things and the fun is mostly in the journey getting their. Very rarely am I fulfilled by attaining something new, but rather I was fulfilled in the quest for something new or different. I would be miserable if someone gave me everything I wanted and I didnt have to work and take risk to attain it, but I know that is not true for everyone. Somebody people enjoy getting other people to pay to take care of them and feel entitled to the latest gadgets. I attribute that to a form of spiritual illness.

edit on 16-10-2011 by monkeyfartbreath because: (no reason given)

I agree... If you're handed everything on a silver platter, it could be a far reach to fully appreciate the intrinsic value of nature. Moreover, you might be tempted to turn a blind eye or cold shoulder to those with no desire or means to possess such wealth from material items. It is a journey, and I would imagine being handed Gatorade every few inches would become redundant to the point of a hindrance instead of an educational experience.

For me, I seek integration. I have a phone that pipes TV, games, internet, and hot spot plus music and video via DLNA. I have a 16G encrypted flash card inserted with complete backups. You've probably noticed... Part of being happy in my view is providing options with less clutter. Spiritual illness seems to be just that... Clutter.

Rounding the corner... My answer is simple. Banking is a scam. It produces wealth with no effort. It is then allowed to absorb hard assets for nothing in exchange. Where do you find merit and integrity in this setup? If you were from a banking dynasty knowing full well of the cheats in place, how would you conduct yourself? What would you expect someone to do in those shoes? Would the person running the show now be able to fully understand your life and what spiritual level you're on? It's time to be realistic with all this...

That's the situation we're in.

reply to post by Alxandro


They are running the government, the politicians are just the puppets.

reply to post by Alxandro


I think it's pretty obvious that the "Rich, Greedy, Corporate CEO's" have been running this country for years now. How's that working out for ya?

By the way, if your not one of the 99%ers, then your either a 1%er or a supporter thereof. The problem doesn't lie with just the 1%ers, it also lies with the gullible ignorants out there who are easily persuaded to vote against their own interest and in favor of the greedy 1%. You know, the "Job Creators Good, Government Bad" crowd.

Originally posted by Alxandro

Don't mean to throw in a Biblical reference but the main point is this:

Year after year, adminstration after administration, our careless government leaders continue to spend-spend-spend, and continue to increase our national debt to all time highs, all while the so called greedy CEO's fat cats and their corporations continue to get fatter and fatter.

So, if CEO's know how to make the money that Obama and his followers want, maybe Obama should step aside and let the greedy corporate CEO's run the country and let them do what they do best?

They obviously know how things should be done since they are quite successful at it.

Get the point?

Deep sigh, let's make this very very simple:

Cost of materials = 1
Cost of labour = 2
Product sold for 10
Profit = 7

The reason why cost of labour is 2 and not 4 or 5 is
A. Unemployment, people have to accept lower wages in order to survive, corporate owners know this and need unemployment.
B. Immigration, people willing to work for low wages which are high where they come from due to poverty. corporate owners know this and like immigration (they usually tart it up with "we need the skills" blah blah blah)

It's corporate exploitation, pure and simple. The world is waking up to the utter BS.

People like yourself either know this and are part of the greed structure or wish to and don't want that greed avenue cut off OR you actually believe the corporate/bankers BS as being altruistic DUH!!!!

I got news for ya, they already are

reply to post by Alxandro


No -- I don't get your "point."

Your CEO's, board-members and bankers have been "coveting" other peoples possessions for decades. That's why they bought congressmen, bought presidents and gradually changed the tax laws, the corporate "personhood" definitions and the entire campaign finance structure to move us from "the top 1% control 10% of the wealth," (GDP -- 1981) to "the top 1% control 40% of the nations wealth" (GPD -- 2011).

They declared war on everyone else a long time ago. Their methods include people like you, who will continue to quote biblical references and make blanket statements about forces you barely understand, until they have it "all."