Page 6 of 6 [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

02 Mar 2012, 3:54 pm

Couldn't this instead mean unethical people are more likely to get money?


_________________
.


CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

02 Mar 2012, 4:11 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
Couldn't this instead mean unethical people are more likely to get money?


Good point. People who care less about others are more likely to hold on to their money and walk all over their competitors, so they are probably also more likely to end up in a CEO office or in Congress.



Saturn
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 23 Dec 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 317
Location: UK

02 Mar 2012, 5:30 pm

It would be expected from an evolutionary point of view that greater self-interest and at the expense of others would be associated with economic success.

I don't really accept what are called 'unethical' things as 'bad' things. Perhaps morality and ethics functions in keeping people opressed from going after what they really want in life.

If people want greater wealth as a priority then they may well not take the considerations of others into account in some areas. If other people want other things than wealth as a priority then they may well not make sufficient money for themselves sometimes. I don't see one is better than the other. There is nothing inherently better or virtuous about being 'ethical'.

I don't sometimes like the whinging I hear about rich people. At least they have usually gone after what they wanted in life and had some success in getting it. I think this is generally a positive attitude. And look at all the economic activity that is generated by people going after wealth.

I'm pleased that people are free to go after what they want and can do things that some might complain of as unethical in the course of getting it.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

02 Mar 2012, 6:31 pm

Aspie_Chav wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Aspie_Chav wrote:

But the geeks still get a shot.


C'est dommage. Life is unfair.

ruveyn



Doesn't that mean "its a pitty".


'tis too bad. Life is Unfair.

ruveyn



Aspinator
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2008
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,455
Location: AspinatorLand

04 Mar 2012, 12:55 pm

My own personal feelings are that nobody can pick the environmnent or the circumstances they are born into. You could be born into a wealthy family or you could be born to a crack-whore. If you view society as a pie; why should someone feel they are entitled to more pie or a bigger portion? I have no problem with someone making a profit as long as they realize they are just part of society like everyone else and they are no better than anyone else just because they have the knowledge of how to make money.



Jojoba
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 260

04 Mar 2012, 2:07 pm

I was a bit surprised to read this article about the wealthy this morning. Seems many rich working in the financial sector do not save money, or save very little. Economically this helps the economy, creating jobs. And as the article points out, does make one wonder if taxing them more would help, or do the opposite and more likely hurt the economy.

"The End of Responsibility"

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/ ... nsibility/

snippet from the article:

Quote:
In times of great uncertainty, with the economy recovery still wobbly and unemployment still at over 8%, the struggling rich are juicy targets for writers looking to score some easy points. Who can read about the exotic vacations and the lavish summer homes, $17,000-a-year dogs named Zelda and Duke and the $30,000-a-year adult study groups, and not feel even a twinge of schadenfreude as the lower half of the 1% is forced to cut back?
But beneath all the schadenfreude and finger-pointing is a deeper truth worth noting:
Richard Scheiner, 58, a real-estate investor and hedge-fund manager, said most people on Wall Street don’t save. “When their means are cut, they’re stuck,” said Scheiner, whose New York-based hedge fund, Lane Gate Partners LLC, was down about 15 percent last year.
Definitive statistics on savings rates of the very wealthy are hard to find. The Consumer Expenditure Survey and the Survey of Consumer Finances break down the income spectrum in 20% and 10% increments, respectively, and are therefore not granular enough to tell us much. But as this New York Times article from 2006 calculates (citing a Moody’s economist), the ultra-wealthy don’t seem to save very much at all, and are at the vanguard of the consumption society that has transformed America.
On the one hand, this should give leftie economists pause. From a Keynesian point of view, if the rich really are spending every dime, then raising their taxes will slow economic growth by reducing consumption. Shifting income from wealthy fat cats to poorer folks is supposed to stimulate the economy because the poor (allegedly) are less likely to save their income. But if the rich are already spending it all, nothing economically is gained by redistributing it....



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Mar 2012, 6:08 am

Jojoba wrote:
I was a bit surprised to read this article about the wealthy this morning. Seems many rich working in the financial sector do not save money, or save very little. Economically this helps the economy, creating jobs. And as the article points out, does make one wonder if taxing them more would help, or do the opposite and more likely hurt the economy.



I am sure rich folks invest their money. Investment is a form of saving and deferred consumption and gratification. This is how capitalist systems (or primarily market based systems) grow.

Jesus Saves, Moses Invests.

ruveyn



snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

07 Mar 2012, 9:12 pm

May have been posted already.

Upper Class People More Likely to Behave Unethically

Quote:
ScienceDaily (Mar. 7, 2012) — A series of studies conducted by psychologists at the University of California, Berkeley and the University of Toronto in Canada reveal something the well off may not want to hear. Individuals who are relatively high in social class are more likely to engage in a variety of unethical behaviors.



abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

07 Mar 2012, 9:22 pm

I doubt it's rich people being more likely to be unethical.

However, unethical people may be more likely to end up rich (more willing to be a jerkass for personal gain).


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

08 Mar 2012, 6:13 pm

This could have a thread of its own

40 million girls missing

But listen to who they say commits the gender abortions the most.



snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

11 Mar 2012, 11:34 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MWpxH-RlFQ[/youtube]



snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

11 Mar 2012, 2:04 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tkx8Grgo0_s[/youtube]



black_prince
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 10 Mar 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25

11 Mar 2012, 6:19 pm

This isn't a question for which one can give an objective answer because it really depends on what one's definition of ethical is. For me, one of the most unethical things in the world is adultery/infidelity. Somebody like Dan Savage, on the other hand, would consider acceptance of adultery/infidelity as being ethical. I think it's reprehensible and he might say the same of my views. Different strokes.

That aside, what bothers me are the people that don't understand finance who criticise it. I work in the financial industry at a large, prestigious firm. It was very challenging and stressful trying to get in. It requires a lot of effort, time, and the contribution toward the economy is essential in ways most people don't get. People who don't understand how our capitalist financial system works tend to the first and loudest to say stupid things.



snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

14 Mar 2012, 11:52 am

Exec: Goldman officials called clients 'muppets'

Quote:
To put the problem in the simplest terms, the interests of the client continue to be sidelined in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

14 Mar 2012, 3:57 pm

As black_prince put it, its a matter of what is ethical. I see nothing unethical about me making money on other people's stupidity, which is essentially what I do when I invest in stocks. If I go long it means that I think people are stupidly undervaluing the company and if I go short it means I think people are stupidly overvaluing the company. I simply do not see wanting to make a maximal return on your investment as unethical, if I got information that indicated that X number of babies had died due to being poisoned by the new toy made by company X, my reaction would be "Oh that's sad, one sec have to call my broker".

When it comes to intentionally lying or concealing information from your investors or clients there is an ethics issue in my opinion, however I would have to do a cost-benefit analysis to see if the ethics beat out the lust for profit.