|
Occupy Toronto (pg. 26)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| jester |
If I walked into a bank and wanted a mortgage for like $400k they would laugh in my face. The most I can get is like $80,000 :haha: I need a better job.
Anyways, speaking of Occupy Toronto. Some dude found a guy smelling his gf feet in the tent that she was in :haha: :haha: :haha:
Plus some girl in the states was occupied by someone else, oh I am sorry sexually assaulted. |
|
|
| GGM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Elendil
On your first point: I disagree that the me generation has nothing to do with this phenomenon. Don't forget that corporations are all inhabited by everyday people, and make decisions that mirror the population within which they reside.
|
I don't know what your experience/understanding with large corporations is but I disagree and think that you view them as some sort of democracy or something. Yes they have every day people as workers but these people have almost zero say in the direction and actions of that company.
The structure of any large public corporation is:
Shareholders - own a stake in the company
Board of directors - the largest of the shareholders
CEO - runs the company with actions that please the board of directors
People under the CEO's command - they pass the CEOs vision on to people under them, who pass it on to people under them, who pass it on to people under them, etc etc.
The shareholders want money, and if they think another corporation would generate them more money then they'll move their investment there without hesitation. The goal is to earn as much money as possible. That starts at the top and is passed down. Find me a large corporation that doesn't fit this bill and then I'll listen to arguments on the nature of corporations outside of the above. But as far as I've ever seen corporations exist to earn money and I've yet to see anything that proves otherwise. |
|
|
| Elendil |
| quote: | Originally posted by GGM
I don't know what your experience/understanding with large corporations is but I disagree and think that you view them as some sort of democracy or something. Yes they have every day people as workers but these people have almost zero say in the direction and actions of that company.
The structure of any large public corporation is:
Shareholders - own a stake in the company
Board of directors - the largest of the shareholders
CEO - runs the company with actions that please the board of directors
People under the CEO's command - they pass the CEOs vision on to people under them, who pass it on to people under them, who pass it on to people under them, etc etc.
The shareholders want money, and if they think another corporation would generate them more money then they'll move their investment there without hesitation. The goal is to earn as much money as possible. That starts at the top and is passed down. Find me a large corporation that doesn't fit this bill and then I'll listen to arguments on the nature of corporations outside of the above. But as far as I've ever seen corporations exist to earn money and I've yet to see anything that proves otherwise. |
My experience and understanding of large corporations is fairly comprehensive. I've had direct experience working in large corporations (Bell, Maritz), in addition to having a great deal of experience in small to medium sized businesses. I am continually engaged in discussion with individuals working for high level consulting firms & investment banks in New York. Whilst I am certainly by no means the final words on these topics, neither am I ignorant.
In fact, I did not at any point state that they are some sort of democracy. Of course they aren't. However, if you honestly believe that *ideas* filter solely from a single point within a large organization, than it is you who's experience I would question. Certainly direction decisions are determined in a hierarchical manner - much as a captain must ultimately take command of a ship. However, that captain ultimately receives feedback continually - consciously, and unconsciously - from the individuals he/she is surrounded by on a daily basis (both within their organization, and at home). For you to discount this fact (and most certainly it is a fact) shows that you aren't considering the psychological level of activities of human beings on a daily basis within every single level of every organization. You're merely projecting values out onto a faceless entity which, ultimately, is more narrow than the topic deserves (and does not engage the full reality of the scenario).
Furthermore, I've stated in multiple occasions throughout this thread that corporations exist solely to generate money. That is their entire point. I've never claimed otherwise. They serve no other purpose. We're in total agreement on this fact.
However, where we diverge is in our assessment of whether this is inherently evil or not. How they generate their wealth is determined by the demands of the customers whom they serve. If individuals request grass-fed organic beef, a corporation will rise to appease this demand. If customers request cheap beef at the cost of all other features, a corporation will rise (and many have) to appease this demand. My point is simply that corporations respond to us as individuals, as that is entirely their point. The ones who do not, over time, wash away like the detritus of a once mighty ship now sunk. This is what I mean when I state that they reflect the society in which they operate. As within, so without.
My claim, fundamentally, is as follows:
We are all to blame. Human nature has driven us to the place we now find ourselves. Their is no escaping individual accountability, and no amount of pointing, fist shaking or gesturing at real or perceived enemies will alter that.
If change is to occur, it must happen on an individual level, with a change radiating outwards as ripples from a stone.
Live the reality you seek. |
|
|
| Special K |
| quote: | Originally posted by Xavier Moriarty
simple question, are you an immigrant, moved to Canada in the past 10-15 years? |
Nope born and raised right here in Toronto.
*edit*
1dawoman |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by 1dawoman
But they should be concerned about their clients defaulting when they are not able to pay back their loans because they pushed them to borrow excessive amounts.... |
No, because those large mortgages are insured and the bank gets paid if you default.
It's the bank's job to make money. I own the bank so I want it to make as much money as possible. If they went around suggesting tiny loans I would fire the board and get someone in there who knows how to run a business. |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by The Highroller
I agree with everything you are saying here.
However, I think the big issue here is the transfer of wealth from the many to the few. Not only does income disparity cause economic inefficiencies, but it also has significant moral implications. |
There is only a moral implication - and it is nice to care about our fellow man, agreed. I believe the efficiences you speak of only exist when wealth is concentrated (concentration of weath allows for large-scale investment).
Concentration of wealth is not a bad thing. People need to realize that the difference between "outstanding" and "good enough" is in the realm of six zeros ($1,000,000). This is hard to digest for some - it's much easier to be apathetic, make excuses and blame others than accept this reality.
Golf is a great example of this: There are an estimated 26 million golfers in the world. The #1 player in the world in 2010 made $5mm in winnings. The #200 player in the world made $268k. The #300 player made $24k. The #365 player made $5k. All of these players are still in the top 1% of the best golfers in the world - #365 could probably beat 25 million of the world's golfers on any given day - but the difference between "the best" and "pretty good" is $5mm (100% for argument sake). |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by GGM
corporations exist to earn money |
Bingo. Corporations exist to make money by satisfying the needs of their customers.
Sole-proprietor carpenters also exist to make money by satisfying the needs of their customers.
Careers (jobs for some?) also exist to make money by satisfying the needs of organizations.
Unless you're a non-profit (based on this thread many individuals are I guess...) you satisfy needs of others in exchange for stuff. This is how the world works and there is NOTHING wrong with it.
Earning money is good. It lets you do things.
Working hard is good. It gives you a chance to succeed. |
|
|
| LightsOut |
 |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
The problem with the distribution of weath argument is that the system is not a fixed size.
Adding value to the system increases it's size which means there is more to go around for everybody.
As the velocity of value-exchange occurs and the exchange touches more individuals wealth can be built.
Seems like the people who talk about the distribution of wealth argument are either envious or jealous. It's counter-productive as people should be spending time adding value vs. demanding things be given or profits be cut. |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Earning money is good. It lets you do things.
Working hard is good. It gives you a chance to succeed. |
the perfect motto of the middle class. you think, you so bourgeois. lol. the true wealthy actually do not work. they earn money on money and twiddle their thumbs. they earn money on the backs of poor schmucks that are tricked into signing dumb mortgages. or poor schmucks that work hard and never come home to see their wife and kids. now, who knows what banking tricks they are using now that mortgage backed securities are no longer. |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
Everybody in this thread should read the first chapter of
The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of American's Wealthy
By THOMAS J. STANLEY, Ph.D and WILLIAM D. DANKO, Ph.D
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/...illionaire.html
I think people would be surprised to find out the profile of a typical American millionaire (age, income, profession, etc.) and maybe realize (for once) that they can be one too.
I highly recommend the entire book (get it on your Kindle!). It is a great study into the behaviours of wealthy people and a good framework to model. |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by Elendil
On your first point: I disagree that the me generation has nothing to do with this phenomenon. Don't forget that corporations are all inhabited by everyday people, and make decisions that mirror the population within which they reside. |
Or if you are a large corporation like Disney, McDonlads, or other toy makers, you actually try and curve future markets to suit your goals, by engaging young kids.
The rise of consumerism, could surely be correlated to the amount of advertising directed at children, and the proliferation of TV.
The financial problems facing North America did not start in the last 10 years. This is a snow ball got rolling decades ago. |
|
|
|
|
