Minimum wage. Should it be $15?

[Jeff Matthews]

But I still don't see an oath or code, even just one example, for capitalists.

 

A Scout Capitalist is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.

[BigStewMan]

when i was in boy scouts, we were called the "UN Patrol."  The scoutmaster said we were untrustworthy, unloyal, unhelpful, unfriendly, uncourteous, unkind, unobedient, uncheerful, unthrifty, unbrave, unclean, and unreverent."

We didn't care enough to even correct his grammar.  Sometimes weekend campouts didn't last more a few hours before heading home. 

we were punks...poor scoutmaster.

[Mallette]

But I still don't see an oath or code, even just one example, for capitalists.

 

Individual companies do.  My old one was:

 

1. Improve employee welfare.

2. Increase competitive edge.

3. Build shareholder value.

 

Always seemed pretty moral to me...

 

Dave

[Jim Naseum]

 

 

 

Great fortunes can be made making people sick on the front end, and then greater fortunes yet can be made treating that sickness on the back end. Sound familiar?

 

Sounds like a singing endorsement for telling people what they can and can't eat, smoke, drink and screw.  From which gods will you derive these new standards?

 

 

Really? That's how you read it? I'd like to improve me writing skill. Can you point to where I said anything about telling people what to eat, drink, smoke and screw?

 

 

Your critique of capitalism was that capitalists were free to sell foods, alcohol, drugs, etc. to make money from making people sick, and then, when people are sick, to make money treating them.  If you don't tell people what they can eat, drink, smoke, etc., how else are you going to force them to have healthier lifestyles?

 

Well, there's a supply side and there's a demand side to the equation. What you are speaking of is the demand side. 

 

I say, pay attention to the difference between the legal "shall not" and the moral "ought not." Didn't mama always say, "You ought not run with scissors!" 

 

Life is nothing if not a long education about "ought to dos" and "out not dos". 

[Jim Naseum]

 

 

What I am not u derstanding is what would the code of ethics say for capitalists?

I rolled back through the piles of chaff to find this, the last interesting question here. The Capitalists it could be argued have a greater impact on your life than doctors. Not in the acute or emergent sense, but in the overall sense of the quality of your life from birth to death. They are the biggest economic actors, and they really define your economic world for you. Bankers, food suppliers, housing suppliers, medicine and entertainment are all supplied under your consent to let capitalists dictate the terms. They've told the public "no" to GMO labeling. They've told the public it will cost $100,000 for the cure to Hep-C. They've told the public there's no addiction to cigarettes, and no harm is being done to boxers and footballers from concussions through the years. They set the terms for all public debate. When the ACA was being debated initially, they told the WH and Congress and the public that "single payor" was "off the table." The answer to no one. Not the public, not the President, not the Generals, not the DOJ. No one. If you came down here from Mars, examined the situation, you would conclude they are "Dictators of the World" - Gods. And, that would be utterly obvious.

The mythical gods all promoted an orthodoxy based on a defined morality. People who regularly follow the mythical gods eagerly, enthusiastically, and with all their heart and soul, embrace whatever morality their mythical gods demand of them. That's well understood. They do it, to please the gods, and because they want all their social relations with the rest of humanity to be conducted with an eye to this particular morality. Often, it could be as simple as a "list of some number of commandments." They follow the commandments and expect others they interact with, to do so too. It becomes a "worldview". And is stated simply like this: If everyone follows this orthodoxy and moral code, the world will be in harmony.

The mythical gods however, don't supply CableTV, or Cancer drugs or canned peas. For that, we must turn to what the Martians properly identified as Earth's real gods, the Capitalists. These dictators and petty gods declare they have no moral code, and everyone may simply do what they think they "ought" to do, as long as the law is followed. They declare there is no right and no wrong behavior, merely legal and illegal behavior. Charging 1200% interest is not something anyone "ought" to do, but it is legal to do, and that's the end of that. Adding 1200mg of sodium to a simple can of soup is not something a good chef "ought" to do, but since it is legal to do, and it sure helps sales, it is something they will do. Great fortunes can be made making people sick on the front end, and then greater fortunes yet can be made treating that sickness on the back end. Sound familiar?

And so they people invoke their moral code from mythical gods, but it doesn't actually apply anywhere but in the special assemblies of their kind, maybe once a week. All the rest of the time, they agree to submit to the no moral code Gods that actually run their lives. They would not dare ask these petty dictator Gods for a moral code, even one which might protect them, because they were told DON'T ASK by the petty dictator Gods, who naturally want to be free to do as they please. People, being the obedient souls they are, always do as they are told, by whichever of the gods has their attention. And so, they happily dig into the unhealthy profitable food, booze and tobacco, so that at a later time they can turn over their life savings for the privilege of living 6 months longer with their cancer. Never once does it occur to ask, "what ought we be doing instead?"

Everything you have said is a complaint against the political process, not really the economic SYSTEM.

I think what your real beef should be is over campaign finance and lobbying.

But I still don't see an oath or code, even just one example, for capitalists.

 

I can't think of a thing I said about the political process. Not a thing. It's mostly irrelevant to the general idea being expressed. 

 

When you say, "I don't see an oath or code, even just one example, for capitalists." I hope you understand that my argument has been that capitalism hasn't now, or ever had, a moral foundation. And that what I am suggesting is that humanity would be far better off if we demanded such a moral foundation in the economy. So, I am referring to some future goal, not the present condition. And, I've mentioned at least three times what the minimum goal might be for a revised morally based economy. 

 

Hmmmm? Maybe its just that we're so accustomed to the way things are we can't even imagine a change?

[Jim Naseum]

 

But I still don't see an oath or code, even just one example, for capitalists.

 

Individual companies do.  My old one was:

 

1. Improve employee welfare.

2. Increase competitive edge.

3. Build shareholder value.

 

Always seemed pretty moral to me...

 

Dave

 

 

Was that a public stock company, or a private company? 

 

Some private companies do express some specific moral foundation. Hobby Lobby, Inc., a private company made a lot of headlines with their moral stance. I have always said, that the advantage of the one-man-show is that they can and very often do, have strict moral codes. But public stock companies, and most corporations, must be dedicated to profit above any other consideration. 

[Jeff Matthews]

 

 

 

 

Great fortunes can be made making people sick on the front end, and then greater fortunes yet can be made treating that sickness on the back end. Sound familiar?

 

Sounds like a singing endorsement for telling people what they can and can't eat, smoke, drink and screw.  From which gods will you derive these new standards?

 

 

Really? That's how you read it? I'd like to improve me writing skill. Can you point to where I said anything about telling people what to eat, drink, smoke and screw?

 

 

Your critique of capitalism was that capitalists were free to sell foods, alcohol, drugs, etc. to make money from making people sick, and then, when people are sick, to make money treating them.  If you don't tell people what they can eat, drink, smoke, etc., how else are you going to force them to have healthier lifestyles?

 

Well, there's a supply side and there's a demand side to the equation. What you are speaking of is the demand side. 

 

I say, pay attention to the difference between the legal "shall not" and the moral "ought not." Didn't mama always say, "You ought not run with scissors!" 

 

Life is nothing if not a long education about "ought to dos" and "out not dos". 

 

 

Let's cut to the chase.  If you are preaching for some system governed by "ought to dos," how are you going to enforce it?  What kind of system is that?  It sounds like it would be a system which defies your own distinction between "ought to" and "shall."

[Jeff Matthews]

And that what I am suggesting is that humanity would be far better off if we demanded such a moral foundation in the economy.

 

 

How are we going to "demand" it?  "Demand?"  Think about your word choice here.  We could "request" it, but to "demand" it would be to make a law. You said earlier that the laws aren't enough.  That there needs to be a moral code.  Something along the lines of "ought to."  You can't "demand" "ought to."

[Mallette]

Was that a public stock company, or a private company?

 

Publically traded. 

 

Dave

[Mallette]

must be dedicated to profit above any other consideration.

 

Those principles I quoted lead inevitably to profit. 

 

Dave

[Jim Naseum]

I wonder if lawyers just always think about laws?

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Jim Naseum]

Was that a public stock company, or a private company?

Publically traded.

Dave

Do you know off hand if that was in their 10k filings?

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Edited November 20, 2015 by jo56steph74

[Jeff Matthews]

I wonder if lawyers just always think about laws?

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

Not always.  We just know the difference between laws and morals.

[Jim Naseum]

Great fortunes can be made making people sick on the front end, and then greater fortunes yet can be made treating that sickness on the back end. Sound familiar?

Sounds like a singing endorsement for telling people what they can and can't eat, smoke, drink and screw. From which gods will you derive these new standards?

Really? That's how you read it? I'd like to improve me writing skill. Can you point to where I said anything about telling people what to eat, drink, smoke and screw?

Your critique of capitalism was that capitalists were free to sell foods, alcohol, drugs, etc. to make money from making people sick, and then, when people are sick, to make money treating them. If you don't tell people what they can eat, drink, smoke, etc., how else are you going to force them to have healthier lifestyles?

Well, there's a supply side and there's a demand side to the equation. What you are speaking of is the demand side.

I say, pay attention to the difference between the legal "shall not" and the moral "ought not." Didn't mama always say, "You ought not run with scissors!"

Life is nothing if not a long education about "ought to dos" and "out not dos".

Let's cut to the chase. If you are preaching for some system governed by "ought to dos," how are you going to enforce it? What kind of system is that? It sounds like it would be a system which defies your own distinction between "ought to" and "shall."

I think you are applying too much mechanics and not enough poetry, or imagination. You, like everyone of us, grew up under a set of moral guidelines provided by parents, relatives, possibly churchmen, civic leaders, teachers, and even TV characters.

You swam in a sea of those oughts and ought nots. Laws tell you what you can't do, leaving a huge field of possible operation. It's the oughts and ought nots which culture uses to guide you through all that range of possible actions open to you. "Joey, you ought not smoke. It's really bad for you!" was not a law. It was part of a moral dictum to take good care of your health.

I think you are refusing to acknowledge that we rely on all our moral sources as guidance in living a better life. And yet the minute I suggest that the biggest part of our life ought to be guided by a moral system, even a simple one, you seem to act incredulous that such even exists. Why? You know perfectly well what I mean.

There could be an argument for not doing it, but to just perpetually not understand the idea mystifies me.

Maybe it would begin with "promoting the general welfare" as we find in the constitution preamble. I'm primarily focusing on public chartered companies like GE, Monsanto, Bank of America, and so forth.

Charters should be revokable. They should not be taken for granted to be indefinite expiration. Public companies not serving the public interest - promoting the general welfare- should lose the privilege of the charter.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[oldtimer]

Maybe they should, but they aren't.   And if one state decides to declare such a stipulation the company will simply incorporate in another.  Eventually with enough citizen pressure a case might be brought to the SCOTUS, but the general welfare clause you mention is specifically aimed at laws Congress may pass, not at the purpose of any corporation which while called public in name, has nothing to do with public in the sense of governance.

[Travis In Austin]

What I am not u derstanding is what would the code of ethics say for capitalists?

I rolled back through the piles of chaff to find this, the last interesting question here. The Capitalists it could be argued have a greater impact on your life than doctors. Not in the acute or emergent sense, but in the overall sense of the quality of your life from birth to death. They are the biggest economic actors, and they really define your economic world for you. Bankers, food suppliers, housing suppliers, medicine and entertainment are all supplied under your consent to let capitalists dictate the terms. They've told the public "no" to GMO labeling. They've told the public it will cost $100,000 for the cure to Hep-C. They've told the public there's no addiction to cigarettes, and no harm is being done to boxers and footballers from concussions through the years. They set the terms for all public debate. When the ACA was being debated initially, they told the WH and Congress and the public that "single payor" was "off the table." The answer to no one. Not the public, not the President, not the Generals, not the DOJ. No one. If you came down here from Mars, examined the situation, you would conclude they are "Dictators of the World" - Gods. And, that would be utterly obvious.

The mythical gods all promoted an orthodoxy based on a defined morality. People who regularly follow the mythical gods eagerly, enthusiastically, and with all their heart and soul, embrace whatever morality their mythical gods demand of them. That's well understood. They do it, to please the gods, and because they want all their social relations with the rest of humanity to be conducted with an eye to this particular morality. Often, it could be as simple as a "list of some number of commandments." They follow the commandments and expect others they interact with, to do so too. It becomes a "worldview". And is stated simply like this: If everyone follows this orthodoxy and moral code, the world will be in harmony.

The mythical gods however, don't supply CableTV, or Cancer drugs or canned peas. For that, we must turn to what the Martians properly identified as Earth's real gods, the Capitalists. These dictators and petty gods declare they have no moral code, and everyone may simply do what they think they "ought" to do, as long as the law is followed. They declare there is no right and no wrong behavior, merely legal and illegal behavior. Charging 1200% interest is not something anyone "ought" to do, but it is legal to do, and that's the end of that. Adding 1200mg of sodium to a simple can of soup is not something a good chef "ought" to do, but since it is legal to do, and it sure helps sales, it is something they will do. Great fortunes can be made making people sick on the front end, and then greater fortunes yet can be made treating that sickness on the back end. Sound familiar?

And so they people invoke their moral code from mythical gods, but it doesn't actually apply anywhere but in the special assemblies of their kind, maybe once a week. All the rest of the time, they agree to submit to the no moral code Gods that actually run their lives. They would not dare ask these petty dictator Gods for a moral code, even one which might protect them, because they were told DON'T ASK by the petty dictator Gods, who naturally want to be free to do as they please. People, being the obedient souls they are, always do as they are told, by whichever of the gods has their attention. And so, they happily dig into the unhealthy profitable food, booze and tobacco, so that at a later time they can turn over their life savings for the privilege of living 6 months longer with their cancer. Never once does it occur to ask, "what ought we be doing instead?"

Everything you have said is a complaint against the political process, not really the economic SYSTEM.

I think what your real beef should be is over campaign finance and lobbying.

But I still don't see an oath or code, even just one example, for capitalists.

I can't think of a thing I said about the political process. Not a thing. It's mostly irrelevant to the general idea being expressed. 

 

When you say, "I don't see an oath or code, even just one example, for capitalists." I hope you understand that my argument has been that capitalism hasn't now, or ever had, a moral foundation. And that what I am suggesting is that humanity would be far better off if we demanded such a moral foundation in the economy. So, I am referring to some future goal, not the present condition. And, I've mentioned at least three times what the minimum goal might be for a revised morally based economy. 

 

Hmmmm? Maybe its just that we're so accustomed to the way things are we can't even imagine a change?

You didn't mention the political or process, but all of your complaints are addressed to the political process. All of them can be addressed by legislation if that were the will of the political body.

I am trying to think of a morally based economic system, and I just can't think of one on a macro level. There are plenty on a micro level.

It has been 30 years since I read Utopia, was that based on morals?

Whose morals are we going to choose? I kind of want to know that before I join in a goal for a morally based economy.

[Travis In Austin]

All charters state a purpose. For-profit charters typically say "for any lawful purpose or business." Non-profit charters set for the exemptions they plan to operate under. But what about giant companies that are not formed as corporations. Individuals and partnerships. How are you going to impose an oath on them?

Why should an innocent stock holder be punished if the CEO violates his oath? Shouldn't you just remove the CEO and he forfeits his pay and salary?

Edited November 20, 2015 by dwilawyer

[Jeff Matthews]

Whose morals are we going to choose?

 

ISIS, of course.  It's the latest fad. 

[oldtimer]

No the latest fad is that Jared guy forum members love to talk about.

[mungkiman]

Mention not.

Edited November 20, 2015 by mungkiman