IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Fine
You want to focus on the form of the questions. Maybe if I restate them we can address the content:

1. Would you say business leaders never/rarely/sometimes/frequently/always reduce salaries if they believe it will boost profits?

2. Would you say business leaders in general are more or less truthful than politicians? If "about the same", are the two groups in general more often honest or more often dishonest?

3. Would you say official statements of a company's position made by their executives and/or official spokespeople are more likely to be an accurate reflection of their behind-closed-doors position, calculated to portray the company in the most positive light, or something else?

I'm trying really hard to put these as neutrally as I can. If you think I'm still assuming the conclusion, please show how you would ask those questions without assuming the answer.
--

Drew
New Re: Fine
1. Would you say business leaders never/rarely/sometimes/frequently/always reduce salaries if they believe it will boost profits?
only if it will keep production and quality of the product at the same or better than before staff cuts. Assuming that they understand the business process.

2. Would you say business leaders in general are more or less truthful than politicians? If "about the same", are the two groups in general more often honest or more often dishonest?
about the same when it comes to defending their own interests.

3. Would you say official statements of a company's position made by their executives and/or official spokespeople are more likely to be an accurate reflection of their behind-closed-doors position, calculated to portray the company in the most positive light, or something else?
Any public statement of a publically traded company has to accurately portray what can be proved to public oversight such as the SEC FCC etc. They are also beholden to their stockholders who are inclined to sue if false statements are made by senior management. In the case of a privately held label they need to take care of their brand so also must be careful when they are making public statements. The same measures of veracity do not apply to government officials to whom their supporters will believe any thing they say, they opponants will always believe that they are being facile in their statements.

Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
New Finally
Twelve days of pulling teeth and you finally deign to address the content of the questions. And guess what? It's not just about you opposing the other side because they're on the other side, you actually have a position that I can disagree with. (Two of them, actually.)

only if it will keep production and quality of the product at the same or better than before staff cuts. Assuming that they understand the business process.
First, I've seen plenty of examples where CEOs don't seem to understand the business process of the companies they're running. But beyond that, I suspect most of them don't give a shit about the quality of the product, so long as it keeps selling. And both driving your competition out of business and a good ad campaign can be cheaper than improving your quality.

Any public statement of a publically traded company has to accurately portray what can be proved to public oversight such as the SEC FCC etc.
More like what can't be disproved. And when it comes to the SEC, the difference between those two is HUGE.
They are also beholden to their stockholders who are inclined to sue if false statements are made by senior management. [snip] The same measures of veracity do not apply to government officials to whom their supporters will believe any thing they say, they opponants will always believe that they are being facile in their statements.
So it's not that business leaders are more or less honest than politicians, it's that voters are more gullible than stockholders? The only way to make any sense of that is if you believe that having enough money to be a stockholder proves you are smarter than people who don't invest in stocks.

So, your two positions seem to be:

1. Corporate executives and spokespeople must be telling the truth about why they do what they do because the SEC tells them to.

2. Stockholders are smarter than voters.
--

Drew
New not finally at all
you did not demand yes or no answers
and I note you immediately used my answers to construct 2 positions you know damn well are not mine and assign them to me
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
New No, I don't know that
That's what you said. If that's not what you meant, say something else.

[edit]

Longer:
A sense of the sacred makes effective action easier, by simplifying all decision-making. When there is a healthy sense of the sacred around work being done, ideas tend to be evaluated based first on whether they come from people in the tribe (those who share your sense of the sacred and can therefore be trusted completely) and next by whether or not they understand and respect operating distinctions between the sacred and profane. People who pass the “one of us” and sacred/profane tests get a free pass to argue informally with a lowered level of rigor, while those who don’t face unreasonable burdens of proof before being heard. To use Daniel Kahnemann’s terms, insiders can get away with System 1 thinking (loose, fast and associative/narrative), while outsiders are required to prove their points with System 2 thinking (tight, slow and deliberative).

http://www.ribbonfar...th-in-consulting/

This just came up in my feed reader today, and seems relevant to this thread. It's clear that we're arguing from different premises, and I've been trying to figure out what you hold sacred. At first glance it seems like your premise is that business leaders are more trustworthy than politicians, or at least no worse.

When challenged on that you (eventually) say that it's not that they're inherently more honest, they are simply acting rationally within an environment where they have more constraints on what they can say.

That's the "sacred" idea that I disagree with. I don't think that the SEC is an effective counterweight to the extraordinary financial gain available via gaming the system. And I don't think that stockholders are generally better-informed or more willing (or able) to vote out a CEO than voters are to vote out a politician. Further, I believe business leaders also don't think the SEC is a viable thread.

But you could show me that I'm wrong. There are 535 members of Congress and 500 Fortune 500 CEOs. In the last 25 years, how many CEOs have been voted out of power by stockholders? How many congressmen lost reelection bids? How many CEOs sanctioned or imprisoned for SEC violations? How many congressmen expelled or imprisoned for impropriety?
--

Drew
Expand Edited by drook Oct. 2, 2013, 11:24:07 AM EDT
New Beyond the Call of Duty: +11
Nice metaphor.. better than Nice, actually..
This thread has been Boehner/profane -VS- every attempt to *find out W.T.F. Box [thinks? he..] Stands for/against. (Hell, on damn-near Every topic: that.)

As in:
* In all those years ... ... I never/Ever got a reply from Beep, to the simple (but not simplistic) Question:
Er, just what Is It that (you) 'Want to Conserve' ??

Will take Sacred over gaming-the-System-of-Language.. every time:-/
Punctiliousness in small details of Boolean: belongs in *nix script-writing, not in clear expository writing-composition.
New late but will try to answer
This just came up in my feed reader today, and seems relevant to this thread. It's clear that we're arguing from different premises, and I've been trying to figure out what you hold sacred. At first glance it seems like your premise is that business leaders are more trustworthy than politicians, or at least no worse.

When challenged on that you (eventually) say that it's not that they're inherently more honest, they are simply acting rationally within an environment where they have more constraints on what they can say.

That's the "sacred" idea that I disagree with. I don't think that the SEC is an effective counterweight to the extraordinary financial gain available via gaming the system. And I don't think that stockholders are generally better-informed or more willing (or able) to vote out a CEO than voters are to vote out a politician. Further, I believe business leaders also don't think the SEC is a viable thread.

But you could show me that I'm wrong. There are 535 members of Congress and 500 Fortune 500 CEOs. In the last 25 years, how many CEOs have been voted out of power by stockholders? How many congressmen lost reelection bids? How many CEOs sanctioned or imprisoned for SEC violations? How many congressmen expelled or imprisoned for impropriety?
fully agree that the SEC is an effective counterweight. Many stckholders are also corporations, unions, government entities, and other groups of people banded together to increase their investments.
Voters are individual humans. As opined by many here, the tea party are sub humans, to others the Obama phone, Obama pays my mortgage and car payment crew, and those who think that a democratic Ohio poll worker who voted for 6 other people didn't commit voter fraud are individuals.
Balmer screaming that apple sucks doesn't rattle apple shareholders. Shareholders who quietly state that bill gates needs to be replaced rattles microsoft shareholders. We are talking two different dynamics here. Shareholders are not individuals, voters are.It's not who is more sacred, I have been eating sacred cows for years, its not a tribal thing, its a "ware all who claim to be YOUR advocate, and check your wallet and count your fingers when shaking hands"
Now you may firmly believe that the affordable care act is business neutral and any moves by business to use that ruse to cut worker pay and benefits to better the bottom line is fine, you are entitled to that opinion.
Your opinion is not a fact.
The historical record in the last century has lots of examples where declaring two classes of workers one of whom is protected by all kinds of law and one who is not being disasterous for the working class. The democratic party insisted that the law go forth as is, in that fashion. Now a few years later you declare "republicansdidit" not really, it was passed by a democratically controlled house and a democratically controlled senate.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Expand Edited by boxley Oct. 3, 2013, 01:19:42 AM EDT
New Could you try that in the day-time, and in English, please?
     3k more jobs lost due to the affordable care act - (boxley) - (132)
         Re: 3k more jobs lost due to the affordable care act - (Another Scott) - (5)
             their quote, ignore it if you want -NT - (boxley) - (4)
                 Heh. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                     Re: Heh. - (boxley) - (1)
                         Um, we've been under the Sequester for quite a while... -NT - (Another Scott)
                 And they are of course guaranteed to tell the truth. - (CRConrad)
         Take the Cleveland Clinic with a grain of salt (f the AHA) - (hnick) - (1)
             Thanks for the skinny. Appreciated. -NT - (Another Scott)
         Clue: - (pwhysall) - (123)
             He needs to be told this?At his age?After all these years... - (CRConrad) - (122)
                 You shoulda been here... - (folkert)
                 do you have - (boxley) - (120)
                     Sure, healthcare for poor people is "excessive regulation". -NT - (CRConrad)
                     Hey, I hear that literally millions of gallons - (jake123)
                     Oh, and BTW, stop squirming like a fucking weasel on speed. - (CRConrad) - (117)
                         A thesis floats to the surface.. - (Ashton)
                         Oh, and BTW, stop squirming like a fucking weasel on speed - (boxley) - (115)
                             "Any" does a lot of heavy lifting there... -NT - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                 same shit he was pulling -NT - (boxley)
                             We were discussing what had gone before: your "Their quote!" - (CRConrad) - (112)
                                 here is something even you might understand - (boxley) - (111)
                                     One Communist responds. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                         yup, my solution as well - (boxley)
                                     Some people want out of Social Security, also too. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                         Dons Devil's Advocate Hat: It worked great for my dad. - (mmoffitt)
                                         I know government employee's wanted out of SS - (boxley)
                                     Squirm squirm squirm, ever more the weasel. -NT - (CRConrad) - (100)
                                         gotcher suppah, swingin -NT - (boxley) - (99)
                                             Huh? Sorry, you'll have to use more than the subject line. - (CRConrad) - (98)
                                                 apparently you are not a jack nicholson fan - (boxley) - (97)
                                                     WTF does that have to do with anything? Squirm squirm... - (CRConrad) - (96)
                                                         Oh joy, the german genes have hardened his neurons - (boxley) - (95)
                                                             Oh, beehive. - (Another Scott)
                                                             Squirm squirm... I'll take that as an admission of defeat. - (CRConrad) - (93)
                                                                 You beehive, too. - (Another Scott) - (92)
                                                                     Yeah, sure... As soon as he does. -NT - (CRConrad) - (91)
                                                                         how far can you rightshift? - (boxley) - (90)
                                                                             As far as you can squirm, plus one more to nail you. - (CRConrad) - (89)
                                                                                 Glenn Shadix - (folkert)
                                                                                 gee, you build a straw army and cry when I dont want to play - (boxley) - (87)
                                                                                     It'll benefit me... - (folkert) - (5)
                                                                                         so on 10/1 you will be on the exchange? - (boxley) - (4)
                                                                                             Nope didn't say that. - (folkert) - (3)
                                                                                                 you do remember it was the WH that pulled the government - (boxley) - (2)
                                                                                                     Yes I do... - (folkert) - (1)
                                                                                                         democrats falter at bluster? hoodah thunkit? -NT - (boxley)
                                                                                     MY "squirming"?!? Did you ask me something first, or I you? - (CRConrad) - (80)
                                                                                         soon as you tell me whether you quit beating you wife yes/no - (boxley) - (79)
                                                                                             Manhattan Institute? Really? - (Another Scott) - (10)
                                                                                                 what does the CBO say about job creation, loss or retension? -NT - (boxley) - (9)
                                                                                                     Dunno. - (Another Scott) - (8)
                                                                                                         Now if we could print that on lots of foreheads.. -NT - (Ashton)
                                                                                                         ok - (boxley) - (6)
                                                                                                             There are costs and benefits. - (Another Scott) - (5)
                                                                                                                 There are costs and benefits. - (boxley) - (4)
                                                                                                                     There's lots of news on the other side, too. - (Another Scott)
                                                                                                                     In the "news" you hear? Get off Fox, wouldja... -NT - (CRConrad) - (2)
                                                                                                                         the link was abc, don't watch fox -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                                                                             No, it was something called "WSB-TV Atlanta". ("2"?) HTH! - (CRConrad)
                                                                                             "plenty of good answers"?Then how come all we see is squirm? -NT - (CRConrad) - (67)
                                                                                                 dont let facts get in the way of your prejuidice -NT - (boxley) - (66)
                                                                                                     The only fact here is that you're still squirming. -NT - (CRConrad) - (65)
                                                                                                         project much? -NT - (boxley) - (64)
                                                                                                             He doesn't have to, you channel. -NT - (folkert)
                                                                                                             Facts: Four simple questions. Five days now. That... - (CRConrad) - (62)
                                                                                                                 Re: Facts: Four simple questions. yes they are simple - (boxley) - (61)
                                                                                                                     Difference is, they are relevant in this context, and not... - (CRConrad) - (60)
                                                                                                                         I was quoting the envoy who claimed it was so - (boxley) - (59)
                                                                                                                             Re: I was quoting the envoy who claimed it was so - (Another Scott) - (15)
                                                                                                                                 am I allowed to quote Rangel? He is a dem - (boxley)
                                                                                                                                 Picking that apart - (drook) - (13)
                                                                                                                                     not for profit hospitals are republicans? good to know -NT - (boxley) - (12)
                                                                                                                                         I only mentioned Republicans when addressing Medicaid - (drook) - (11)
                                                                                                                                             not for profit means you dont have to pay taxes, -NT - (boxley) - (10)
                                                                                                                                                 Which has what to do with Republicans or Medicaid? -NT - (drook) - (9)
                                                                                                                                                     Republicans, of course. ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt) - (8)
                                                                                                                                                         BENGHAZI! ACORN! IRS! SOLYNDRA! etal... -NT - (folkert) - (7)
                                                                                                                                                             SOLYNDRA got 1 billion for a small donation to Barry not bad -NT - (boxley) - (6)
                                                                                                                                                                 You know that was Bush's program, right? - (Another Scott) - (5)
                                                                                                                                                                     Right in the first line - (drook) - (3)
                                                                                                                                                                         not the loan, the tax credits - (boxley) - (2)
                                                                                                                                                                             Oh... to offset the... - (folkert) - (1)
                                                                                                                                                                                 crony capitalism works both sides of the aisle -NT - (boxley)
                                                                                                                                                                     the loan mods came after he left office -NT - (boxley)
                                                                                                                             Yes, in support of your claim that it *is* actually so. - (CRConrad) - (42)
                                                                                                                                 Re: Yes, in support of your claim that it *is* actually so. - (boxley) - (41)
                                                                                                                                     The sub-thread I started from your "Their quote!" post is... - (CRConrad) - (40)
                                                                                                                                         looks like some one is not going to take troll bait - (boxley) - (39)
                                                                                                                                             Oh lovely: More squirming, *and* it's in gibberish. -NT - (CRConrad) - (38)
                                                                                                                                                 Oh, the english speaker wh has never gone fishing? neat -NT - (boxley) - (37)
                                                                                                                                                     What's it now, six days? -NT - (CRConrad) - (36)
                                                                                                                                                         don't hold your breath -NT - (boxley) - (35)
                                                                                                                                                             Right you are, Greg; thanks, fixed. - (CRConrad) - (34)
                                                                                                                                                                 Thanks for fixing it. -NT - (folkert) - (1)
                                                                                                                                                                     Stubborn is as stubborn does (rocks are ... like that, too) -NT - (Ashton)
                                                                                                                                                                 Re: Right you are, Greg; thanks, fixed. - (boxley) - (31)
                                                                                                                                                                     Ah.. the Everything-depends<-on->everything-Else.. ploy. -NT - (Ashton) - (2)
                                                                                                                                                                         that depends -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                                                                                                                             rofl. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                                                                                                                                                     Is the concept "yes or no" really that difficult? -NT - (CRConrad) - (25)
                                                                                                                                                                         : Is the concept "not using a logical fallacy" hard for you? -NT - (boxley) - (24)
                                                                                                                                                                             Reading is apparently too hard for you: NOT a fallacy. - (CRConrad) - (23)
                                                                                                                                                                                 deductive fallacy is the formal name for your questions -NT - (boxley) - (22)
                                                                                                                                                                                     Explain as if I were ten: How, exactly, are they so? - (CRConrad) - (21)
                                                                                                                                                                                         Re: Explain as if I were ten: How, exactly, are they so? - (boxley) - (20)
                                                                                                                                                                                             That's not the argument we were arguing about, now is it? - (CRConrad) - (19)
                                                                                                                                                                                                 Right, timeout - (pwhysall) - (1)
                                                                                                                                                                                                     no, we are still right shifting and there is no argument -NT - (boxley)
                                                                                                                                                                                                 Re: That's not the argument we were arguing about, now is it - (boxley) - (16)
                                                                                                                                                                                                     Dude ... - (drook) - (15)
                                                                                                                                                                                                         You are doing his work for him! -NT - (folkert) - (1)
                                                                                                                                                                                                             Naah, relax, Greg -- DrooK's doing *my* job for *me*. -NT - (CRConrad)
                                                                                                                                                                                                         why should I support his logical fallacies? -NT - (boxley) - (12)
                                                                                                                                                                                                             Which ones? I don't see any, as I just explained. - (drook) - (10)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 A learning experience is one of those things that says, - (Ashton)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Re: Which ones? I don't see any, as I just explained. - (boxley) - (8)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Fine - (drook) - (7)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Re: Fine - (boxley) - (6)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Finally - (drook) - (5)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 not finally at all - (boxley) - (4)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     No, I don't know that - (drook) - (3)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Beyond the Call of Duty: +11 - (Ashton)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         late but will try to answer - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Could you try that in the day-time, and in English, please? -NT - (CRConrad)
                                                                                                                                                                                                             You sound just as brilliant as a stuck record -NT - (CRConrad)
                                                                                                                                                                     "I know you are but what am I?" - (drook) - (1)
                                                                                                                                                                         Ha! -NT - (folkert)
                                     Whoa - (crazy) - (4)
                                         A chunk of my taxes go to the same things - (boxley) - (3)
                                             :-) -NT - (Another Scott)
                                             And at this point I can probably make the same comment - (crazy) - (1)
                                                 anyone making minimum wage can claim that to me today. - (boxley)

Using Powerpoint in the schools--that's better than teaching kids how to smoke.
167 ms