Fine

Post #381,503 by drook 10/1/13 7:54:13 PM Reply	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
Post #381,505 by boxley 10/1/13 9:36:49 PM Reply	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
Post #381,516 by drook 10/2/13 7:11:54 AM Reply	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
Post #381,520 by boxley 10/2/13 8:12:02 AM Reply	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
Post #381,521 by drook 10/2/13 8:29:45 AM 10/2/13 11:24:07 AM Reply	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 Âone of usÂ and sacred/profane tests get a free pass to argue informally with a lowered level of rigor, while those who donÂt face unreasonable burdens of proof before being heard. To use Daniel KahnemannÂs 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 Edited by drook Oct. 2, 2013, 11:24:07 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #381,529 by Ashton 10/2/13 3:44:42 PM Reply	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.
Post #381,535 by boxley 10/2/13 8:53:53 PM 10/3/13 1:19:42 AM Reply	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 Edited by boxley Oct. 3, 2013, 01:19:42 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #381,696 by CRConrad 10/5/13 4:25:50 PM Reply	Could you try that in the day-time, and in English, please?

Welcome to IWETHEY!