Interesting Opinion Piece

#26
#26
volinbham said:
So few have this narrowly defined goal of simply making money.

Let's take Exxon. This company is routinely blasted, investigated and accused of unadulterated greed. Is the goal of Exxon only to make money? Certainly not. Exxon provides thousands of jobs directly and thousands more through it's impact on the economy (e.g. suppliers). Exxon's stock value provides returns to hundreds of thousands (millions) of pensioners whose 401k funds are owners of the company.

In other words, corporations and their pursuit of the almighty dollar has a significantly positive impact on the collective.
Click to expand...

You left out that taxing them. Another serivce they provide for those seeking to be elected.

:)
 
#27
#27
allvol123 said:
You left out that taxing them. Another serivce they provide for those seeking to be elected.

:)
Click to expand...

especially when you consider that Exxon pays more taxes to the federal government in one year than 150 million Americans combined do.
 
#30
#30
Nah..I've already formulated my plan for him. Going to quit working and let you all take care of me. Freak will get a tax credit for paying for my internet connection.
 
#31
#31
volinbham said:
An alternative viewpoint would be that pursuit of individual goals can and frequently does benefit the collective. His history lesson is meant as evidence of this latter point.
Click to expand...

Those who built railroads, roads, shipping ports, businesses of all types in this country -- do you think their sole aim was individual? Do you not think they intended to help the country? Do you not think that was one of their primary aims as well?
 
#32
#32
TennNC said:
Those who built railroads, roads, shipping ports, businesses of all types in this country -- do you think their sole aim was individual? Do you not think they intended to help the country? Do you not think that was one of their primary aims as well?
Click to expand...


Can't say - I'm sure some were out to make their own lives better or that of their family. Some were likely greedy and interested in amassing fortunes. Some wanted to achieve greatness, some wanted to help mankind.

To the point of the article:

I believe there is a distinction between a perspective that primarily serving the collective first betters the individual and primarily serving the individual first betters the collective.

I believe the author's primary point is that the candidates appear to be lauding one perspective and deriding the other. He cites reasons why the other is a valid perspective. I happen to agree with him.
 
#33
#33
volinbham said:
So few have this narrowly defined goal of simply making money.

Let's take Exxon. This company is routinely blasted, investigated and accused of unadulterated greed. Is the goal of Exxon only to make money? Certainly not. Exxon provides thousands of jobs directly and thousands more through it's impact on the economy (e.g. suppliers). Exxon's stock value provides returns to hundreds of thousands (millions) of pensioners whose 401k funds are owners of the company.

In other words, corporations and their pursuit of the almighty dollar has a significantly positive impact on the collective.
Click to expand...

Now I'm confused. I'm going back to the beginning for clarity.

My argument is that businesses should exist to serve a need, make something better, provide something that's not being provided, etc. Making a few individuals wealthy in no way should be forbidden, but the pursuit of individual wealth regardless of everything else is not virtuous, IMO -- it leads to decisions that make things worse for society. There's no reason serving a need and making a profit can't be compatible, is there?

I interpreted your argument to be that pursuit of individual wealth regardless of everything else is virtuous, b/c it creates benefits for others (like jobs, shareholders, services, etc.). The example of Exxon above, however, makes it sound like the company had other original goals than just individual wealth of a few people.
 
#34
#34
volinbham said:
To the point of the article:

I believe there is a distinction between a perspective that primarily serving the collective first betters the individual and primarily serving the individual first betters the collective.

I believe the author's primary point is that the candidates appear to be lauding one perspective and deriding the other. He cites reasons why the other is a valid perspective. I happen to agree with him.
Click to expand...

I see your point but see it differently. I think the candidates are saying that you can pursue two types of individual goals: one that separates yourself from society, and one that makes society better. You're still serving yourself, but the aim is what makes the two distinct. They're advocating the latter, and I happen to agree with them.

We see this all the time. Sports is perhaps the best medium. In any team sport, how many times has an individual won a championship separating himself from the team and putting his individual pursuits above his teams?
 
#35
#35
MG1968 said:
Obama can try to hide his Marxism in flowery rhetoric, but I don't see any way in which his economic policies will help the economy.
Click to expand...

Well, thank God we have interpreters like you to tell us what Obama's really saying.
 
#36
#36
TennNC said:
Now I'm confused. I'm going back to the beginning for clarity.

My argument is that businesses should exist to serve a need, make something better, provide something that's not being provided, etc. Making a few individuals wealthy in no way should be forbidden, but the pursuit of individual wealth regardless of everything else is not virtuous, IMO -- it leads to decisions that make things worse for society. There's no reason serving a need and making a profit can't be compatible, is there?

I interpreted your argument to be that pursuit of individual wealth regardless of everything else is virtuous, b/c it creates benefits for others (like jobs, shareholders, services, etc.). The example of Exxon above, however, makes it sound like the company had other original goals than just individual wealth of a few people.
Click to expand...

If all Obama and McCain were/are saying is that pursuit of individual wealth devoid of all else is bad then are they really saying anything profound at all? How many people are so blatantly single-minded? To assume people are such then suggest they shouldn't be is a strawman argument. There is almost always a complex set of goals and aspirations driving human behavior.

The point I (and I think the author) are trying to make is a matter of perspective or relative emphasis on collective goals vs individual goals. It is the suggestion that a career in the Peace Corp is more valued than a career on Wall St. The first is viewed as putting the collective over individual needs while the latter is viewed as putting individual needs over the needs of the collective. One is noble, one is selfish. The history lesson is that it has frequently been the latter that has yielded amazing positive benefits for the collective.

There's no reason serving a need and making a profit can't be compatible, is there?
Click to expand...

Actually, I contend that profit (long-term) is impossible without serving a need. The sticky part is defining the need that is being served.
 
#37
#37
At what point does the willing welfare recipient stop to think about what his/her part of society might be? The fact is rich/poor or in sickness/or health people from all walks of life think of themselves and their position in society first regardless.

It is this self awareness that makes capitalism work...and it is why marxism will always fail. Regardless of how it is interpreted everything off the lips of Obama has screamed marxism to me.
 
#38
#38
More comments from the address:

But during my first two years of college, perhaps because the values my mother had taught me –hard work, honesty, empathy – had resurfaced after a long hibernation; or perhaps because of the example of wonderful teachers and lasting friends, I began to notice a world beyond myself. I became active in the movement to oppose the apartheid regime of South Africa. I began following the debates in this country about poverty and health care. So that by the time I graduated from college, I was possessed with a crazy idea – that I would work at a grassroots level to bring about change.

I wrote letters to every organization in the country I could think of. And one day, a small group of churches on the South Side of Chicago offered me a job to come work as a community organizer in neighborhoods that had been devastated by steel plant closings. My mother and grandparents wanted me to go to law school. My friends were applying to jobs on Wall Street. Meanwhile, this organization offered me $12,000 a year plus $2,000 for an old, beat-up car.
Click to expand...

It wasn’t easy, but eventually, we made progress. Day by day, block by block, we brought the community together, and registered new voters, and set up after school programs, and fought for new jobs, and helped people live lives with some measure of dignity.

But I also began to realize that I wasn’t just helping other people. Through service, I found a community that embraced me; citizenship that was meaningful; the direction I’d been seeking. Through service, I discovered how my own improbable story fit into the larger story of America.
Click to expand...

There are so many ways to serve and so much need at this defining moment in our history. You don’t have to be a community organizer or do something crazy like run for President. Right here at Wesleyan, many of you have already volunteered at local schools, contributed to United Way, and even started a program that brings fresh produce to needy families in the area. One hundred and sixty-four graduates of this school have joined the Peace Corps since 2001, and I’m especially proud that two of you are about to leave for my father’s homeland of Kenya to bring alternative sources of energy to impoverished areas.

I ask you to seek these opportunities when you leave here, because the future of this country – your future – depends on it. At a time when our security and moral standing depend on winning hearts and minds in the forgotten corners of this world, we need more of you to serve abroad. As President, I intend to grow the Foreign Service, double the Peace Corps over the next few years, and engage the young people of other nations in similar programs, so that we work side by side to take on the common challenges that confront all humanity.

At a time when our ice caps are melting and our oceans are rising, we need you to help lead a green revolution. We still have time to avoid the catastrophic consequences of climate change if we get serious about investing in renewable sources of energy, and if we get a generation of volunteers to work on renewable energy projects, and teach folks about conservation, and help clean up polluted areas; if we send talented engineers and scientists abroad to help developing countries promote clean energy.

At a time when a child in Boston must compete with children in Beijing and Bangalore, we need an army of you to become teachers and principals in schools that this nation cannot afford to give up on. I will pay our educators what they deserve, and give them more support, but I will also ask more of them to be mentors to other teachers, and serve in high-need schools and high-need subject areas like math and science.

At a time when there are children in the city of New Orleans who still spend each night in a lonely trailer, we need more of you to take a weekend or a week off from work, and head down South, and help rebuild. If you can’t get the time, volunteer at the local homeless shelter or soup kitchen in your own community. Find an organization that’s fighting poverty, or a candidate who promotes policies you believe in, and find a way to help them.
Click to expand...

This I believe is the author's point. The list of how you can be part of something bigger is devoid from any mention of business or military service. His omissions suggest what he believes makes a contribution to the greater good and what does not.

If I were a business grad at this school I would feel he just told me my career plans were virtually valueless and inherently self-serving.

In the earlier passages, he distinguishes himself as contributing by avoiding careers that will make him rich (Law School, Wall Street) and emphasizes forgoing money to make a difference. (He's doing alright now as the author points out).

A different way to make my (and I believe) the author's point is that the commentary by Obama and McCain suggest doing well by pursuing high paying jobs (that yield material rewards) is inferior (both in terms of internal salvation and the collective good) to sacrificing pay to work for others.
 
#39
#39
volinbham said:
If all Obama and McCain were/are saying is that pursuit of individual wealth devoid of all else is bad then are they really saying anything profound at all? How many people are so blatantly single-minded? To assume people are such then suggest they shouldn't be is a strawman argument. There is almost always a complex set of goals and aspirations driving human behavior.

The point I (and I think the author) are trying to make is a matter of perspective or relative emphasis on collective goals vs individual goals. It is the suggestion that a career in the Peace Corp is more valued than a career on Wall St. The first is viewed as putting the collective over individual needs while the latter is viewed as putting individual needs over the needs of the collective. One is noble, one is selfish. The history lesson is that it has frequently been the latter that has yielded amazing positive benefits for the collective.
Click to expand...

Well, the Peace Corps isn't a career - it's an opportunity to volunteer for a period of time. But I see what you're saying -- teachers, community service workers, nonprofits, etc. - we need all those AND the Wall St. professionals. And I see no reason someone couldn't have a career on Wall St. and serve in the Peace Corps (or be a mentor, volunteer, etc.). Realize you're part of a bigger picture, and you'll be more fulfilled - that's what I took from his message.

"You can take your diploma, walk off this stage, and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should buy. You can choose to narrow your concerns and live your life in a way that tries to keep your story separate from America’s."

It's simple. Might not be profound. But maybe it's helpful right now. (Side note - I wish the President had said something along these lines when we went to war with Iraq, to at least feel that we were all in this together -- but maybe he didn't see it as America's war.)
 
#41
#41
volinbham said:
A different way to make my (and I believe) the author's point is that the commentary by Obama and McCain suggest doing well by pursuing high paying jobs (that yield material rewards) is inferior (both in terms of internal salvation and the collective good) to sacrificing pay to work for others.
Click to expand...

Just a guess, but perhaps Obama was speaking up for less glamorous jobs b/c the high-paying ones will always have plenty of qualified applicants. Teachers, not so much.

We need both types of jobs. And I bet Obama would agree. We could argue about the meaning of what he doesn't say, but that doesn't do either of us any good.
 
#42
#42
TennNC said:
Well, the Peace Corps isn't a career - it's an opportunity to volunteer for a period of time. But I see what you're saying -- teachers, community service workers, nonprofits, etc. - we need all those AND the Wall St. professionals. And I see no reason someone couldn't have a career on Wall St. and serve in the Peace Corps (or be a mentor, volunteer, etc.). Realize you're part of a bigger picture, and you'll be more fulfilled - that's what I took from his message.
Click to expand...

This is precisely the point - one's work on Wall Street can be entirely consistent with loftier goals and being part of something larger one's self! The core point is that such jobs can be equally virtuous as teaching, etc.

I know a CEO of a small Wall Street Firm. His guiding philosophy is that his father was a fireman and he views his job as ensuring pensions (such as the one his dad drew from as a retired fireman) were safe and growing. Sure he's richer than most people will ever be but his contribution to society is incredibly large even though he's not in the Peace Corp etc.
 
#43
#43
Lexvol said:
Regardless of how it is interpreted everything off the lips of Obama has screamed marxism to me.
Click to expand...

You should inform Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffett, Kenneth Griffin, Mark Gilbert and the other billionaire Obama supporters of this, as they stand to lose the most under an Obama presidency.
 
#44
#44
TennNC said:
You should inform Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffett, Kenneth Griffin, Mark Gilbert and the other billionaire Obama supporters of this, as they stand to lose the most under an Obama presidency.
Click to expand...

That is the great myth....we are only a few hundred years removed from complete feudelism...and it is the upwardly mobile who will lose the most. All of those people have competed and thrived in a free market. It is those who will not get that opportunity that will be slighted the most.
 
#45
#45
volinbham said:
This is precisely the point - one's work on Wall Street can be entirely consistent with loftier goals and being part of something larger one's self! The core point is that such jobs should be equally virtuous as teaching, etc.
Click to expand...

There. Now we're in violent agreement.

Love the story of your Wall St. friend. And there's a growing number of wealthy entrepreneurs searching for virtue beyond their net worth. Interface CEO Ray Anderson is one of them:

Interface, Inc. | Who We Are | Founder
 
#46
#46
TennNC said:
You should inform Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffett, Kenneth Griffin, Mark Gilbert and the other billionaire Obama supporters of this, as they stand to lose the most under an Obama presidency.
Click to expand...

Would they? In any communist society there are those with power (money, like Oprah) and then there are the rest of us (poor, little more than slaves).
 
#47
#47
TennNC said:
You should inform Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffett, Kenneth Griffin, Mark Gilbert and the other billionaire Obama supporters of this, as they stand to lose the most under an Obama presidency.
Click to expand...
negative. Taxes don't decimate previously accumulated wealth. They attack only income. It's why those folks were fiscally conservative until they were jillionaires. Now that they are in the business of giving away huge sums of money, the government pit just doesn't matter any more.

Bottom line, taxes cream the upper middle income guys who earn a lot. The truly wealthy no longer care because their money has already been earned. The pittance they might make on it and be taxed on just doesn't impact them any more.
 
#48
#48
TennNC said:
There. Now we're in violent agreement.

Love the story of your Wall St. friend. And there's a growing number of wealthy entrepreneurs searching for virtue beyond their net worth. Interface CEO Ray Anderson is one of them:

Interface, Inc. | Who We Are | Founder
Click to expand...

Maybe we'll move back to disagreement when I clarify. I meant to imply that high paying business jobs should be viewed as equally virtuous as jobs such as teaching.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top