> > SA previously: Hmmm, so that's what zero-net-gain means? We
> consumer products
> > not made here, thus, giving money to countries and
> people that are
> > not in our country so this country is not getting the
> money we are spending? Correct?
Khaled:
> Sorry, i lost my train of thought here. My theory about
> zero-net-gain is
> that when someone ( such as the CEOs you have been talking
> about) make
> million, those millions have to come from somewhere. Yes
> the bottom line
> is that the wealth is not evenly divided. So in order for
> someone to get
> super rich, someone has to be short changed.
SA: Yes, but not everybody can be kings from what I understand in a monetary
system such as the one the U.S. currently has. If everybody had a more even
amount of money, then the dollar would lose its' value. It would be just as
desirable to have in equal accord. It wouldn't have a perceived greater value
for nobody would have a lot more than other people, so, no desire to have as
much money as those people who have a lot of money because nobody would have a
lot more money to drive the value of having a lot of money. The dollar would
lose great value if everybody could get the same amount as everybody else.
It's a system problem.
Khaled:
> Oh i can already hear the outcries saying that I am
> advocating socialism
> and that we should all be making the same amount of money
> despite our efforts.
> NO. What I am saying is that NO effort merits a million
> dollars a day.
SA: It is out of balance I would say. These people are taking the money and
running meanwhile most people in the community have to deal with the loses.
How does a company go bankrupt when the executives leave with millions? For
me, it's also a matter of definition. I thought bankruptcy meant the company
had no money to stay open, so, how does anybody walk away from a company with
money - the company was supposed to have no money to be able to walk away with
for that's what bankruptcy means I thought.
Khaled:
> That money that went to the CEO had to come from somewhere.
> It sure did
> not go to the share holders. Or those doing the day-to-day
> labor. In fact
> a CEO's pay get bigger if he is able to out source and
> lay off a few hundred employees.
SA: Yeap. The money had to come from somewhere. The outsourcing and laying
off of a few hundred employees might be a whole other playing field though.
This could also mean that the jobs are not worth the effort and demand of pay
that a culture might be desiring. "Not worth the effort", meaning, the culture
needs to change the kind of skills and work it performs. By "demand of pay" I
mean a culture might be asking for too much money to do the work. The workers
are wanting lots of money to perform their jobs. This latter could be related
to the workers living in more and more excess and a fat life.
Khaled:
> The zero-net-gain means that there is only so much money,
> land, recourses
> available for all. How you go about dividing is another
> story. yes Hard
> work should be rewarded accordingly. And no, if you
> don't work, there
> should be no welfare system to support you.
SA: This is a gap that I think will continue until this culture frees up some.
It may not be that some people have to work in a monetary way that is narrow
for we know that other possibilities of living exist that are not monetary.
The earth offers differing cultures to show this diversity in how people can
live. So if a system finds those outside the system, instead of shunning them,
which I'm not saying your shunning them, I'm providing a view that might
provide seeds of a solution. Can a system include everybody? No, but those
that the system puts out on the fringe or outcasted, these people are where we
can find guidance when change occurs. They are not as embedded inside the
system as those partaking heavily in the system. What might be difficult for
those outside the system is they might be become numb to the ways of the system
and the system in their eyes is always something frail and nongraspable, so,
those numb to when a system may
actually going through a major change could be both those deeply embedded in
the culture/system being too optimistic and like today when people keep saying,
"Oh, this country goes through these down times, so, don't worry this will be
over." Sure that can be true, but this might minimize the "down time". The
others that might be numb to a system change are those on the outside of the
system but not paying attention to what the system is doing anymore and they
are blanking out, drunk a lot, dipping into a void that is bigger than a local
system/ local culture. If your tied to the system in some way and you aren't
too tight or too loose to what the system is doing, then you notice tugs and
pulls. I guess I may have rambled some generalities here, but my point is if
one doesn't work in the system it doesn't mean they are NOT working.
Khaled:
> If you work, you get
> rewarded. The Japanese used to have a rule ( or the story
> goes) that the
> highest paid exec did not make more than 7 times the lowest
> paid janitor.
> So these guys on the top ( remember Enron) rake it in,
> because someone else is not getting any.
SA: yes, too much hoarding would lopeside the system too far one way.
Khaled:
> The other thing that I have an issue with is that these are
> PUBLICLY
> traded companies. We are talking about the CEO and not the
> owner of the
> company. Hey, if you invent something like the airbag, and
> you are the
> only manufacturer in the world until the patent runs out
> and you become a
> billionaire selling your product. GOOD FOR YOU.
SA: Do you mean here that the owner would be getting money and that money
would be the owners as soon as the owner gets the money? So the money earned
by the owner is money gone private, whereas the money that a CEO walks away
with was company's money? This fits in with what we are saying about what
bankruptcy is supposed to mean, so, how does a CEO walk away with money from a
company when that company was supposed to be broke.
woods,
SA
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
