On 5/14/13 5:22 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2013 16:58:57 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

You still own plenty of stock, they are just held by your pension plan
or other investment vehicles you have..



Which has nothing to do with my point that I haven't owned shares for
some time. Your efforts to spin everything into meaninglessness moral
nihilism used to be amusing.

That is like saying "I am not a murderer, I just hired a hit man"

You are living off the profits of the corporations along with the evil
bankster who manages your pension fund.,


Actually, I'm not. The bulk of my income comes from fees from clients
and profits from non-stock investments. I also get a small check from my
union pension plan and, recently, a monthly direct deposit from Social
Security.

On May 14, 9:10*am, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


I'll be the first to admit I have no great interest in endless
discussions here. There aren't enough participants to make it that
interesting to me. These usually end up with you splitting hairs with
iloogy.

HuH? So far, 17 of the 42 posts in this thread are yours Harry...

?;^ )

On 5/14/2013 5:39 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 5/14/13 5:22 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2013 16:58:57 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

You still own plenty of stock, they are just held by your pension plan
or other investment vehicles you have..



Which has nothing to do with my point that I haven't owned shares for
some time. Your efforts to spin everything into meaninglessness moral
nihilism used to be amusing.

That is like saying "I am not a murderer, I just hired a hit man"

You are living off the profits of the corporations along with the evil
bankster who manages your pension fund.,


Actually, I'm not. The bulk of my income comes from fees from clients
and profits from non-stock investments. I also get a small check from my
union pension plan and, recently, a monthly direct deposit from Social
Security.

Are you as honest with he IRS as you are with us?

Hank© wrote:
On 5/13/2013 2:53 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:


After hundreds of workers were killed in Bangladesh when the factory
they worked at making clothes collapsed, Pope Francis took a moment
during his May Day homily to pray for the victims and their families as
well as condemn the labor practices that took their lives.

“How many brothers and sisters find themselves in this situation!”
said the pontiff referring to the unfair and unsafe working conditions
around the world. “Not paying fairly, not giving a job because you are
only looking at balance sheets, only looking at how to make a profit.
That goes against God!”

He couldn’t believe that the workers inside the factory were only making
roughly 38 Euros ($50) per month calling the deplorable conditions and
pay “slave labor.” Workers who subsequently died.

“I call on politicians to make every effort to relaunch the labor
market,” said Pope Francis who went on to say that unemployment is, “an
economic conception of society based on selfish profit outside the
bounds of social justice.” He also said, “We do not get dignity from
power or money or culture, no! We get dignity from work.”

The Vatican has spoken against economic inequality throughout the
economic collapse of recent years, and has been often very critical of
unregulated capitalism and the harm it inflicts.

http://tinyurl.com/d4vq8uf

Where's the garment workers union when you need it?
They got dignity from work, not money. Just what the Pope asked for.

F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 5/14/13 8:20 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 5/14/13 7:46 AM, Tim wrote:
On May 14, 6:43 am, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 5/14/13 7:19 AM, Eisboch wrote:



"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 5/14/13 5:32 AM, Wayne B wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:51:26 -0400, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:

You can depend upon a bankster not giving a **** about the greed
that
cost more than 1000 lives. No one said the factory shouldn't make a
profit, by the way.

===

It's good to see you once again searching for the moral high ground.
Hopefully you'll find it some day but I'm not holding my breath.

Just as an FYI, I'd argue that incompetence was probably a bigger
culprit than greed in the case of the building collapse. When
things
are designed and built correctly, they don't fall down.

What a wonderfully self-delusional way to look at corporate
excess. The
guy who expanded the building illegally in Bangladesh was simply
incompetent and didn't know what he was doing would lead to disaster.
The companies who contract for the lowest price manufacturing
facility
didn't know the companies they retained had their workers laboring
for
**** wages in such a facility. It's never greed, because the free
market
system, why, it demands that structures and systems are designed,
built,
and operated correctly. Yup, so anything horrific that happens,
why it
is never the fault of cost-cutting or greed.

---------------------------------------

Wow. Harry, you really have become cynical to an excess over the
years. Starting to think GOM syndrome is setting in.

http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2013/02/28/1226587/474989-statle...



Greed is the driving force in the economy.

It's the driving force of any economy. ie to gain more



So, you are an acolyte of Gordon Gekko, and believe that unrestrained
greed is good? Mighty shaky ground for a devout and believing Christian,
eh?

------------------------------------------------

Tim's faith has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation Harry.




I'm not questioning his faith, but I do know that his saviour was not
an advocate of greed.

Perhaps we have a language problem here. I don't have the slightest
problem with a for-profit company making a profit. For me, the
question is, what is the percentage of profit and what is being done
to maximize that profit? If workers are being exploited and forced to
work in dangerous conditions, then the maximization of profit is based
upon greed. If the workers are paid a decent wage and can work in
relative safety, then greed may not be a factor.


It all has to do with competition. How do you know this company was
doing any more than breaking even? You are full of assumptions, deadbeat.

F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 5/14/13 9:45 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2013 07:43:41 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


Greed is the driving force in the economy.

Management, labor and the consumer.
Nobody is innocent.



Again, I'm unsure the concept and meaning of the word "greed" is well
understood here.
Does it have anything to do with avoiding taxes, screwing creditors via
bankruptcy, and buying Parkers and generators with other people's
money? You understand that well enough -so well you buy imaginary
boats, too!

F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 5/14/13 5:22 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2013 16:58:57 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

You still own plenty of stock, they are just held by your pension plan
or other investment vehicles you have..



Which has nothing to do with my point that I haven't owned shares for
some time. Your efforts to spin everything into meaninglessness moral
nihilism used to be amusing.

That is like saying "I am not a murderer, I just hired a hit man"

You are living off the profits of the corporations along with the evil
bankster who manages your pension fund.,


Actually, I'm not. The bulk of my income comes from fees from clients
and profits from non-stock investments. I also get a small check from
my union pension plan and, recently, a monthly direct deposit from
Social Security.
What clients? You post all day here. You treat rec.boats like a chat room.

F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 5/14/13 9:59 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2013 08:40:46 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


I don't equate a business making a reasonable profit with "greed."
Apparently you do. Greed incorporates either the pursuit of or the
making of an unreasonable profit.

What's an unreasonable profit? Depends. Banks are paying about 2% on
savings these days, and, assuming your deposits are under the FDIC
insurance limites, those deposits are pretty much risk free. So,
what is
a reasonable profit if you are putting your money at risk? Five times
the insured savings rate? Ten times? Fifty times?

Do you think you could live on 2% of your savings? (pension plan or
whatever)
"Profit" is also return on investment. That is where your pension
comes from. Do you want to take a pay cut on that generous union
pension? I bet not, so you WANT a greedy corporate leader who is
generating big dividends to fund your lifestyle.
They not only need that money to send to you, they also have to pay
the fund manager and the union leaders who make plenty of money, just
to administer your account and recruit more union members (bribe
government officials etc).
Your pension was funded, based on a 10% return PLUS administration and
other fees. The only place you can get that kind of money is by
investing in the most greedy corporations.


1. Could I live on 2% of my savings? No. But that wasn't the question.
The question was, what multiple of the current savings interest rate,
which is paid on money not really at risk, is reasonable as a rate of
profit.

The answer is the best they can do in a competitive marketplace.
Percentages mean very little. The size of the business and the industry
they are in are significant.

2. Two of the many funds my pension fund invests in average between 8
and 10% a year return to their investors, after expenses, and did so
during the recent recession. These are not huge funds, and they run
their ships pretty tight. I follow both of these funds for reasons
other than my pension. I don't pay attention to my pension fund's
other investments.
Which funds? Sounds like bull**** to me. Go Google some up - it will
take you a while. You are an imbecile if you truly ignore the other
investments.

3. I don't personally know any international union leaders who "make
plenty of money." I do know some whose salaries are in the $150,000 to
$300,000 range, and a couple of retired international union presidents
who did a little better. Again, these are people who I know personally.
I don't consider salaries in that range for highly responsible jobs as
paying "plenty."

You do, or don't, personally know them? Which is it (I already know the
answer)? More BS.

4. If a corporation based in the United States and employing mostly
U.S. workers is earning a 10 to 12% profit, and isn't exploiting its
workforce, then that seems reasonable to me. I would, of course,
exclude the monopolistic companies from that, and the book-cooking
companies, too.


A company can make a net 1% profit while it's management makes millions
in salary. That's not cooking the books, either, it's an expense
resulting in a lower bottom line.

On Tue, 14 May 2013 09:45:12 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 14 May 2013 07:43:41 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


Greed is the driving force in the economy.

Management, labor and the consumer.
Nobody is innocent.

====

No one should be innocent.

The profit motive (call it greed if you must) is the driving force
behind all innovation, all customer service, all product excellence
and all efficient manufacturing. Without the potential for profit
(sometimes *large* profits) there are no incentives for the risks and
hard work of starting or running a business. Anything else is
socialism and we all know how that worked out in the former USSR.

Harry is bitter because success (profit) seems to have escaped him.

On 5/14/2013 6:29 PM, Tim wrote:
On May 14, 9:10 am, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


I'll be the first to admit I have no great interest in endless
discussions here. There aren't enough participants to make it that
interesting to me. These usually end up with you splitting hairs with
iloogy.

HuH? So far, 17 of the 42 posts in this thread are yours Harry...

?;^ )


LOL!