Ethics

[eponymous]

Aren't we past that BS "compassionate" crap yet? I mean, who's more compassionate - me, the guy with no kids (yet) or the guy or gal that brings multiple children into this world and yet can't afford them? Honestly, am I a villain in making that non-compassionate statement or the person who I'm supposed to support?

Here's a newsflash: the world cannot sustain the level of growth we've been experiencing over the course of the last couple centuries.

(And FWIW I do donate to the food shelf and will give Joe Nobody money out of my own pocket when I can.)

Why do you donate/give to others if not out of compassion?

 

[vodkazvictim]

Jesus would say you're full of shit because the statement is is 100% false. $240 billion will solve it 4 times over? Who's ass did this number get pulled from?

Just double checked the OP - it's from Oxfam.
You should like them; they pay their directors.

What is unethical about making money?

Nothing.

You'll have to clarify your question, that topic is too vague. On it's face, there's nothing unethical about hard work and fair compensation, but that's not the question you asked.

:thumbsup:

Vodka somehow thinks there is a problem with it. Some people have more than others and it doesn't seem fair to him. Should there be a limit on how much money we are allowed to have? If he has 2 cars and I have none, should he give me one?

I don't think there is a problem with making money.
I think there is a problem with making money off the backs of others. EG slavery or exploitation of workers.
It certainly isn't fair that some people have as much as Bill Gates while some people in the world starve, no matter how hard they work.
There should be a limit on how much money an individual can have. For example, one should only be able to earn about 10 times as much as another person.
There's no reason you should give me a car if you have two.

There is nothing ethically wrong about making money.

There is something ethically wrong about using people unfairly and manipulating them to make money. I suspect that is what VV is talking about.
I have the unpopular idea that labor laws should be changed. I do not agree with Right to Work laws for larger companies. I believe they make people into non-precious commodities. From a purely capitalistic view there is nothing wrong with it, but without some sort of rights and power given to the worker it is too easy to put the workers in a very difficult spot. Even if there is no intentional wrongdoing on the part of the employer.
(So for those who think I'm a right winger, this is pretty close to socialist talk, no?)

I'm a capitalist myself and make most of my income through investment. I personally see putting other humans in an unfair position as unethical. I realize this view is not accepted by most and the feeling is that everyone should be able to fend for themselves. My much (rightly so) maligned religion that was embedded in my upbringing taught me differently.

You are correct.
You're also correct about people being valuable.
That view is accepted by most.
Everybody SHOULD be able to fend for themselves, but few people are actually able to, thanks in no small part to damaging things like "right to work".
BTW, the more money the average man has, the greater the flow of money in society and the healthier the economy.
Also, the best way to improve the economy is to give money to the poor; they spend more than anybody else both as a percentage and over all.

What's ethical/moral about third worlders having more babies than they can even imagine being able to afford; what's ethical about bringing a child into this world into such extreme poverty? Couldn't afford to have 'em, shouldn't have had 'em. Survival of the fittest - natural selection.

There's nothing smart about having babies you can't afford - but why can't they afford them? Because the 3rd world is exploited by richer countries which keeps them rich and poor respectively.

There is no such thing as survival of the fittest.
It makes me laugh when people talk about survival of the fittest and how good individualism is; humanity rose to the prominence on this planet thanks to the ability to co-operate and work together.
A country is a collection of people working together.
When you get people looking only after themselves and not each other, that's when the problems with countries start to appear.
Or to put it another way; how long would Bill Gates last without the law to protect him from people stealing his riches?
Who made those laws?
Who enforces them?
Who pays for those laws to be made and enforced?
You think individualism and survival of the fittest counts for anything? You're wrong. without operating together as a group we're unable to operate at all.
The reason you here people telling you that survival of the fittest and individualism is good is that they don't want to pay you back for what you have already given them (with no choice whatsoever) through taxes.

We are not precious commodities, we are meat puppets. You've been around enough to know that. There is no loyalty in large companies on either end. Nothing stops an employee from picking up and moving on at any time. Complacency is is dangerous and it happens at all levels of business. When business is off there is only so much that can be done to keep it going. It's not the bottom level that feels the pressure first. The big numbers are seen first by the boys upstairs. Come up with an idea because costs are overrunning profits for too long. Getting new business shouldn't be their first choice since it's their job to do that in the first place. No one from the top down wants to decide on cuts because they may be the next one cut. Shit rolls down hill so those that it hits have to react in the same way. Produce, cut, or you will be cut.

I'll give you retail as an example since that is my business. The same theory can be applied to any corporation. Quarterly numbers come in from a chain of stores and they are trending down. The past 6 months have all been bad. Time to react. Where did our business go? How are the other stores doing? Can we form a strategy to get our customers back? If not then we have to work leaner. How does each market or region look? Has the market been saturated to the point that certain stores no longer can float themselves? How long does it make sense operating at the current level? Closing a store is expensive so make cuts first.

At the store level decisions have to be made and it's payroll. Replace full timers that leave with a part timer. Everyone has to do more. People that have been there for 5-10-15 years have to kick it up a notch too. Store managers included. Sometimes it gets to the point that there are still not enough hands to do all of the work. Something's got to give. The store secretary has to go and the managers will have to do more paperwork. Or a department manager has to go and everyone has to pick up an additional piece of the store. There are scores of other people there and if the store closes they are all out of work. Last one in first one out? Not necessarily. Dude that was hired last year is doing more work than some that have been there for 5-8 years. Tough to call someone in and tell them that but it is what it is.

We are precious commodities (although there are exceptions...)
There are many loyal companies.
The big numbers may be seen upstairs first, but when you look at companies fail you often see the bosses getting rehired immediately by competitors and getting massive severence payments. No such luck below. It's in the nature of corporations to maximise profits at whatever cost; we've all seen people being massively overworked because hiring teammates to spread the load would cost money. We've all seen the harm to business that does.
If you sincerely believe we're not precious commodities, then you, everybody and everything you hold dear, are not precious commodities, but shit. Shit that needs to be exploited towards my ends. Do you agree?

I see your point. It is admirable that you donate to charities that you feel are worthy. I just think that there are probably factors in the third world family that may beyond what you experience. I don't think it would be reasonable to assume they are all dumb or parasites.

Good post. I would not advocate a union type of economy where tenure and compensation or based on longevity. I also wouldn't think of restricting smaller businesses. The only thing I would look to change are the Right to Work laws. I think when I say that, that draws the line on union v. non-union and I'm less interested in that than I am in fairness, even over profit. So, another law that I'm not in favor of that may make my position clearer is "At Will" employment for larger companies. This grants the employer the right to treat people as that non-precious commodity as well. Doing away with At Will Employment can work, but doing away with it is not a economic tool for employers. Without it they need to manage their organizations better.

My position is an ethical one. I'm one of those crazy people that thinks our government is there to help make improvements for all. Often there are no economic justification for it. It is my Utopian outlook and is the reason why I'm disgusted with the corruption on both sides of the aisle.

I should point out that many charities are merely covers; what you give to charity the billionaire owner of the charity doesn't have to pay in tax.
Just another way of getting the poor to pay for the rich. And we wonder why the economy is in trouble! :rofl:
There are definately aspects of life in the 3rd world we can't understand without going there.

I should mention that we REALLY need to support smaller business; the big boys stepping on the small is partially what's caused this mess we're in.
We do need to look after people; what's the use of all the money in the world if it does no good?

 

[eponymous]

Is it ethically right?
What would Jesus say to such disparity in wealth?
Sure, rich Capitalists say that it's ethically right, but is it really right?

I'm not so sure rich Capitalists would say it's ethically right. Some rich Capitalists, certainly, but I don't believe it's either their being rich or their being Capitalists that leads them to this conclusion.

As near as I can tell, the Ayn Rand-style Ethical Egoists are the ones you have in mind. These people may be over-the-moon for Capitalism as well, but it's their egoistic beliefs that convince them helping others is either a waste of time or just plain wrong. They believe everyone should pursue their own interest, and that if everyone did so, all would "even out."

This isn't necessarily the view of all Capitalists, or even most Capitalists. Healthy competition and the pursuit of personal gain are certainly capitalistic ideas, but society doesn't simply boil down to economics. There's nothing antithetical to charity, in the Capitalist view.

Not taking sides here. Just want to help locate the central issue(s).

 

[vodkazvictim]

I'm not so sure rich Capitalists would say it's ethically right. Some rich Capitalists, certainly, but I don't believe it's either their being rich or their being Capitalists that leads them to this conclusion.

As near as I can tell, the Ayn Rand-style Ethical Egoists are the ones you have in mind. These people may be over-the-moon for Capitalism as well, but it's their egoistic beliefs that convince them helping others is either a waste of time or just plain wrong. They believe everyone should pursue their own interest, and that if everyone did so, all would "even out."

This isn't necessarily the view of all Capitalists, or even most Capitalists. Healthy competition and the pursuit of personal gain are certainly capitalistic ideas, but society doesn't simply boil down to economics. There's nothing antithetical to charity, in the Capitalist view.

Not taking sides here. Just want to help locate the central issue(s).

I like your post, but I'm afraid I will have to research "Ayn Rand-style Ethical Egoists" despite the fact I'm pretty sure that they just say "if everybody looks after himself everyone is ok."

Since you've expressed the desire to locate the central issues (admirable) let me ask you; do we live in a Capitalist society at current?
Was the Soviet Union Communist?

 

[eponymous]

Just as an aside, Vodkaz:

Your signature is you quoting yourself?

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Why do you donate/give to others if not out of compassion?

Because I care about what happens in my community, around me.

It goes like this. My loyalty lies first and foremost to my family and friends, less to my community, lesser to my city in general, more less to my state, much less to my country, and much much less to the global "community." As an isolationist - generally speaking, and as a cultural relativist - I frankly could give a shit what happens under Sharia Law somewhere 10K miles away from my reality.

I'm just a peasant - I can't save the world and It sure as shit makes me sick when I see do-gooders like Clooney, Damon and Pitt trying to look all self righteous because they adopt a kid or two from Africa or build a few wells on that continent.

 

[eponymous]

I like your post, but I'm afraid I will have to research "Ayn Rand-style Ethical Egoists" despite the fact I'm pretty sure that they just say "if everybody looks after himself everyone is ok.

You mentioned individualism before; ethical egoism isn't that different. But everyone being okay isn't really the focal point, as I recall. Just a kind of assumed outcome. The really important part is that everybody pursue their own interest.

Since you've expressed the desire to locate the central issues (admirable) let me ask you; do we live in a Capitalist society at current?

Well, according to your profile, you're in Germany, so I'm not sure "We" are in a capitalist society. But on the whole, yes, Western liberal democracies are pretty capitalistic. I can't say I'm terribly versed in economics, so I'm not sure how Germany's being part of the EU makes your economy different from the U.S. At the moment, I believe the U.S. is becoming more of a corporate state, with less actual competition as fewer freedom in the "free market." It isn't the end of Capitalism, but it does seem to be a consolidation period. Perhaps in the next couple decades we'll go through a dispersion phase, or something.

Was the Soviet Union Communist?

The USSR was a State Socialist system. There were no corporations; there was only the state.

 

[eponymous]

Because I care about what happens in my community, around me.

Sounds like compassion to me, just for the people closest to you, not as much for others.

Which means that "compassion crap" isn't BS, just that who one has compassion for, and what one can reasonably hope to accomplish, is a matter of opinion.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Sounds like compassion to me, just for the people closest to you, not as much for others.

Which means that "compassion crap" isn't BS, just that who one has compassion for, and what one can reasonably hope to accomplish, is a matter of opinion.

Well if I was a billionaire I can assure most of it (well probably at least half) would be donated. Probably to cancer or ALS research.

 

[mikexmoran]

We do need to look after people; what's the use of all the money in the world if it does no good?

This is probably the most enlightened thing I have seen you or anyone else post.

 

[Sam Fisher]

Is it ethically right?

WTF are you going on about? Ever see what 16 Trillion dollars looks like? (very interesting analogy in this clip)

 

[vodkazvictim]

Just as an aside, Vodkaz:

Your signature is you quoting yourself?

My signature is quoting something other than me. I need to edit that.
Sorry.

Because I care about what happens in my community, around me.

It goes like this. My loyalty lies first and foremost to my family and friends, less to my community, lesser to my city in general, more less to my state, much less to my country, and much much less to the global "community." As an isolationist - generally speaking, and as a cultural relativist - I frankly could give a shit what happens under Sharia Law somewhere 10K miles away from my reality.

I'm just a peasant - I can't save the world and It sure as shit makes me sick when I see do-gooders like Clooney, Damon and Pitt trying to look all self righteous because they adopt a kid or two from Africa or build a few wells on that continent.

How do you feel knowing that when you donate to a charity, the amount of money you donate is removed from a billionaire's tax bill?

I can see what you mean by prioritising the welfare of those close to you, but I notice that you care for your community.
I must say that I agree with that sentiment, but point out that it is kind of contrary to talk of survival of the fittest, but also helping the community.

Now you talk about not caring about what happens under Sharia law a continent away, but what if the actions of our nations are partially responsible for Sharia law being present there?
As it happens I don't think we can install Democracy by force and think we should leave them alone. But that does mean leave them alone; not exploit, invade and subvert them.

You mentioned individualism before; ethical egoism isn't that different. But everyone being okay isn't really the focal point, as I recall. Just a kind of assumed outcome. The really important part is that everybody pursue their own interest.



Well, according to your profile, you're in Germany, so I'm not sure "We" are in a capitalist society. But on the whole, yes, Western liberal democracies are pretty capitalistic. I can't say I'm terribly versed in economics, so I'm not sure how Germany's being part of the EU makes your economy different from the U.S. At the moment, I believe the U.S. is becoming more of a corporate state, with less actual competition as fewer freedom in the "free market." It isn't the end of Capitalism, but it does seem to be a consolidation period. Perhaps in the next couple decades we'll go through a dispersion phase, or something.



The USSR was a State Socialist system. There were no corporations; there was only the state.

As it happens I'm not in Germany.
But I am in Europe, which is the same thing, so I'm told
I'd argue that there is a Capitalist base to our society, but just like america, we're now corporate states. Hence the rapid decline of the western world.

I honestly believe that if we continue the way we're going we'll stagnate and turn into the middle east; the rich and powerful ruling over the unwashed masses with an iron fist as the countries become ever weaker, mere shadows of their former glory.
Sadly, empires in decline follow a pattern similar to what I see in the UK and I believe is happening in the us.
I can't speak from experience for most of Europe as a man can only live (not visit, live) in so many countries. No matter what the billionaire's tax bill states.

Well if I was a billionaire I can assure most of it (well probably at least half) would be donated. Probably to cancer or ALS research.

How do you feel knowing that this would result in the same amount of money being removed from the billionaire charity owner's tax bill?

This is probably the most enlightened thing I have seen you or anyone else post.

I'm sorry, allow me to return to form;

I ARE BRING BRING CRAYZEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!

 

[eponymous]

WTF are you going on about? Ever see what 16 Trillion dollars looks like? (very interesting analogy in this clip)

Please DO NOT Feed this Troll.

 

[eponymous]

Vodkaz,

I think the topic of this thread is too broad, and that you're taking on more than you (or anyone) can feasibly manage. You're kind of all over the place.

Then again, I suppose that's what discussion forums are for.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

How do you feel knowing that when you donate to a charity, the amount of money you donate is removed from a billionaire's tax bill?

I can see what you mean by prioritising the welfare of those close to you, but I notice that you care for your community.
I must say that I agree with that sentiment, but point out that it is kind of contrary to talk of survival of the fittest, but also helping the community.

Now you talk about not caring about what happens under Sharia law a continent away, but what if the actions of our nations are partially responsible for Sharia law being present there?
As it happens I don't think we can install Democracy by force and think we should leave them alone. But that does mean leave them alone; not exploit, invade and subvert them.

I donate to local charities and where I know funds will be allocated ethically; on your second point, I think Hell has frozen over (at least for this day) - I'm with you entirely on that one. No more "nation building"! Cultural relativism FTW.

 

[Sam Fisher]

So, because this guy has more money than I do, he should be vilified for being successful? Check out his BIO.

Charles Payne:

Date of Birth: 15 November 1960, USA

CEO and principal analyst of Wall Street Strategies, an independent stock market research firm he founded in 1991.

Fox Business Network contributor, since the network's launch in October 2007, and a Fox News Channel contributor. Hosts own daily syndicated talk show, The Payne Nation, by Sun Broadcast Group.

Has a son, Charles (born in 1996) and daughter.

WStreet.com founder.

Served in the U.S. Air Force for two years, attending Minot State University and Central State College while in the service.

Began career on Wall Street as an analyst at E.F. Hutton in 1985.

Fan of Earth Wind & Fire.

Became a grandfather [October 2012].

His wife, Yvonne Payne, had a heart transplant [2012]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.



Oh yeah... you probably figured he was some Wall Street WHITE guy, huh?

Well, not exactly.

Grew up in Harlem in a single parent home.

First job was at a small shop in Harlem, where his duties included working the register and being a security guard.

The point I'm making is, he got himself educated, worked hard, and became a very successful business man and husband and father. And because of that and his success, the other blacks in Harlem who consistently live on welfare is reason to think they didn't get a fair shake and so Charles Payne is now considered a bad man??? WTF?

 

[eponymous]

^ Once again, please do not feed the Troll.

This has been a Public Service Announcement.

 

[bobjustbob]

Vodkaz,

I think the topic of this thread is too broad, and that you're taking on more than you (or anyone) can feasibly manage. You're kind of all over the place.

Then again, I suppose that's what discussion forums are for.

This started out to be an interesting discussion with intelligent thoughts being exchanged. It would be nice to continue that way but it's hard now. Vodka has no fucking idea what the world is about. He thinks that he has all of the solutions to all of the problems in the world. If we all handed our money to him the world would be a better place. He would make all decisions from his desk. We are all to sit back and rely that he, and only he, is the supreme thinker..

Vodka, you don't know jack shit about problems or solutions. It's not about any chemical imbalance. It's just that you vomit supreme stupidity. You spew out one ridiculous thought and theory after another. It's too hard to keep up with them all. How does or did this stuff get into your head? People should be limited to what they can earn at 10 times someone else. Break that down for me. Put a scenario together of how this would be constructed. Create a nice simple model that we can all look at and say you may be right.

You know that I'm a betting man. He won't do it. He'll just fan the challenge away and call me names. Go ahead VV, prove me wrong and shut my mouth with your constructed 10 times pay model that works.

 

[vodkazvictim]

Vodkaz,

I think the topic of this thread is too broad, and that you're taking on more than you (or anyone) can feasibly manage. You're kind of all over the place.

Then again, I suppose that's what discussion forums are for.

Couple of good points.
So reasonable, are you sure you belong on the net?

I donate to local charities and where I know funds will be allocated ethically; on your second point, I think Hell has frozen over (at least for this day) - I'm with you entirely on that one. No more "nation building"! Cultural relativism FTW.

OK, I must admit that I'm impressed that you choose your charities well...
So we agree. Wow. I think I'm gonna go have a lie down.

So, because this guy has more money than I do, he should be vilified for being successful? Check out his BIO.

Charles Payne:

Date of Birth: 15 November 1960, USA

CEO and principal analyst of Wall Street Strategies, an independent stock market research firm he founded in 1991.

Fox Business Network contributor, since the network's launch in October 2007, and a Fox News Channel contributor. Hosts own daily syndicated talk show, The Payne Nation, by Sun Broadcast Group.

Has a son, Charles (born in 1996) and daughter.

WStreet.com founder.

Served in the U.S. Air Force for two years, attending Minot State University and Central State College while in the service.

Began career on Wall Street as an analyst at E.F. Hutton in 1985.

Fan of Earth Wind & Fire.

Became a grandfather [October 2012].

His wife, Yvonne Payne, had a heart transplant [2012]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.



Oh yeah... you probably figured he was some Wall Street WHITE guy, huh?

Well, not exactly.

Grew up in Harlem in a single parent home.

First job was at a small shop in Harlem, where his duties included working the register and being a security guard.

The point I'm making is, he got himself educated, worked hard, and became a very successful business man and husband and father. And because of that and his success, the other blacks in Harlem who consistently live on welfare is reason to think they didn't get a fair shake and so Charles Payne is now considered a bad man??? WTF?

Sam is arguing the opposite point of view; I hereby claim victory by default.

This started out to be an interesting discussion with intelligent thoughts being exchanged. It would be nice to continue that way but it's hard now. Vodka has no fucking idea what the world is about. He thinks that he has all of the solutions to all of the problems in the world. If we all handed our money to him the world would be a better place. He would make all decisions from his desk. We are all to sit back and rely that he, and only he, is the supreme thinker..

Vodka, you don't know jack shit about problems or solutions. It's not about any chemical imbalance. It's just that you vomit supreme stupidity. You spew out one ridiculous thought and theory after another. It's too hard to keep up with them all. How does or did this stuff get into your head? People should be limited to what they can earn at 10 times someone else. Break that down for me. Put a scenario together of how this would be constructed. Create a nice simple model that we can all look at and say you may be right.

You know that I'm a betting man. He won't do it. He'll just fan the challenge away and call me names. Go ahead VV, prove me wrong and shut my mouth with your constructed 10 times pay model that works.

I know what the world is about - I've lived in several different countries (have you?), worked in several different fields (have you?) and generally lived(1).
So how or why you can claim that I don't know what the world is about I don't know, but I suspect you're going for personal attacks rather than arguing on issues where you appear to have concluded that you won't win.
Did I ever say I have all the solutions? No (2).
I just KNOW that we can do better and believe Socialism is our best chance at that (although I'm open to anything better if it appears).
Frankly, if you handed all the world's money to me, it WOULD be better; I'd invest in small business to restart economic growth (most of those who have money simply let it stand by idle, waiting 'til they can get more return for there money, no matter how many people suffer now. Or later. by redistributing money I would encourage economic growth. I'm sure you automatically react with horror at the idea of redistributing wealth, but what do you think investment in small business is?)
I'd make all decisions from my desk, which is a bad thing, but obviously completely different from what most business leaders do, right?
Seriously, when was the last time you saw a CEO who'd worked anywhere on the ground recently? Who had experience in every field in the business? And I don't mean a one day trainer so that he can tell employees that he knows what he's doing.
I've never asked you all to sit back and believe that I'm supreme thinker (3).
The fact that you can make that statement in apparent sincerity implies that you've not read most of my posts.
Now if you must know, I wouldn't just hire advisers - I'd delegate power.
You see; I don't know enough to properly organise a health service for a country, let alone a continent (or world).
I can't multi-task well enough to run Britain AND France, let alone a continent (or world).
We've seen the inefficiencies of dictatorship's in Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany.
By the way, if you ever believe you know of the man who can handle the challenges of organising a continent or world alone, please tell me.

Really? OK; educate me about problems and solutions. Or perhaps you think the world is just hunky dory right now?
I vomit stupidity? I'm not sure everybody would agree;

This is probably the most enlightened thing I have seen you or anyone else post.

Now I advocate overthrowing the current system on the basis that it isn't working.
You seem to advocate keeping this system which I'm sure has nothing to do with your own comfy position within said system.

So how does all this stuff get into my head? Well, it's very simple; I realise that the current system is very obviously not working and so search for viable solutions to change it. If it weren't broke I wouldn't try to fix it.

Now, let us look at this system; the most well paid person (who obviously holds most of the power) may only be paid 10X more than the lowest paid person.
Now obviously, this guy wants more money. Who doesn't? So how does he get it; he pays his employees more, which means that he in turn can be paid more.
Now all those employees happily run out with their new increased wages and go nuts spending it; bingo, economic boost.
Now tell me why it wouldn't work. Tell me about your alternative.

Finally, don't talk about how nice it would be to have an intelligent conversation when I've just pointed out how wrong you were in what you stated about me (1,2 & 3) and when you haven't disproved or provided a valid challenged to a single thing I've said, let alone provided any alternative.

 

[bobjustbob]

85% of all new businesses never make it past the first year. You have a 2/3 chance it won't make it past the 3rd. Past 5 years is 50-50. It takes money to invest in and float a business. Under your model no one will have any money to take on this risk. That's because if they make too much you want to take it away from them.

Here's a quick example of how your 10% fails. The boss making $3000 a week because bottom makes $300. In 3 years we get to $3250 and $325 respectively. They need to hire another person. What do they pay him? If they pay him $300 the boss has to take a pay cut. If they start him at $325, is it fair to everyone that worked there for 3 years to have a new guy start at the same salary?

All for the collective people, huh? Let's say business is down and we need to cut expenses. I'll cut 15% of my salary at the top if everyone at the bottom cuts theirs too. Or do I just fire people because I can't afford to carry the load because I haven't been paid enough to float the salaries? Or are you to say that it's a one way street and the only risks and limits are at the top and the bottom has the final say in all rules and decisions?