[MD] Where have all the values gone?

[Matt poot]

Hi all , or platt/arlo

I guess i'm interrupting here, seeing as its mainly  between you two , but I 
thought I would offer some comments on the posts I've had time to go over 
briefly.


Platt had said;
I think people work for any number of reasons, just as people see
quality in any number of things.


Poot:  I would agree with you in the sense that it is o.k. to work with the 
goal of attaining money, or holding a job.  Lots of people I've encountered 
just want  a9-5 type deal, with decent pay, so they focus mostly on their 
non-work part of life.  Without many of these people, it would be hard to 
man gas-stations, or what not.



I also used to be one to view profit in the wrong shade, but I have come to 
learn that profits, as you have said platt, are a good thing (job security, 
etc.).

However, as arlo also stated , alcohol (profit) is fine.  Alcoholism (excess 
profit) can be a bad thing.

When the reasonable seeking of profit turns into the wanton, greedy 
recklessness of unethical/immoral profit seeking at any cost, this is where 
problems arise.  there is nothing at all wrong with a free market, but when 
there are not laws to protect citizens/employees, or even the environment 
from serious harm, then it turns from a free into chaos.


Heres a quote to further elaborate

"Thus, arguing that the most socially responsible companies are also the 
best investments, is an inherently limited framework.  At some point, the 
two objectives will clash.  If profit remains the primary goal, there is 
only so far companies can conceivably go in the direction of corporate 
social responsibility before it becomes too much of a drag on the bottom 
line."     -  T.P.B pg107


So I ask both of you, if the goal of maximizing share value for shareholders 
which seems to be both good (income) and bad (negative social /environmental 
effects) for many shareholders.

Another one:

"Social screening is also difficult [for investors] because there are hardly 
any publicly traded corporations that are thoroughly socially responsible.  
Certain companies  may be better than others in various categories, but 
anybody who is investing in the stock market is going to have to own stock 
in corporations that do something that is reprehensible to somebody.  The 
fundamental problem, as we will explore shortly, is that the large publicly 
traded corporation has certain structural flaws that make destructive 
antisocial behaviour the norm."  -T.P.B pg 109


I've got to split but 1 more thing:

Platt:
>I don't seem Bill Gates suffering from lack of guidelines on how to spend 
>his
>billions. As for gracelessness, take a look at grunge, the style of the 
>young
>today. Victorians had a sense of grace and manners far surpassing the clods
>filling the malls today.


Poot:  No, indeed bill gates seems to be a model for his great contributions 
for various charities, and his own foundation, which his wife, and himself 
are very active in (or atleast so I hear).

On the second part of your comment there platt, it kind of scares me a 
little for a few reasons:

#1: Grunge is not the "style" today, but maybe 15 years ago.  Also, clothing 
is not a true representation of character.

#2: Victorians aside from grace, also had the excellent fashion apparel such 
as corsets, and moral codes (a.k.a. grace and manners) that were 
intellectually and socially repressive.

#3:  If you ever think there is a point in time where the young generations 
style will be something you would adhere to, it is not going to happen.

What did parents think of elvis and his gyrations?  yet now, hes an american 
icon.   need i say more?



POot