Home > Archive > Computer Consultants > April 2005 > (more trolling for alexy) Are all CEOs just crooks?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
(more trolling for alexy) Are all CEOs just crooks?
|
|
| straydog 2005-04-24, 8:56 pm |
|
Are all CEOs (all 'suits'?) just a bunch of crooks?
The following represent a reference list of various sources of
information about executive and management mindsets and how the priority
is placed on benefits to the executives & managers rather than the
company customers and any socially redeeming relationship to the local
community (however that may be defined). This list will be expanded,
edited, and modified at irregular intervals. Corporate behavior (illegal
and unethical) and corporate ethics are dealt with in two other files we
keep.
========================
Quote: "And while all this is supposed to be funny, the reptilian chill
that's felt when Kersten discusses the worker class calls to mind Joel
Bakan and his recent book _The Corporation_ (Free Press, 2004), in which
Bakan points out that corporations, in their single-minded pursuit of
profit, embody the clinical definition of a psychopath." This sentence was
found within the article 'Soul Assassins' by Jamie Malanowski, which
appeared in the May 2005 issue of Fast Company, pages 85-89.
========================
The book "Confessions of a Union Buster" by Martin Jay Levitt
A management consultant specializing, over most of his life, in helping
managers bust existing unions and prevent new ones from forming turns a
new page when realizing that his efforts increased profits at the expense
of marriages, family life, community health, and standard of living of
workers.
===============================
The book "The Big Boys" by Ralph Nader and Robert Taylor
Profiles about a dozen executives of major corporations: implication? They
were assholes, every last one of them.
===============================
From the book "In The Name Of Profit" by Robert L. Heilbroner et al.
(Doubleday & Co, Inc., 1972, 273 pp incl. index). Profiles six executives.
from the forward: "[This book] tries to show what sort of men run
corporations...." and "The goal was to produce the first book that
dramatized, through actual named executives of major American companies,
the sickness at the heart of the system."
Chapters & titles:
1. "Why should my conscience bother me?"
2. Deciding to cheapen the product
3. A colonial heritage
4. "Get away with what you can"
5. "This napalm business"
6. Men of distinction.
==================
From the May 2005 issue of _Fast Company_, page 33, comes a column "The
Ethics Monitor" by Jennifer Alsever. The results of a survey.
Questions Answered "yes"
Do you instruct your assistant
to tell callers that you're
"in a meeting" when you really
just don't want to be bothered? 35%
Have you given a good performance
review to a worker who maybe
didn't deserve it? 24%
(speculation: how many workers
got bad performance reviews that
didn't deserve them?)
When discussing job opportunities
with potential new employees, have
you ever fudged the size of your
current or most recent salary? 27%
(speculation: does this happen
in salary surveys that we all hear
about? how much, %, fudging goes on?)
Do you sometimes "embellish" your
professional experience when
circumstances call for it? 31%
Have you told an employee "no" and
blamed company policy or your boss
when it was really your decision? 25%
(speculation: are these survey
data fairly accurate or did some of
those who answered lie to hide their
misdeeds from the public? i.e. is the
situation worse than it appears?)
Also, the article reported that fewer than one quarter of the respondents
answered no to all questions.
========================================
==========
| |
|
| straydog <advocacy@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>Are all CEOs (all 'suits'?) just a bunch of crooks?
No.
You know, it's hard to imagine that you once thought like a scientist.
There is plenty of credible evidence that some CEOs are crooks (watch
the Healthsouth trial for a good example). But as for your claim and
the feeble list of articles you think supports it, I have seen similar
quality of thought by creationists, who can cite lots of articles,
with just as good scholarship as many of the articles you cite. I find
the use, by you and creationists, of articles written by others
sharing your preconceived notions to "support" your positions rather
pathetic and unconvincing.
Snip list of articles, including a repeat of the one reporting a
survey that showed that those surveyed responded about like "Joe
Average" to questions about ethics.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
| |
| straydog 2005-04-25, 8:56 am |
|
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, alexy wrote:
> Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 01:07:41 -0400
> From: alexy <nospam@asbry.net>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers, alt.computer.consultants
> Subject: Re: (more trolling for alexy) Are all CEOs just crooks?
>
> straydog <advocacy@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>
> No.
The more I read about today's business "ethics" (or deterioration in it),
the more evidence I see that a greater and greater proportion of most of
corporate mindsets really can just be characterized as "a bunch of
crooks."
> You know, it's hard to imagine that you once thought like a scientist.
Its easy for me to imagine that YOU will diminish and refuse to recognize
that the whole corporate infrastructure attracts people who are much more
agressive and ambitious than the average person. That the rich are much
much more selfish and self-serving and consider themselves _different_
than the rest of us.
> There is plenty of credible evidence that some CEOs are crooks (watch
> the Healthsouth trial for a good example).
I've been following all of the events of the last 5 years.
But as for your claim and
> the feeble list of articles you think supports it,
I'm just beginning to make a list of strong articles, well read books,
newspaper articles...all of which were written by well known authors who
did very careful research. And, they all point to the same conclusions.
I have seen similar
> quality of thought by creationists, who can cite lots of articles,
> with just as good scholarship as many of the articles you cite.
Creationists are dealing with a very different phenomenon and they are
dealing with an interpretation. The corporate executive and all of the
hangers-on represent a modern day incarnation of ancient and medieval
kings who could make rules and laws to apply to everyone else but
themselves and then make war, tax, and force tribute for their own
enrichment at the expense of ANYone they chose to force it upon.
I find
> the use, by you and creationists, of articles written by others
> sharing your preconceived notions to "support" your positions rather
> pathetic and unconvincing.
It is always a tactic by a losing side in an argument to throw stones at
the winning argument. Nowhere in any of our discussions now, or in the
past, have you offered a single (weak or strong) reference to corporations
and their executives as being "nice guys" doing something with more net
benefit to society than their own self enrichment beyond the reach of
anyone farther down the pecking order.
> Snip list of articles, including a repeat of the one reporting a
> survey that showed that those surveyed responded about like "Joe
> Average" to questions about ethics.
Joe Average did not have access to millions of dollars and I've seen
studies (also I cited them) showing executives, MBA students, and other
business types were substantially more willing to lie, cheat, and backstab
anyone in the course of enriching themselves. Joe Average did not have
access to tax accountants, tax dodges, lawyers, lobbyists, or other help.
Another quote below:
--
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as
something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only
a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the
benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
- Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, Medal of Honor recipient
| |
|
| straydog <advocacy@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, alexy wrote:
>
>The more I read about today's business "ethics" (or deterioration in it),
>the more evidence I see that a greater and greater proportion of most of
>corporate mindsets really can just be characterized as "a bunch of
>crooks."
Well, that was a quick change of position! So do you no longer make
the silly claim that they are all just a bunch of crooks? (Easily
refuted by showing one non-crook; I'll nominate my barber, who seems
to deal honestly and fairly with both customers and other barbers who
rent chairs in his shop.) This new claim, that there is more evidence
(e.g., from none to slight, or from substantial to overwhelming) that
a greater proportion (e.g., from 1% to 2%, 5% to 7%, or 75% to 90%) of
corporate mindsets can be characterized (whether accurately or not) as
"a bunch of crooks" is much easier to accept. In fact, it is so devoid
of informational content that I am willing to accept it as (trivially)
true.
Especially after witnessing the waffling above.
[color=darkred]
>Its easy for me to imagine that YOU will diminish and refuse to recognize
>that the whole corporate infrastructure attracts people who are much more
>agressive and ambitious than the average person.
Then your imagination is defective. I have no basis for KNOWING that
your speculation is correct, but I suspect that it is, and think it
would be a useful working hypothesis until tested.
> That the rich are much much more selfish and self-serving
I don't have any good basis for accepting or rejecting that
hypothesis. And as you look at the "evidence" you have gathered, try
to think back to when you were a scientist, and see if you can figure
the possible flaws in the process of determining the incidence of a
trait in a [non random] sample of subpopulation A, and from that
concluding that the incidence of that trait in all of subpopulation A
is higher than the unknown incidence of that trait in the population
as a whole.
> and consider themselves _different_ than the rest of us.
Yes, I think they would agree with you in that regard.
>
>I've been following all of the events of the last 5 years.
Really? Maybe you can tell me whether that dry cleaner in Topeka had
to pay out to the customer who claimed he had stolen antique buttons
from his blazer. Or maybe you didn't mean to state the trivially false
statement that you had been following all events in the last 5 years,
and instead meant the trivially true statement that you had been
following all the events you chose to follow.
>I'm just beginning to make a list of strong articles,
What are your criteria for a "strong" article? Wouldn't have anything
to do with whether you agreed with it or not, would it? <g>
> well read books,
Might want to change your focus here to well written books. Much
easier to evaluate from the book itself, and doesn't require
interviewing or testing the readers to see how well the book has been
read.
>newspaper articles...all of which were written by well known authors who
>did very careful research. And, they all point to the same conclusions.
Surprise, surprise!
> I find
>
>It is always a tactic by a losing side in an argument to throw stones at
>the winning argument.
And what was that? <g>
But you are wrong. Evaluation of an argument is critical to avoid
acceptance of a position an the basis of a losing argument.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
| |
| Russell.Martin@wdn.com 2005-04-25, 3:57 pm |
|
alexy wrote:
> straydog <advocacy@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>
>
it),[color=darkred]
most of[color=darkred]
> Well, that was a quick change of position! So do you no longer make
> the silly claim that they are all just a bunch of crooks?
Get a grip or a clue Alexy. Try reading the subject line, at least!
He was TROLLING, so you shouldn't expect anything other than an
extreme position to get a rise out of you (which it did). Geeze...
rest of drivel snipped
Cheers,
Russell
| |
|
| Russell.Martin@wdn.com wrote:
>
>alexy wrote:
>it),
>most of
>
>Get a grip or a clue Alexy. Try reading the subject line, at least!
>He was TROLLING, so you shouldn't expect anything other than an
>extreme position to get a rise out of you (which it did). Geeze...
True. But it is fun to play with him, to see if he can come up with a
real statement, with informational content, that is worthy of
discussion.
>rest of drivel snipped
And hopefully you know about your newsreader's ignore thread function,
so you won't get aggravated by such drivel.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
| |
| Russell.Martin@wdn.com 2005-04-25, 3:57 pm |
| You took the bait, you're on the hook, being played like a
sunfish on 20 lb line. I wonder if fish think they're playing
with fishermen?
And why should I have to bother with my newsreader's
ignore function, when I might expect intelligent posters
to refrain from posting drivel? Oh, never mind...
Cheers,
Russell
| |
|
| Russell.Martin@wdn.com wrote:
>And why should I have to bother with my newsreader's
>ignore function, when I might expect intelligent posters
>to refrain from posting drivel?
If you learn that function and stop assuming intelligent posting on
usenet, you will find your usenet experience greatly enhanced! <g>
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
| |
| Russell.Martin@wdn.com 2005-04-25, 3:57 pm |
| I never *assume* intelligent posting on usenet, I just hope
that the apparent progression from less intelligent life
forms to more intelligent life forms that is revealed in the
biological evolution on our planet will make itself manifest
on usenet. It would be ironic if one of mankind's greatest
technological feats was a breeding ground for the
intellectual devolution of the species back toward
sponges.
Cheers,
Russell
| |
|
| Russell.Martin@wdn.com wrote:
>I never *assume* intelligent posting on usenet, I just hope
>that the apparent progression from less intelligent life
>forms to more intelligent life forms that is revealed in the
>biological evolution on our planet will make itself manifest
>on usenet. It would be ironic if one of mankind's greatest
>technological feats was a breeding ground for the
>intellectual devolution of the species back toward
>sponges.
I agree, but I don't think that is what we are seeing. The apparent
"dumbing down" of usenet is not, IMHO, an artifact of what is
happening in the population, but rather of the sampling. With wider
usenet and web use, anyone can "publish" just about anything, without
sound reasoning or evidence that might have been required to publish
in any print medium not sold at the grocery checkout. But it also
provides a voice for ideas rejected by "the establishment". You get
the good with the bad, IMHO.
And the atrocious grammar, word usage, and spelling is a combination
of those people getting a voice and of otherwise intelligent people
publishing directly, who would have had their language weakness
covered up by secretaries and editors in any print medium. So while
comparing the writing in print from a decade or two ago to the writing
on the web and usenet today may make it look like a fast devolution, I
don't think that is the case.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
|
|
|
|
|