[Grovenet] Answer on 42.

[Ron D'Eau Claire]

I agree Geri. I just answered a comment from Dale about enforcing our laws
and how it is harming us grievously by not doing so. 

You didn't define what you meant by 'greed'. That's what I was really
responding to. 

My dictionary defines greed as "An excessive desire to acquire or possess
more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material
wealth"

We don't have a law against greed, nor have I seen greed cause problems for
anyone but the sufferer of the greed as long as our laws are obeyed and,
where they aren't obeyed, they are enforced. Greed becomes a problem when
the sufferer is so driven he/she breaks the law to try to satisfy greed.

In your example, the income of the rich CEO isn't the point. It's the
question of what happened to the missing retirement funds. Or, look at it
this way, if the CEO was not rich, would it matter to those who lost their
retirement funds? I don't think so. I don't think one says anything about
the other unless that CEO stole those funds. And that's a common jump in
judgment. The CEO is rich so he must be a crook. 

I see people like Bill Gates vilified because he has so much money, so he
must be a greedy crook in the minds of many. Not so. 

The basic mantra of Communism that "the wealthy are greedy" seems to have a
strong foothold in the land of the "free" while we simultaneously claim that
a poor person can't be "greedy" because he is in need.

That's nonsense. Robin Hood was a crook.   

Ron D'Eau Claire   



-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Geri
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 11:32 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Answer on 42.


Ron, there's a balance between the two somewhere.
Am sure you're not oblivious to corporate greed --
the type where a CEO is paid millions while other
employees lose their retirement funds ...  No, there
must be some playing field where the intention of
fairness comes into play.  The rule cannot be that
a business must always succeed no matter the
damage to people.

That corporate greed does not make our country work.
I am hoping for a balance in there ...  with We the
People having to take priority over We the Corporation
-- as a guide.  If you really think about it without just
an immediate reaction, I am not saying corporations
should have all kinds of rules stacked against them.  Of
course not -- they must be workable, and I would wish businesses large and
small to be successful for their creators.

But re, your line (below): "Is it greedy for a worker to
work where he/she gets paid the most for his/her time
and effort?"  Of course not!  That's why competition for corporations is
important (I think it would be a good idea for the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to
start being enforced
again) --  not only competition for their goods and services, but
competition for good employees.  A business won't do much without good
employees.  And by good employees, I don't mean overseas "slave" labor!


Geri


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron D'Eau Claire" <rondec at easystreet.com>
To: "'Forest Grove local interests list'" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Answer on 42.


: Is it greedy for a worker to want to be paid on payday? 
: 
: Is it greedy for a worker to work where he/she gets paid the most for
: his/her time and effort?
: 
: If so, then, yes, corporations, all successful businesses, are greedy by
: that definition. They want to paid for their work. 
: 
: It's what makes our country work.
: 
: Ron D'Eau Claire 
: 
: _______________________________________________
: GroveNet mailing list
: GroveNet at rdrop.com
: http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet