On Dec 13, 2008, at 7:02 PM, apptech wrote: > 1. People at the top tend to get there by some form of capability - > it may > be skill, intelligence or ability to destroy opponents, or ability > to win > birthright lotteries. > Nobel laureates tend not to be the very very nicest of people. Some > may be. At least one real scientific study pointed out that many CEO/COO types would likely be diagnosed as having Asberger's Syndrome [sp?] if they were interested in being labeled/evaluated, which they're usually not. > 2. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Perhaps more > kindly > put in this context, opportunity and necessity to do more harm exist. > > Even if you hate laying people off, you are liable to lay off more > people > than the total saist who works in your loading dock. Numberous scientific studies in Psychology have shown that people RARELY act on their "morals" when placed in specific situations where an authority tells them they must do something. In the case of layoffs, a CEO is told by the higher authority/business culture that layoffs are the appropriate way to deal with losses. In fact, our lawyers have made it impossible for CEO's to do a much more humane thing -- they can't even ask if everyone would take a pay cut VOLUNTARILY to save the company, since the act of asking (even everyone) has been found to be a form of discrimination -- since not everyone makes equal pay. (Asking a person making $1 million US a year, isn't the same question as asking the person making minimum wage, according to the great law minds and their twisted logic.) They can't do one of the obvious "right things" that humans in a relationship (complete with compromises, since all relationships have those), even if they want to. Twisted, isn't it? Thank you lawyers. (And if you know any CEO's of public companies who've actually tried/ done this, I'd love to read the story -- better yet, if they got sued over it, that'd make it even more interesting to read.) >> Despite the ups and downs, the general trend is up. In capitalist >> societies, >> each generation is wealthier than the one before it. That is why I'm >> hopeful >> about the future. > > Um. > I do hope that you are correct. > "Long" can have different meanings. > What's the oldest known continually existent capitalist society? > Are there older ones that are non-C > (I don't know the answers to those questions). > I know Giggle would help me look erudite on such nut it's more time > efficient and fun to await an in house lecture :-). Heh, I'm interested in the answers to that too... Behavioral Economics, and those who study it (a really interesting field), has published some really interesting stuff in the last decade, and it doesn't really agree with saying that a particular social norm or culture (like Capitalism) is going to cover all the reasons humans actually get by from day to day, finding what they need. Which ultimately is what an Economy is. Freakonomics was probably the first book of this "genre" to gain popularity amongst general readers, but there have been others since then. A Brit recently published a really good one, but I can't remember the title right now. A great read. All sorts of interesting social studies done over many years in that one, less economically related, more related to -- in fact the sub-title was something like this -- Why people do the things we do...? Or something like that. Great read. -- Nate Duehr nate@natetech.com -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist