The Strategy of an Ostrich - Page 2

dhoward · dhoward's Garage

"Buck Nakid"

RoninLB · 03-17-2005, 08:25 PM

Auditors do a CPA function, no question.. although I relate to it as production work.

CPA boutiques that do "work out's" are another animal.. although I don't think your state's Turf Protectors could deal with some NYC females having a bad day.. go figure

RoninLB · 03-17-2005, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Souk
I agree Ronnie..
Put the criminals to work!

It's not prison labor if the work is for payment of accomodations while imprisoned, right?! It's called a job!

I think my state is infestered w/some wild&crazy unions so I have an alternative plan.

Bright idea #2 is buying a non-inhabitated island in the Pacific. You drop them off with building materials and a fishing pole. That's all, the end. They get to enjoy each other's company for their sentence. The freighter comes by once a month and they paddle out to it w/dougouts. It's gotta be more efficent than $20k-30k r&b each/yr.

RoninLB · 03-17-2005, 08:49 PM

In a recent meeting among smart guys, engineers, I briefly entered into an existing discussion about . . how much wood could a woodchuck chuck; if a woodchuck could chuck wood? . . ..

, and now it seems clear they do not want to talk about woodchuck chucking any more,

all our problems are caused by lazy, in efficient woodchuckers.

hysterical

Moneyguy1 · 03-21-2005, 12:24 PM

Len, my friend, your response sums it up. Yours is based upon "theory". Mine is based upon experience. Until you have that experience, you cannot state with certainty that your "theory" holds any water. Like I said, interview invididuals ferom BOTH; objectively. Are you saying that a Wal-Mart clerk has really high motivation? Or a server at a Burger King?

Anyone can sift through data and select only those bits and pieces that fit their preconceived notions. And, respectfully, you do an excellent job!!

End of discussion.,

lendaddy · 03-21-2005, 12:29 PM

Bob, with all due respect your "experience" means zero, nada, nothing. We are not discussing "People Bob knows" or "things Bob has done". We are discussing human nature.

Discussion far from over but you are excused

Moneyguy1 · 03-21-2005, 12:54 PM

And your grasp of thisd nature is totally flawless?

Com on, Len.. You would never admit that your preconceived notions are flawed.

That is why it is so much fun challenging you.

Prove your theory.

ANd show a little respect for the life experiences of oithers as they do yours.

Superman · 03-21-2005, 12:58 PM

Thinking once again about motivation and public versus private sector....

It occurs to me that you can load up a sports stadium with conservatives and bring in motivational speakers and get them all wound up about selling and commerce and "freedom" but I'm nto sure you can make any of them cry about it. If you tell a powerful story about how someone was denied the right to keep large amounts of profits, you're going to get anger but not tears.

If you load up a stadium with liberals and talk to them about the stuff they care about, the stuff that motivates state workers, you're going to see a FAR more emotional reaction. There will be stories about families denied santuary, etc etc.

And before someone mentions the term "freedom" in response to this post, if "freedom" means freedom to make money, then fine. Again, that's not going to move someone to tears. But if you use "freedom" in the broader sense, as freedom to live and be secure and have fair opportunities to live and eat and worship as we choose, then you're outside the topic that the first stadium would be discussing.

discuss.

lendaddy · 03-21-2005, 01:03 PM

Bob,

It is lazy to come to an argument and claim "nuh uhhh cause this one time I......"

It is meaningless to the arguement. I never said ALL or EVERYONE, so the fact that your personal experience differs (or you perceive it to differ) from my stated norms does not disprove my theory in the least.

I stated why I believe institutional setting destoys the human spirit and fails to harness the power of human nature. You say I'm wrong "because you didn't witness this in your couple years of teaching"??? Certainly you see the flaw there...

The less a person must do to secure their position or stature........the less they will do. I really don't see how you can argue that.

Superman · 03-21-2005, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lendaddy

The less a person must do to secure their position or stature........the less they will do. I really don't see how you can argue that.

Well, I'm hoping you'll pick a fight with me, Len, and leave poor bob alone. So, I'll point out that your statement above is a conclusion or impression, that may not hold true always. There seems to be a full-spectrum personality type difference here, at times. Folks who want to compete and get ahead (capitalists) versus folks who want to take care of each other, live in symbiotic harmony and just be happy and safe (socialists). The socialists (like me) believe there are quite a broad variety of motivators. The other guys (like you, perhaps) tend to think in much more Machiavellian terms. Just two motivators: Fear and money. I believe that not only are there more motivators than those two, there are BETTER motivators than those two also. So, I reject your hypothesis that person will do only the minimum required to secure their position or stature. So there. And you smell funny and you pick your nose.

lendaddy · 03-21-2005, 04:21 PM

Sup,

I would never say "always", but I'm fully confident that my statement is more true than not. Go back a hundred years and look at what the average Joe had to do to simply survive. We don't even come close to half that kind of dedication or exertion now days. Why? Because we don't have to! It's really that simple.

Take a class of kids, tell em you want a 500+ word essay on slavery due tomorrow. How many will trun in 700+ word essays? Would you have gotten more if you demanded 700+ words from the get go? Duh...

Now I realize these lowered "demands" are much more subtle in adult life, but they exist just the same. When I show up for work and my boss has no stake or interest in my production I can assure you it will be lower than if he/she did.

It's not just fear, it's simple reinforcement. Positive/negative, I don't care, but without either you get less. This is not my "opinion", this is fact and I am in awe that I have to explain it. Are there exceptions? Sure big whup.

Oh yea, Your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberries.

Superman · 03-21-2005, 04:43 PM

Yeah? I fart in your general direction, you wiper of other peoples' bottoms.

I had an interesting conversation once with a conservative who, contrary to all my expectations of course, was fairly learned and intelligent. When I expressed my concern for the stresses and difficulties facing typical families (and especially poorer ones), he listed. He listened to my concern about television raising kids because both parents must work. He listened to my concerns about isolation from other members of our community, even those who live right next door. And lots of other pressures that, in my humble view, are helping to unravel the social and familiar fabric of our society.

Then he said "Yeah, but they don't have to worry about the hordes attacking and killing everyone but the women, and they know they're not going to starve."

I thought "Hmmmm. Good point." So, the bar was higher then, in many ways. And most folks will do what gets them by, not more.

My work mate is a retired Longshoreman, and union business agent for that union. His body is broken, but you can't tell. His smile is HUGE, he always has the most positive, charitable things to say about everyone, he raises guide dog puppies, and if you were to give him a teaspoon and take him to the Pacific Ocean with instructions to drain it, do you know what he would do?

He would whistle and get started, and at five, when the clock stops and he's not getting paid any more, you would probably not be able to get the spoon from his hand. I'm not kidding.

skipdup · 03-21-2005, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superman
... The socialists (like me) believe there are quite a broad variety of motivators. ...

Seriously? Do you consider yourself a Socialist?

- Skip

RoninLB · 03-21-2005, 06:27 PM

he's really talking about girls and free love.

island911 · 03-21-2005, 06:29 PM

sounds like Social Disease.

Moneyguy1 · 03-21-2005, 06:52 PM

Goodness gracious, len

It must be a heavy burden to never be wrong!!!

Cheers!!

lendaddy · 03-21-2005, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Goodness gracious, len

It must be a heavy burden to never be wrong!!!

Cheers!!

It wears heavily upon me

island911 · 03-21-2005, 06:56 PM

Seems to me he does it with ease.

RoninLB · 03-21-2005, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by skipdup

Seriously? Do you consider yourself a Socialist?

hey skip.. There is at least one other guy around here that has already called Super out on this..

I just figure he's into orgies, as per my last post.

Superman · 03-22-2005, 07:20 AM

Ron is correct about the girls and free love part.

But to answer your question more directly Skip, I'm just wondering what kinds of political systems work and don't work, and what new hybrid systems might work better. Probably the best term for me, though overused, might be "progressive."

Our system here in the US is widely appreciated, and widely criticized. I am proud to be an American, and there are aspects of capitalism I am very very fond of. But I also think that without tweaking, our system will implode. Folks talk and act as though our system is the "forever" system of both economics and politics, but what they fail to notice is that it is one of the most short-lived so far. And again, I think it can survive long term, but not if certain things are not controlled. Right now, you're seeing the widening of the gap between the 'haves' and the 'have nots.' Ultimately this will be much more of a republic than a democracy. Some say this is the situation right now, with money influencing public policy more than votes do. I actually think this is true, but that most voters have not noticed. So, I think it is just a matter of time before things change. So, in a way, I'm a true democrat rather than a socialist. Democracy is best, but only if it's an actual democracy. In other words, as long as public policy is formed for the honest purpose of protecting and serving THE PEOPLE, I'm perfectly happy. And that's probably a democracy. But that's not what we've currently got. In my humble view.

And BTW, there is a massive difference between socialism and communism, despite what you've been told to fear.