This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

GOGSoc the Third

Reply 1780

apotoftea

19

Acaila

That would be lovely potty. If you pm me your email address I'll send it on its way to you. :smile:

Will do

Reply 1781

musicbloke

17

In my view if we can't say you're a bad person with regards to what you think of humanity and its direction we probably can't say you're a bad person with regards to very much.

MB

Reply 1782

Nyet

Socrates

I'm hardly right wing (though I suppose probably moreso than you :p:

) but I don't think that belonging to a certain wing makes you an inherently bad person. Maybe that's just the politics student in me speaking.

I would tend towards thinking that if a person is maleducated and support Israel in its post-1967 shape (plus the hundreds of thousands of illegal, immoral settlers), then that is all you are-maleducated. If they are well-educated and still do so, then he/she is simply an evil ******* **** and I would not piss on him/her if they were on fire.

(Ooops, I think I've really done it now re civility).

Reply 1783

Nyet

Milady de Winter

Yes, good for me, that I'm able to engage with other political discourses without throwing all my organic, ethically-sourced, Guardian-approved toys out of the left-wing pram.

B'jeesus (or is that not a sufficiently secular comment for you?)

I find the extent to which The Guardian has become a reference point for abuse on the right these days pretty interesting. Normally it was only headbangers like Richard Littlejohn and his ilk foaming at the gob and going on about Guardianistas, but nowadays there seem to be a whole bunch, regarding themselves as somehow above the political milieu, some kind of straw-man orthodoxy represented by the Guardian reader, a latter day radical despite their repellent, home counties Tory worldview. Sickening. The guardian, for all its faults-economically misinformed articles, stupid left-liberal tropes running through its US politics pieces and excrement-for-brains writers like Polly Toynbee-still has some kind of morality at its heart. Which is more than can be said for the British Right.

Reply 1784

Milady de Winter

musicbloke

She wasn't talking about being civil, she said language should be moderate. Big difference, especially when it stops people expressing what they mean.

MB

But I was advocating moderation in a specific context. I just think that you can make an effective political point without being... puerile? I suppose that would be the word.

Reply 1785

Milady de Winter

Nyet

I find the extent to which The Guardian has become a reference point for abuse on the right these days pretty interesting. Normally it was only headbangers like Richard Littlejohn and his ilk foaming at the gob and going on about Guardianistas, but nowadays there seem to be a whole bunch, regarding themselves as somehow above the political milieu, some kind of straw-man orthodoxy represented by the Guardian reader, a latter day radical despite their repellent, home counties Tory worldview. Sickening. The guardian, for all its faults-economically misinformed articles, stupid left-liberal tropes running through its US politics pieces and excrement-for-brains writers like Polly Toynbee-still has some kind of morality at its heart. Which is more than can be said for the British Right.

Are you saying that a newspaper such as the Telegraph (to use the Guardian's most obvious political counterpoint) doesn't have an ethical dimension in its comment pieces? Just because it doesn't advocat a morality that you espouse, doesn't mean that it lacks a morality altogether.

And while the Guardian may have the occasional well-written article or comment piece, by and large I find it to be a canting, hypocritical, relativist and often ill-informed newspaper. But I'm willing and able to admit that all papers/journals, even the ones whose viewpoints I sympathise with, have their flaws in some degree.

Reply 1786

Alasdair

14

In other news, isn't 24 an absolutely odious programme? My housemate was watching it the other day, and positively hero-worshipping Jack Bauer for torturing a guy in the White House because he thought he knew where a bomb was (lo and behold, he did - torture always works :rolleyes:

) What's more, they then went and cast a Senator who was investigating him for human rights abuses as the villain. This guy (played by Red Foreman from That 70's Show) said things like "human rights violations" and "detainee abuses" like Dr. Evil says "100 BILLION! dollars"...

Reply 1787

Nyet

Alasdair

In other news, isn't 24 an absolutely odious programme? My housemate was watching it the other day, and positively hero-worshipping Jack Bauer for torturing a guy in the White House because he thought he knew where a bomb was (lo and behold, he did - torture always works :rolleyes:

) What's more, they then went and cast a Senator who was investigating him for human rights abuses as the villain. This guy (played by Red Foreman from That 70's Show) said things like "human rights violations" and "detainee abuses" like Dr. Evil says "100 BILLION! dollars"...

your mother is a human rights abuser

Reply 1788

LLB Kevin

1

Wow, GOGSoc went a bit weird overnight, didn't it?

Reply 1789

Alasdair

14

LLB Kevin

Wow, GOGSoc went a bit weird overnight, didn't it?

Eh? The Niall Ferguson argument was rather less weird than most political/philosophical arguments in GOGSoc...

Reply 1790

Nyet

Anyone defending Niall Ferguson in any capacity other than a) he wrote a pretty good PhD thesis or b) he has a talent for making money is as much of a **** as he is.

Reply 1791

LLB Kevin

1

Alasdair

Eh? The Niall Ferguson argument was rather less weird than most political/philosophical arguments in GOGSoc...

And I think they all go a bit weird (as in normally amicable people suddenly seem to lose all good feeling and charge screaming at each other).

Reply 1792

Alasdair

14

LLB Kevin

And I think they all go a bit weird (as in normally amicable people suddenly seem to lose all good feeling and charge screaming at each other).

True...

In other news, Mrs. A has invited me to her parents' for Passover. Hrm... Is it bad that I'm considering going because it could be funny, there will probably be singing, and Mrs. A gets hilarious after more than a glass of wine?

Reply 1793

LLB Kevin

1

Sounds like a good night :smile:

Reply 1794

0404343m

17

If I were Niall Ferguson (I feel I deserve some of the blame here, I brought his name up first), then I'd take the £1.3million a year, the TV career and the cushty post at Harvard as well, if I'm honest. As I said, I don't think much of lots of his books- but I can see the motivation for being controversial when he's got a six figure advance fee dangled infront of him to write a book on something he's never researched in his puff.

I am still convinced he is an excellent financial historian. His books on the Rothschilds, the one which came from his D.Phil thesis, the one entitled 'Paper and Iron' and his latest effort on the role of money in world history are all extremely well written and well thought out. When he descends into writing about whatever will make him a few quid, then his conclusions become pretty mad, to be honest. He will always be a divisive character, but he's aware of this, and infact does his best to cultivate that image- because that is what gets his name banded around, and further swells his paycheck and his profile. I've met the guy, and in reality, his views are no more radical than any staunch Conservative. I don't agree with them by and large- but he is no 'apologist for mass murder' as some have made out. What he says to further his career, I don't agree with, and I cannot see myself ever stooping to the level of being controversial for the sake of it, but I cannot blame the guy for doing what he perceives to be the best for his career and his bank balance.

Reply 1795

musicbloke

17

Alasdair

True...

In other news, Mrs. A has invited me to her parents' for Passover. Hrm... Is it bad that I'm considering going because it could be funny, there will probably be singing, and Mrs. A gets hilarious after more than a glass of wine?

BEWARE! DON'T GO TO A SEDER NIGHT UNLESS IT IS REALLY NECESSARY!

Not only will it be ******* long and boring, but it will be awkward, the food will probably be ****, and whilst there's wine and stuff that will probably be **** too. Seriously, as someone who's had to sit through a couple of these things twice a year for my entire life I can ensure you that they are ******* dry.

MB

Reply 1796

Drogue

19

Milady de Winter

I've said it before and I'll say it again: her average book title is always something along the lines of Baroque Bosoms and French Fillies: THE Many Raunchy Mistresses Of Louis XIV

You see, calling it that might make me actually consider reading it.

Milady de Winter

I have very occasionally wandered onto the Guardian website, but it normally makes me weep. Not with joy.

Sadly, me too, and I still cling to lefty ideals. It's not that I disagree with the Guardian's aims, I just think the views they espouse are appalling ways to meet those aims. Why can't there be a lefty paper, or more importantly a lefty political party, that is willing to consider what the best way of reaching their aims are, and not just rail against the evils of the other side? At one point I thought Labour might have actually done it, but it seems the nature of all politicians is to turn populist when the election is moderately close.

Reply 1797

Drogue

19

Nyet

The guardian, for all its faults-economically misinformed articles, stupid left-liberal tropes running through its US politics pieces and excrement-for-brains writers like Polly Toynbee-still has some kind of morality at its heart.

This I entirely agree with.

Nyet

Which is more than can be said for the British Right.

Really? Even were the right to believe that all poor people should be killed and Israel should nuke the rest of the Middle East, that's still a morality. Just a pretty appalling one.

I don't get why the left believes it has a monopoly on morality. While I disagree with much of it, the right has a strong moral foundation: self-sufficiency, personal responsibility, the ownership of property, a belief in democracy and the rule of law, etc. There are lots of people who abuse this, and IMHO much of the policy that comes from it is bad, but the same can be said of the left's morals of compassion and equality.

By calling the right immoral, we close ourselves to using the good parts they espouse. Pushing democracy Bush-style is bad, but democracy is a good thing to encourage. An unconstrained free market causes terrible problems, but the free market can be used to great effect to help reduce poverty, with a bit of nudging.

This is why I hate much of the Guardian. To take one recent example: if you curtail the salaries of very senior figures in the private and public sector to amounts that seem reasonable to the masses, a lot of really good people, who could massively improve the lives of many people, will go to other countries or just work less. A good executive who turns a company around may create thousands of jobs, a good banker may be able to improve financial inclusion, a good council CEO may be able to provide better local services while costing the community millions less. Yes, make sure people aren't paid for failure, but what is failure? We know things have turned out very badly in some places, but would they have been better or worse with someone else in charge? It's very hard to separate a bad executive from one who is unlucky, who makes things better than they would have been otherwise but still things turn out awfully.

IMHO, having morals isn't enough of an excuse for causing such misguided and counter-productive ideas. I just wish someone would come up with a political party that says "I want to make the country better for the vast majority of people" and actually has some sensible ideas of how to do it.

Reply 1798

Kitty Pimms

17

Drogue

Yes, make sure people aren't paid for failure, but what is failure? We know things have turned out very badly in some places, but would they have been better or worse with someone else in charge? It's very hard to separate a bad executive from one who is unlucky, who makes things better than they would have been otherwise but still things turn out awfully.

I found this really inreresting. To take a counter-factual, how do you define success? Can you ever really be certain that the exec on £300,000 can truly attribute the success of their company any more than the one on £200,000? I just find it difficult to believe that it's any easier to separate a successful executive from one who's lucky. I agree with rewarding success in principle, but I just find that in practice there's no reasonable definition - some companies throw bonuses at everyone, some don't; but that doesn't necessarily correlate directly with the profit of that company.

Meh, I'm very disenchanted at the moment.

Reply 1799

Drogue

19

IlexAquifolium

I found this really inreresting. To take a counter-factual, how do you define success? Can you ever really be certain that the exec on £300,000 can truly attribute the success of their company any more than the one on £200,000? I just find it difficult to believe that it's any easier to separate a successful executive from one who's lucky. I agree with rewarding success in principle, but I just find that in practice there's no reasonable definition - some companies throw bonuses at everyone, some don't; but that doesn't necessarily correlate directly with the profit of that company.

Meh, I'm very disenchanted at the moment.

Yes, you're right, it is exactly the same problem - a good executive is more likely to make a large profit, but it's not definite. You have risk averse individuals and the quality isn't directly observable. This is the same problem as with insurance or any employee contract, and is why performance-related pay, ie. bonuses, are good. As such, you have to pay an executive significantly more if they do succeed than if they fail, so they have an incentive to try and succeed. But given the risk aversion of the executive, you need to pay them something even if they fail to get them to accept the job. This tends to involve very high salaries when things succeed, and salaries that aren't that low when they fail.

This is especially true if you want an executive to innovate and try something new. If the pay for failure is very low, you'll find all executives will just take the easy options, not risk anything and pick up a moderate bonus. Which tends to be bad for the economy, as in other countries, firms won't just play it safe. So executives need bonuses for success and a high-enough base salary (or golden parachute, as seems to happen in practice) as a safety net to ensure they will try and take opportunities.

With banks, this became perversely skewed, not at executive level, but at every level. Performance bonuses were paid without taking enough note of how much risk had been stored up. Moreover, while bonuses for those who failed and lost billions was 0 last year, the 90% of bank staff who had nothing to do with sub-prime mortgages and had made money on their little section went "where's my bonus, I've done well?"

GOGSoc the Third

Related discussions

Articles for you

How The Student Room is moderated