OT: [censored] thread, Feb, READ RULES IN TOP POST

[xPeru]

Oh the seduction of round bankroll numbers ... GKA, you know this is a stupid motivation to play. I have the same weakness; but poker tends to use the round down principle ie 4997 generally moves to 4000, not 5000 in these circumstances.

I have a sneaky solution: Site A balance = x, Site B balance = y, BR = x+y=z. Be happy when any one of the three is a "good" number. You have to enjoy numbers to get a good number! Primes are good, numbers which read the same back as forward work well, birthdays of near relations etc.

Work hard and you can always find a number that is aesthetically pleasing to match your x,y or z balance. Thus avoiding the special PokerStars rounding down function.

[Kibby]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The cornerstone of the socially accepted human behavior that governs this effect can be summed up in one phrase, 'A fiduciary responsibility to the stakeholder.'


[/ QUOTE ]

If not to their backers, to whom should their fiduciary responsibility be?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question. One of the wonderfully efficient things about corporations is their single mindedness. You make money. Period. If one assumes that 'Greed is good' and that profit for profit's sake leads to the greatest social well-being for all peoples (which many do), then the modern corporate model will work if they are right.

On the other hand, if one rejects that idea, as I do, then a different model of a corporation is needed. Since corporations are nothing but entities built on contracts, contracts could be written to require the corporation to be beholden to other objectives than profit. Or, maybe the way the board of directors is elected changes, maybe we have workers have controlling shares of the corp. and share their profits with investors but the investor do not have voting rights.

To respond to your question more directly, you're not quite asking the right question in mind as the question presupposes that money is the sole objective. I believe the more appropriate question is, "What goals should those in the corporate sector be trying to achieve, how do we define them, and how do we ensure that the corporation is sustainable?"

Anyways, these are just come of the concepts that could be integrated into the structure of a corporation that might yield a more human friendly entity. I have specific ideas on how it can be done but I won't bore the forum.

Cheers,
Kibby

[bigt439]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The cornerstone of the socially accepted human behavior that governs this effect can be summed up in one phrase, 'A fiduciary responsibility to the stakeholder.'


[/ QUOTE ]

If not to their backers, to whom should their fiduciary responsibility be?

[/ QUOTE ]

thats kind of the point... its arguably the biggest flaw in our markets today.

[Misfire]

I appreciate what you're saying. The problem comes, however, when certain groups insist on forcing a money-centric corporation to act otherwise. Corporations should be free to choose their goals and mode of operation, and if one wants to start a more "socially conscious" corporation, and another wants to invest in it, more power to 'em. Just don't try to get me to do the same.

[suzzer99]

Hmmm. I just looked up "grunch" on wikipedia and it's not there. Apparently this is a 2p2 thing. Someone less lazy than me should make an entry.

[Josem]

Is the book "The Corporation" related to the DVD called "The Corporation"?

I received the DVD as a gift, but have heard it's just another lefty pinko rant of people imposing their own prejudices on others. Is it worth watching?

[Pudge714]

suzzer,
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=grunch

[Kibby]

Mind you might have noticed I didn't say anything about forcing. Its my belief that the revolution won't be televised. By that I mean that any change that happens in this direction will not be the result of anyone marching anywhere or burning anything (though those things have their time and place, corporate governance just doesn't happen to be one of those areas). The evolution of the corporation will be happen because the new model works better for people controlling corporation. It will happen through trial and error but new ideas need to be tried out. We have a long way to go though and we're in danger, right now, of not evolving fast enough. I don't care if you're a nationalist, humanist, environmentalist, socialist, free-market fundamentalist, or whatever. What you care about is in danger because of current corporate practices. Well, maybe not the free-market crazies, but most people.

Especially if you care about 'America' in what I would call the traditional sense. Working class, good paying jobs for hard work, public education, social security protection... Nationless corporations that pit one state (nation state or one of the 50) against another to attract investment capital is going to undermine the lifestyle of a majority of americans in not so many years. You heard it here but, don't worry, Fox News will tell you its the Mexican's fault. . .

wow, I got a little preachy towards the end there. . . trying not to do that but I'm too lazy to rewrite.

[ QUOTE ]
I appreciate what you're saying. The problem comes, however, when certain groups insist on forcing a money-centric corporation to act otherwise. Corporations should be free to choose their goals and mode of operation, and if one wants to start a more "socially conscious" corporation, and another wants to invest in it, more power to 'em. Just don't try to get me to do the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Green Kool Aid]

wayyyyy too much intellectual talk going on here.

stories of degeneracy and/or pics of hot girls would be appreciated.

[Kibby]

Yes, they are related though I haven't read / seen either and yes, you probably won't like it considering your pinko comment.

Its tough when someone tries to override the preexisting prejudice with another prejudice.

Read 'A People's History of the United States', Howard Zinn
if you want some really crazy pinko stuff. . .

'Manufacturing Consent', Noam Chomsky
If you want to know the technical reason why my prejudice comment was funny

Or, on the lighter side. . .
Steven Colbert's White House Dinner Performance
Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

[ QUOTE ]
Is the book "The Corporation" related to the DVD called "The Corporation"?

I received the DVD as a gift, but have heard it's just another lefty pinko rant of people imposing their own prejudices on others. Is it worth watching?

[/ QUOTE ]