Philsophical quandary

[chump]

As we know our corporate leaders including our much admired financial whizzes are endowed with bountiful options bonuses and anything else that can live under the guise of performance related incentives. This is the case even though the process is clearly and unarguably asymetrical in that it tends to bring rewards completely out of proportion to any penalties incurred when performance is not delivered.

The above being the case I would like to know why this largesse should not be extended.

For example... Police seize £13 million of cocaine - Yahoo! News UK

Why can our police force not receive an incentive bonus when they deliver something like this even if it has to be funded by selling it on to our financial whizzes which is probably where most of it would have ended up anyway. Would this not complete the philosphical circle in the sense of extending the immorality beyond simply the confines of those who have the leaverage to make it stick.
Moving on we could grant our Doctors and nurses a bonus for every life saved on the 'table' even if we had to grade the reward according to who the recipient was. Something along the lines of £10,000 for a child down to a penalty for resuscitating a politican.

To stop with the facetious attitude for a moment I really would like to know what exactly grants certain groups the right to feed at the financial trough to the degree they do whilst excluding others from doing the same. Is the ability to bend a few rules and magically make money appear before it disappears really more worthy of reward than stopping millions of pounds worth of drugs from destroying lives etc ?

I started thinking about this when I read the Conservatives were considering passing legislation if they get to power to stop ,or constraining public services from striking.
I'm not even a socialist..LOL capitalist through and through,BUT I see in this something which I think needs stamping on with a very big boot. Hell ,we'd love it if the politcians went on strike,we'd probably do nothing just to keep them that way,but it's about time we started thinking about equitable treatment. My wife is still a nurse even though she does not need to be ,but can she actually apply any leaverage to protect her from what politicians wish to impose...can she hell ,to do so would cost lives and she won't do that. Same goes for quite a few other groups.Personally I was applauding the teachers striking the other week. Whether they get what they want ,or not ,is not the issue so much as they should at all times have the right to strike if that is what it takes to get discussion going.
Good job I don't head the nursing union, I'd have every admissions desk manned to segregate people by profession and we'd soon find out what value a person put on their health.BUT, when the next financial whizz didn't come back from anaethetic I would at least make sure that that weeks bonus was deducted. Fairs fair afterall because it can hardly be backdated in this case.

 

[trendie]

re: "Why can our police force not receive an incentive bonus when they deliver something like this " ...

market forces would dictate that some police officers would seek out "lucrative" jobs at the expense of "normal" policing. ie, preventative policing. The above scenario relies on allowing a crime to take place rather than preventing it from happening.

The possibility of "fitting up" innocent people when a copper fancies a new car from his "bonus" becomes a realistic possibility.

re: "Moving on we could grant our Doctors and nurses a bonus for every life saved on the 'table' even if we had to grade the reward according to who the recipient was. Something along the lines of £10,000 for a child down to a penalty for resuscitating a politican."

doctors may find it more lucrative to allow a patients condition to deteriorate until the patient becomes a "bonus" option before operating.
and anyway, who decides what any particular recipient is worth?
You still have the asymetric of being paid to save a life, but what is the penalty of losing a life on the table?

re: "Good job I don't head the nursing union, I'd have every admissions desk manned to segregate people by profession".

segregate? you mean decide who gets treatment and who does not?
forex traders, since they are essentially selfish and produce nothing to further society, or their fellow human beings, wouldnt even get past the admissions, would they?
dont "professions", and all tax-payers, PRE-PAY for their medical treatment through their TAXES?

And another thing, if a student was rushed into hospital would you decide they are not worth reviving, not knowing whether they would IN THE FUTURE find a cure or make a breakthrough?
Would you reject a lowly paid patents clerk medical treatment becasue he couldnt afford it?, not knowing that mans name was Einstein?
Would you reject a humble bicycle-maker from hospital, not knowing the mans name was Wilbur Wright?

Before you start heading up any organisations, "Philsophical" has a missing "o"! :cheesy:
(if I ever get rejected for medical treatment, I want the fcker to at least be able to spell)

 

[grantx]

Chump,

Better incentive - for every patient who dies due to fu's, a hospital administartor dies, then a politician.

I think there are enough police frame-ups as it is.

Grant.

 

[trendie]

Chump,

Better incentive - for every patient who dies due to fu's, a hospital administartor dies, then a politician.

I think there are enough police frame-ups as it is.

Grant.

EXCELLENT! hadnt thought of that. get rid of the bureaucrats! :clap:

 

[dick_dastardly]

Why can our police force not receive an incentive bonus when they deliver something like this

Don't the police get the revenue raised from issuing speeding tickets ?

dd

 

[peto]

Don't the police get the revenue raised from issuing speeding tickets ?

dd

No, other than a small %ge to meet the costs of the cameras. The rest goes to the treasury to spend on politicians' poorer ideas.

 

[Atilla]

re: "Why can our police force not receive an incentive bonus when they deliver something like this " ...

market forces would dictate that some police officers would seek out "lucrative" jobs at the expense of "normal" policing. ie, preventative policing. The above scenario relies on allowing a crime to take place rather than preventing it from happening.

The possibility of "fitting up" innocent people when a copper fancies a new car from his "bonus" becomes a realistic possibility.

re: "Moving on we could grant our Doctors and nurses a bonus for every life saved on the 'table' even if we had to grade the reward according to who the recipient was. Something along the lines of £10,000 for a child down to a penalty for resuscitating a politican."

doctors may find it more lucrative to allow a patients condition to deteriorate until the patient becomes a "bonus" option before operating.
and anyway, who decides what any particular recipient is worth?
You still have the asymetric of being paid to save a life, but what is the penalty of losing a life on the table?

re: "Good job I don't head the nursing union, I'd have every admissions desk manned to segregate people by profession".

segregate? you mean decide who gets treatment and who does not?
forex traders, since they are essentially selfish and produce nothing to further society, or their fellow human beings, wouldnt even get past the admissions, would they?
dont "professions", and all tax-payers, PRE-PAY for their medical treatment through their TAXES?

And another thing, if a student was rushed into hospital would you decide they are not worth reviving, not knowing whether they would IN THE FUTURE find a cure or make a breakthrough?
Would you reject a lowly paid patents clerk medical treatment becasue he couldnt afford it?, not knowing that mans name was Einstein?
Would you reject a humble bicycle-maker from hospital, not knowing the mans name was Wilbur Wright?

Before you start heading up any organisations, "Philsophical" has a missing "o"! :cheesy:
(if I ever get rejected for medical treatment, I want the fcker to at least be able to spell)

This is the problem with the human race...

We are all the same whilst being all different at the same time. SIMILTANEOUSLY!

Moreover, if you think you understand one person think again as people also change. Expectations change.
Perceptions change.
Allegiances change.
People don't just change their minds, they phsyically change and this further has a bearing on their outlook and expectations.

Billions of idiosyncrhosies!!!

Paradox in terms but inexplicably true.

Best simply to give up and die rather than ponder about the mysterious of life.

As well as being all the same and all different,

We are all special. Very special indeed.

At the same time we are about as 'very important' as a grain of sand in the history of the World - planet earth. :cheesy: Even with the written word, I'd doubt anyone of us from Marilyn Munroe to Tony Blair will have much significance in 1000 years let alone the next century.

For example African leaders live in tremendous wealth and affluence, whilst most of their people have no food, water or clothing. Is this bad! Yes but, we were the same and probably much worse. During the industrial revolution, 4 year olds were sent down mine shafts to collect coal on their shoulders and carry up little tunnels which adults could not fit through. Yes it's true. Some stuck up snob used to beat the **** out of the working classes and think he worked hard for his money, wealth and power.

When communists came to power and got rid of the bourgeoisi and supposedly to raise the level of the working classes - they too in due course implemented the command economy with secret brown packets that went round in the polit bereau as well as all kind of benefits such as free accomodation and theatres to the chosen few. Not much different from the feudal system favours realy.

Weather it's the people in power or bent cops trying to get ahead humanity is the same all over.

At the end of the day everybody knows what is good and right and what is bad and wrong.

Like a grand game the trick is to implement a system which all people can participate in where the rules are the same for everyone. Irrespective of race, colour or creed - or your office and station in life. We all know that's not true though.

Even if they are not the same it must be perceived to be the same and every effort must be put into maintaining that perception.



I think both Chump and Trendies posts are great but trying to fathom out the polar views expresses the mystery of life.

IMHO. One big effing paradox...


I think Shakespear expresses my effing paradox really well...

William Shakespeare - To be, or not to be (from Hamlet 3/1)
To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action. - Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remember'd.

 

[grantx]

Atilla,

I think you should include the next lines which are only present in the original, not any later quartos or folios:

"Put a sock in it, Hamlet"
"God, doesn't he go on?"
"Who the fck does he think he is - the Duke of Kent?"
"Here we go again"
"I'm going for a pint".

Grant.

 

[Atilla]

Atilla,

I think you should include the next lines which are only present in the original, not any later quartos or folios:

"Put a sock in it, Hamlet"
"God, doesn't he go on?"
"Who the fck does he think he is - the Duke of Kent?"
"Here we go again"
"I'm going for a pint".

Grant.

Yes very good...

Ice cool beer sounds like a good idea but at 2:15 am in the morning... ???? What the heck... I'll just go and raid the fridge

 

[MrGecko]

a diversion perhaps, but...

YouTube - Humans Are Monkeys

 

[chump]

re: "Why can our police force not receive an incentive bonus when they deliver something like this " ...

market forces would dictate that some police officers would seek out "lucrative" jobs at the expense of "normal" policing. ie, preventative policing. The above scenario relies on allowing a crime to take place rather than preventing it from happening.

Well I can see that this does not happen in any other sphere of society ( )The possibility of "fitting up" innocent people when a copper fancies a new car from his "bonus" becomes a realistic possibility.

Yes, you're right and again this behaviour can be found nowhere else in our society can it ? : )

re: "Moving on we could grant our Doctors and nurses a bonus for every life saved on the 'table' even if we had to grade the reward according to who the recipient was. Something along the lines of £10,000 for a child down to a penalty for resuscitating a politican."

doctors may find it more lucrative to allow a patients condition to deteriorate until the patient becomes a "bonus" option before operating.

Indeed and people certainly do not operate to 'trash and bash' a company to gain from shorting it do they ? ( )

and anyway, who decides what any particular recipient is worth?

I was being facetious to simply illustrate the underlying nonsense of how we as a society rationalise the use of 'different' rules of 'play'.

You still have the asymetric of being paid to save a life, but what is the penalty of losing a life on the table?

Again bearing the above in mind I could simply say how do you arrive at a value on destroying someone by failing to exhibit duty of care through any kind of 'ruin'.
Nonetheless the courts do manage to do so.re:

"Good job I don't head the nursing union, I'd have every admissions desk manned to segregate people by profession".

Completely tongue in cheek again to illustrate the ridiculous ,but also the difficulty in making certain sectors of our society ineffectual in terms of having any real leaverage in protecting their relative rights vis a vis the rest of society and inparticular how that appears to me when compared with the license given to many others in the private sector.
Again I see no one talking about denying the strikers at the oil depots the right to strike ,nor do I see any accountability in the financial sectors for what often appears to me to be complete misrepresentation at best and outright fraud at worst.
It wouldn't be hard to site other examples of such perverse dual standards.

segregate? you mean decide who gets treatment and who does not?
forex traders, since they are essentially selfish and produce nothing to further society, or their fellow human beings, wouldnt even get past the admissions, would they?
dont "professions", and all tax-payers, PRE-PAY for their medical treatment through their TAXES?

On the last point only pre-pay is a joke and we're one of the few modern economies clinging to this idea.Bit off the subject ,but the blackhole pit that is the NHS budget is same primarily because it does not get anywhere near to matching service to payment. No hypochondriac rolling up at his GP ,or hospital does so with any idea of what it costs to treat him/her personally and because that feedback does not exist he keeps on doing it merrily. Fact is health care is a bottomless pit as there will always be more of it demanded than we are capable of supplying effectively simply through taxation. To get a better match we need to have some part of the expense in the equation payable at the point of delivery so that people do not misuse it in such a gross manner as they do at the moment. In this sense it is no different from any other scarce resource. It is also the case that because the general public do not grasp this it has been relatively easy for all political parties to place the emphasis for 'inefficiency and waste' on the health service itself. Not that they are totally efficient ,no one is ,but we do have a very skewed idea of this overall situation

And another thing, if a student was rushed into hospital would you decide they are not worth reviving, not knowing whether they would IN THE FUTURE find a cure or make a breakthrough?

You're on that horse now partner , I'm looking for you to move on up to the pulpit next

Would you reject a lowly paid patents clerk medical treatment becasue he couldnt afford it?, not knowing that mans name was Einstein?
Would you reject a humble bicycle-maker from hospital, not knowing the mans name was Wilbur Wright?

Ok, Amen you've arrived parson
Before you start heading up any organisations, "Philsophical" has a missing "o"! :cheesy:
(if I ever get rejected for medical treatment, I want the fcker to at least be able to spell)

Of course you do ,but that "fcker" was a generalised "fcker" I hope and not directed at me personally was it ? because you know I had to drop the " ring O" as you were sat on it at the time

 

[trendie]

Of course you do ,but that "fcker" was a generalised "fcker" I hope and not directed at me personally was it ? because you know I had to drop the " ring O" as you were sat on it at the time

Very well argued, chump.
No, the fcker remark wasnt aimed at you.

the points about "doesnt happen anywhere else in society" and "trash and bash" is sarcasm. But, shouldnt the point of new rules seek to make things better, or introduce mechanisms to diminish fraudulence?

I agree with your points re: blackhole of the NHS, but I was being devils advocate.
Still concerned about the idea of people having to pay for treatment. As with all things, little concessions can be used as pretext to expand them.

re: rationalise different rules of play:absolutely agree. We do it all the time. But isnt that because we dont look from an objective standpoint, but from our own perspective whether "we" stand to gain?
More taxes for the rich espoused by low-paid, ostensibly to help "society", but really to get things they couldnt afford for themselves.
Lower taxes for "businesses" espoused by rich people, ostensibly to help the economy, but really to help themselves.
(funnily enough, this has one of the things I discussed recently with, of all people, a rabid church-goer, but it was about China and pollution)

:cheesy: Oh, and another thing: Stephen Hawking and his disability. I dont think he gets paid as a great thinker as some mediocre middle-manager in some conglomerate, and his proportionate contributions towards his medical expenses, as per your idea, would rob us of his thoughts and insights.

are yout trading today? Bank Holiday not a source of reduced liquidity? EURJPY good upmoves. and GBPUSD spiking, but I have learnt to stay away from it.

 

[chump]

Very well argued, chump.
No, the fcker remark wasnt aimed at you.

the points about "doesnt happen anywhere else in society" and "trash and bash" is sarcasm. But, shouldnt the point of new rules seek to make things better, or introduce mechanisms to diminish fraudulence?

I agree with your points re: blackhole of the NHS, but I was being devils advocate.
Still concerned about the idea of people having to pay for treatment. As with all things, little concessions can be used as pretext to expand them.

re: rationalise different rules of play:absolutely agree. We do it all the time. But isnt that because we dont look from an objective standpoint, but from our own perspective whether "we" stand to gain?
More taxes for the rich espoused by low-paid, ostensibly to help "society", but really to get things they couldnt afford for themselves.
Lower taxes for "businesses" espoused by rich people, ostensibly to help the economy, but really to help themselves.
(funnily enough, this has one of the things I discussed recently with, of all people, a rabid church-goer, but it was about China and pollution)

:cheesy: Oh, and another thing: Stephen Hawking and his disability. I dont think he gets paid as a great thinker as some mediocre middle-manager in some conglomerate, and his proportionate contributions towards his medical expenses, as per your idea, would rob us of his thoughts and insights.

are yout trading today? Bank Holiday not a source of reduced liquidity? EURJPY good upmoves. and GBPUSD spiking, but I have learnt to stay away from it.

I'm probably not a good protaganist to be arguing this case being one of the monkeys who has never been interested in fitting in and is likely to remain so ...LOL from that viewpoint it's a bit 'strange' to be arguing that the other monkeys should simply try to be a bit more equitable with each other.
Basically you're right that self interest is at the heart of this ,but it appears to me that the monkeys have been persuaded to believe that the optimum outcome for each of them personally (self interest) can only be achieved at a cost to a fellow monkey and the greater that cost the greater the optimisation of their self interest. Moreover this may be directly measured and evaluated in 'coin'. As we know this will lead to 'happiness'

Ok, I'll leave it there as I am in danger of disappearing up my own ring O with this.

No trading today even though the wife is in there saving lives again leaving me to my own devices.What's currently running needs no action so I'm redundant, but tha still beats sitting in a car watching the exhaust pipe in front of me go no where quickly.

 

[grantx]

Atilla,

A bit hungover?

Grant.

 

[chump]

So to get some kind of a fix on the 'monkey' rules ..LOL using this ..
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/business/05lend.html?_r=2&ref=business&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

There's a chance some monkeys in what we can call 'first group' bent a few 'rules' and 'hurt' some other monkeys. A second 'group' ,in fact more than one second 'group' forms to look into the 'first group' and this 'second group(s)' can employ at least some of those 'hurt' by the 'first group' and in time may even compensate others from the 'hurt group' . Meanwhile those in the 'first group' if they hung around may be slapped by the 'second group(s)' for having been bad monkeys in that they got caught. Meanwhile the smarter members of the 'first group' will have moved in the sense of protecting their backs from the 'second group'.
Those from the 'hurt group' who didn't get employed ,or compensated can at least hide under the auspices of the 'bankrupt group' law ?
Is this is it ?

I understand the code name for this operation is 'Nitpicking the Naughty Monkeys' ...LOL

 

[Atilla]

Atilla,

A bit hungover?

Grant.

No but Kew gardens and the kids have slaughtered me today... Lovely day but even going out feels like hard work. Wise move Chump.

Talking of monkey's perhaps the wrong thread but here is a little monkey story...

Put eight monkeys in a room. In the middle of the room is a ladder, leading to a bunch of bananas hanging from a hook on the ceiling. Each time a monkey tries to climb the ladder, all the monkeys are sprayed with ice water, which makes them miserable. Soon enough, whenever a monkey attempts to climb the ladder, all of the other monkeys, not wanting to be sprayed, set upon him and beat him up. Soon, none of the eight monkeys ever attempts to climb the ladder.

One of the original monkeys is then removed, and a new monkey is put in the room. Seeing the bananas and the ladder, he wonders why none of the other monkeys are doing the obvious, but, undaunted, he immediately begins to climb the ladder. All the other monkeys fall upon him and beat him silly. He has no idea why. However, he no longer attempts to climb the ladder.

A second original monkey is removed and replaced. The newcomer again attempts to climb the ladder, but all the other monkeys hammer the crap out of him. This includes the previous new monkey, who, grateful that he's not on the receiving end this time, participates in the beating because all the other monkeys are doing it. However, he has no idea why he's attacking the new monkey.

One by one, all the original monkeys are replaced. Eight new monkeys are now in the room. None of them have ever been sprayed by ice water. None of them attempt to climb the ladder. All of them will enthusiastically beat up any new monkey who tries, without having any idea why.

Simply put - "When you become a politician do as all other politicians do...!"