How far will it go??

[tonyw]

If we as a nation would stop spending and acting with total disregard towards personal responsibility this problem and many others would take care of themselves.

But that's the problem.

Nobody wants to step up to the plate and say "I AM THE PROBLEM!"

And you know what?

We Americans are collectively the problem. We drive cars that get crappy mileage and we claim we HAVE to drive those cars. Bullcrap. They drive small cars in Europe and Japan and they seem to get by just fine -- in fact, some of those countries have a higher standard of living than we do.

We piss away ten percent of our oil on plastic bags and we claim it's too hard to bring a fracking reusable bag to the store instead. Can you imagine what would happen if we were to cut our usage of those things by just half, and reduced our demand for oil by five percent?

We have the solution to the problem in our own hands, but it's too easy to blame big oil, the government, speculators, the Chinese, the Indians, the Saudis, Hugo Chavez, or Vladimir Putin.

We need to be blaming ourselves and doing things to address the problem.

 

[germb747]

And how is that theory working out for us as a society, as a country?

Let's assume we all agree that Joe Schmoe is the single bet CEO ever to grace the face of hte Earth. No one can argue his skills. Give him a company where there are zero employees. No one will work for the company because of "X" reason. How long will that compnay survive without employees? Take a different company with the worst CEO on the planet. Give him a company that has employees who will show up every day (albeit disgruntled) and how long will that company stay in business in comparison to the first.

Leadership is essential, yes. But a captain of an empty ship, regardless of his skills, will soon find himeself adrift on the seas and watch helplessly as a mutinous ship sails by and it's captain is strapped to the bow mast with a dagger in his heart.

Your post is certainly worth more thought and time on my part before I try to critically analyze it, more time than I have today. But I will try to address one thing you said now, about the good CEO who has no employees versus the bad CEO with many employees. I don't quite understand the point of the hypothetical--recruiting quality talent under you is an essential part of being the head honcho, so someone who can't do that and who has a company where nobody wants to work, for whatever "X" reason, is by definition a bad leader/CEO.

I'll try to come back at a later time and respond to the rest of the post, but like I said, it's worth more time and study on my part than would take me just to crank out a quick reply.

Seeing how this QUICKLY went from an airline discussion to a pissing match *again*...I think it needs to go to the lav.

I don't see how this has become a pissing contest. Looks like a good discussion to me.

 

[mtsu_av8er]

I just pooped. Twice.

 

[BajtheJino]

I just pooped. Twice.

I'd kill for movements like that.:drool:

 

[pilot602]

We need to be blaming ourselves and doing things to address the problem.

I agree with this as well.

We, me, you, us, individuals are to blame as well. We're no less guilty than the blatant corporate greed that is rampant in this country. One would not exist without the other. Corporate irresponsibility is, in part, a symptom of our individual irresoponsibility.

Hence the idea that we don't make the hard choices that are good for us now because one day we're all going to be rich.

If society stands up and holds corporations to a higher standandard then it has to do the same for itself and quite frankly society isn't ready or capable of doing that.

My fear is that by the time people realize the symbiotic link between our personal finances and those of the large business the damage will have gone on far to long to affect any substantial repair.

However, just because we're guilty of a sin does not make the sins committed by someone else any less real or damaging.

 

[pilot602]

Seeing how this QUICKLY went from an airline discussion to a pissing match *again*...I think it needs to go to the lav.

No pissing contest. Just a long rant certainly not directed at anyone in particular. Believe me I've been around this board a while - been quietly lately - but when I turn something into a pissing match, you'll know! And so will my wrists! I tend to save those for the important occasions!

Your post is certainly worth more thought and time on my part before I try to critically analyze it, more time than I have today. But I will try to address one thing you said now, about the good CEO who has no employees versus the bad CEO with many employees. I don't quite understand the point of the hypothetical--recruiting quality talent under you is an essential part of being the head honcho, so someone who can't do that and who has a company where nobody wants to work, for whatever "X" reason, is by definition a bad leader/CEO.

I'll try to come back at a later time and respond to the rest of the post, but like I said, it's worth more time and study on my part than would take me just to crank out a quick reply.

I should note that I use CEO not only to refer to the actual CEO but also the top echelons of management.

As far as the hypothetical goes the point I was making is a "good" CEO with no employees, no matter how skilled, can not make the company last because no one is there to sweep the floors, man the production line, sell the product, deliver the product etc. his company will fail and fail quickly. But a "bad" CEO with employees to do those thing will keep the business running - at least a little while and certainly longer than the first example.

The variable is not the skill of the CEO - it's the employee. Without the employee there is no compnay thus making the relative skill of the CEO, really, not all that important.

Hell, the CEO "world" says it themselves by claiming a business is a business and a "good" CEO doesn't need to know what the company does in order to lead it well. When in fact this is completely untrue. Look at airlines. How many have, currently or since deregulation, a CEO who has an aviation background. Would you hire an electrician to do plumbing work? Then why would you hire an railroad exec to run a lightbuld company (or an airline for that matter)?

As to the "bad" CEO Look how long Enron lasted. Look at Mesa, look at Tyco the list is endless. Bad CEOs stil run companies and get paid absurd amounts of money and they stay in business because their employees decide to keep coming to work. Why do you think unions and strikes are so reviled in mangement circles? Because they know without a workforce they are, to put it bluntly, ####ed. So, again, the relative skill or experience of a CEO has little to do with their pay checks but has everything to do with who sits on whose board of directors.

 

[surreal1221]

Seeing how this QUICKLY went from an airline discussion to a pissing match *again*...I think it needs to go to the lav.

Disagree. . .the discussion is about business tactics and theory.

Call it a pissing match if you think feelings are being hurt, but we're all grown enough to find an internet forum and utilize it for it's designed purpose.

--------------

Nevertheless. . .

The "American Dream" is nothing more than a myth.

 

[HeyEng]

Disagree. . .the discussion is about business tactics and theory.

Call it a pissing match if you think feelings are being hurt, but we're all grown enough to find an internet forum and utilize it for it's designed purpose.

--------------

Nevertheless. . .

The "American Dream" is nothing more than a myth.

Umm...hurt feelings?!? Not hardly. It takes a whole helluva lot more than an internet BB to get "my feelings hurt". My point was after about the 3rd post, any discussion in relation to aviation was gone. OK, sure it's the "general" forum, just seems more apt to be in the "lav". But that's just me...so, carry on.

 

[robzablob]

Here is just one more question...

How long will it take for fuel prices to decrease, dramatically, or will they ever??

 

[cfii2007]

Not to hijack....but I found this article pretty interesting.....

LONDON (AFP) - Biofuels have caused world food prices to increase by 75 percent, according to the findings of an unpublished World Bank report published in The Guardian newspaper on Friday.
[SIZE=-2]ADVERTISEMENT[/SIZE]

The daily said the report was finished in April but was not published to avoid embarrassing the US government, which has claimed plant-derived fuels have pushed up prices by only three percent.
Biofuels, which supporters claim are a "greener" alternative to using fossil fuel and cut greenhouse gas emissions, and rising food prices will be on the agenda when G8 leaders meet in Japan next week for their annual summit.
The report's author, a senior World Bank economist, assessed that contrary to claims by US President George W. Bush, increased demand from India and China has not been the cause of rising food prices.
"Rapid income growth in developing countries has not led to large increases in global grain consumption and was not a major factor responsible for the large price increases," the report said.
Droughts in Australia have also not had a significant impact, it added. Instead, European and US drives for greater use of biofuels has had the biggest effect.
The European Union has mooted using biofuels for up to 10 percent of all transport fuels by 2020 as part of an increase in use of renewable energy.
All petrol and diesel in Britain has had to include a biofuels component of at least 2.5 percent since April this year.
"Without the increase in biofuels, global wheat and maize stocks would not have declined appreciably and price increases due to other factors would have been moderate," the report said.
It added that the drive for biofuels has distorted food markets by diverting grain away from food for fuel, encouraging farmers to set aside land for its production, and sparked financial speculation on grains.
But Brazil's transformation of sugar cane into fuel has not had such a dramatic impact, the report said.
"The basket of food prices examined in the study rose by 140 percent between 2002 and this February," The Guardian said.
"The report estimates that higher energy and fertiliser prices accounted for an increase of only 15 percent, while biofuels have been responsible for a 75 percent jump over that period."

 

[jtrain609]

Seeing how this QUICKLY went from an airline discussion to a pissing match *again*...I think it needs to go to the lav.

You say pissing match.

I say pilot602 has just detailed the exact thing that is ripping this country apart, and will one day destroy it, and I'd say it's very relevant.

 

[tonyw]

Hence the idea that we don't make the hard choices that are good for us now because one day we're all going to be rich.

However, just because we're guilty of a sin does not make the sins committed by someone else any less real or damaging.

Well, I would say if you want to be rich, you've got to make some hard choices.

My dad came here with $1,000 in his pocket and nothing else. He managed to raise three kids and put them through college and two of them through post graduate work without incurring any debt.

That's right, without incurring any debt other than the debt on his house, which is now fully paid off. He paid cash for his cars because he didn't want to pay interest on them.

Now? He's 72 years old, debt free, collecting a pension and social security and clearing over $100K after taxes without lifting a finger.

Did he have to give up things? Yes. He had to give up a lot of things that he wanted but he decided the short term happiness he'd get from buying those things would not be worth the long term cost.

Too many people go shopping for those shoes they "need" or that new HDTV that they "need" and put it on their credit card instead of doing what my dad did.

Don't get me wrong, my dad isn't a cheapskate. He'll spend money on things that he considers worthwhile and he has no problem spending some serious coin on things that he values.

But the key is that he didn't piss his money away on things he didn't think were worth it back when he was working and raising three kids. So now, he's got a nice comfortable living going for him.

I don't blame the corporations for allowing people to make stupid decisions. I don't blame Amex or Citi for providing people with credit cards.

People need to know that they can be a smart consumer or a stupid one. A stupid one runs his credit card to his limit buying crap he doesn't need. A smart one uses Amex's or Citi's money for a month interest free AND collects rewards for doing it.

We've got all the tools we need to play the game smartly. If we don't choose that option, it's our own damn fault.

 

[Patrick]

Well, I would say if you want to be rich, you've got to make some hard choices.

My dad came here with $1,000 in his pocket and nothing else. He managed to raise three kids and put them through college and two of them through post graduate work without incurring any debt.

That's right, without incurring any debt other than the debt on his house, which is now fully paid off. He paid cash for his cars because he didn't want to pay interest on them.

Now? He's 72 years old, debt free, collecting a pension and social security and clearing over $100K after taxes without lifting a finger.

Did he have to give up things? Yes. He had to give up a lot of things that he wanted but he decided the short term happiness he'd get from buying those things would not be worth the long term cost.

Too many people go shopping for those shoes they "need" or that new HDTV that they "need" and put it on their credit card instead of doing what my dad did.

Don't get me wrong, my dad isn't a cheapskate. He'll spend money on things that he considers worthwhile and he has no problem spending some serious coin on things that he values.

But the key is that he didn't piss his money away on things he didn't think were worth it back when he was working and raising three kids. So now, he's got a nice comfortable living going for him.

I don't blame the corporations for allowing people to make stupid decisions. I don't blame Amex or Citi for providing people with credit cards.

People need to know that they can be a smart consumer or a stupid one. A stupid one runs his credit card to his limit buying crap he doesn't need. A smart one uses Amex's or Citi's money for a month interest free AND collects rewards for doing it.

We've got all the tools we need to play the game smartly. If we don't choose that option, it's our own damn fault.

Could not agree more.