Business Ethics- Kak vs Dragon

[Kevin88660]

That’s not how I know the story. They started doing well when they began selling penny stocks to wealthy investors. Investors usually lost money, but selling a bad asset isn’t a (legal) crime.

What happened next is that Jordan wanted to take it to the next level. Imagine if instead of these guys mostly losing money, you could actually deliver huge returns for them? Enter stock manipulation and pump and dump schemes.

This is what he got arrested for initially. Not for the selling penny stocks part. As for Jordan Belfort the “reformed”, I highly highly doubt it. He didn’t care about customers before, he doesn’t care about them now. The only difference is that he’s selling a service/product now that’s basically solid. I imagine most people buying it don’t get much results from it. They pay $5,000, but don’t make much back.

His stuff is solid. It’s great. But that doesn’t mean most people who buy it will make money from it. Just as in the example I discussed with @BizyDad above… the product can be the best on the market, and still you may know in advance that 99% of the market will fail, even with that product.

His strategy of selling focuses on getting the customer to commit to a low commitment offer, over delivers it, and then tries to up sell a higher ticket item. It might not applicable to all businesses.

Sales people generally sell in a way that is convincing to themselves. His high energy personal style is effective to other people who is receptive to getting influnced and inspired. It could backfire on other personality types.

Right out of prison he went on taking sale management roles specifically selling products with strong selling proposition. Selling home owners refinancing plans with lower interest packages and selling government sponsored training packages to farmers.

 

[Primeperiwinkle]

Vote by likes!!!!

Who in here would really enjoy Kak getting SUPER annoyed with someone and just destroying them emotionally?!?

Come on. Be honest. That would be entertaining af.

I went too far with the whole “destroying them emotionally” thing but that’s fine.

And dude? @Kak We don’t want a podcast. We want a live stream. You have to have at least one person on who genuinely annoys you or it won’t work. But I think you could get away with having three people IF you make the third person someone quiet and really severe, like a well-dressed Spock type of guy. Basically Biophase. Or anyone exactly like him. So you plus a quiet guy plus your opponent. Yep, that would be cool.

Don’t invite fan boys. They’re just ew.

 

[Isaac Odongo]

In fact, I will say that the smartest criminals very rarely, if ever, will break the law, and that is precisely what makes them so efficient as criminals.

This means they do break the law.

It also means they do act in a way unfairly towards. These others are not necessarily the general public to be screwed. These others may also be impressionable investors. Elizabeth Holmes is a good example.

The High Frequency Traders screwed investors by adding anthills in the playground of the stock market for other investors while creating smoother runways for themselves. Do these fit in the mold of criminals you describe?

Dr. Brinkley and Elizabeth were unethical, they ended up wealthier than you, but they also ended up in the poor house.

Are they still as wealthy as they were in those years they were messing up? Is Elizabeth Holmes in the same mold as Larry Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos and the like?

Or is Elizabeth Holmes not as smart as the Faustian criminal described here? Did she have the heart without compassion but lack the mind of great intelligence? In which case she isn't a fitting example for these points.

As I was saying before... higher peaks, lower lows. So with both of them, we're seeing exactly what we're expecting to see.

Is this an advantage over the other side? Doesn’t this sound like sports betting or day trading with leverage?

Larry Ellison from Oracle (another ruthless guy), Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos. All have been extremely ruthless in their quest to acquire & maintain power and wealth.

Are there absolutely no benefits for people from the companies by the above? Or do their hybrid criminology outweigh those benefits? Did this people make out to F*ck the world or to sell something and make some money? Do their adverts or methods nullify the fact that their products have given us some good? Is it right to call them criminals, whatever the meaning we give that word?

~Isaac~

 

[Kevin88660]

There is a difference between saying something and doing it.

This, I think, is where most of the kickback to the Machiavellian thing is originating.

You don't have to go far into Freud's work to see that civility is mostly a veneer and that, under the surface, we are animals seeking to hunt and kill other (weaker?) animals.

However, a key thing that separates humanity is the ability to conceptualize right and wrong.

How one defines something as such seems to be the core point of discussion of this thread.

A lot of what @Black_Dragon43 is postulating is to become more like Frodo. Frodo was a chimp that ate a human baby, killed a significant quantity of the local primate population, fornicated with his own mother and bullied the other apes.

Surely if the "do anything to become successful" idea is valid, it would mean killing children is not off the table? It's okay because they're not strong enough to survive on their own and are, thus, expendable.

In the animal kingdom, that passes because animals are operating in line with their survival instincts. They do this because they have no other choice. We do. Humanity has built a civilization, the result of which we all benefit from on a daily basis. Sure, some are in the US and have their opportunities. I am in the UK and have mine.

One of the beautiful things about being alive is we - collectively - have a responsibility to maintain that civilization... and contribute to make it better.

Americans have known this from the start and their culture is typically held in regard due to the way in which they've positioned themselves as the arbiters of civility. Before that, Britain and France were the arbiters.

I think a healthy amount of "ruthlessness" is needed to get what you want out of life, but to engage in it as a sport is not conducive to a prosperous society. America works because it is abundant. It is abundant because it instilled a sense of purpose, drive and responsibility into its citizens. The UK has that too, albeit less so.

Ultimately, if you're advocating lying, tricking and conniving your way to success, you will not succeed in a major way. In small ways, yes, you'll make some progress but will eventually come unstuck and have problems.

The reason is you're missing the one thing that determines success in the first place - excellence. Excellence is what pushes society forward and births great empires. The Greeks had a name for it - Arete.

As humans, we have a responsibility to attain this. Attempting to negate it by stealing from others (which is what lying comes down to), is what causes retardation in the system. It's why some people are revered and most are not.

Being ruthless whilst being excellent is necessary (and lauded in many circles). Being ruthless without being excellent means you're taking from others, meaning you'll eventually run out of things to take.

I was going to write more but refrained as to not derail the thread.

I think it's a healthy topic and props to both @Kak and @Black_Dragon43 for entertaining it. Thanks, as ever, to @MJ DeMarco for hosting the forum and helping the community grow through positive action.

Machiavellianism was the office politics of the past for the royals.

There are still people who do these to climb up the rank and files. Sucking up to superiors, trying to be visible when working, putting friends in important positions when there is a chance…

It looks nothing like cheating and lying which will end up in personal failure real soon.

 

[Isaac Odongo]

Machiavellianism was the office politics of the past for the royals.

There are still people who do these to climb up the rank and files. Sucking up to superiors, trying to be visible when working, putting friends in important positions when there is a chance…

It looks nothing like cheating and lying which will end up in personal failure real soon.

Putting friends and puppets in positions they don't fit may also end up in organisational failure pretty soon.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kevin88660]

Putting friends and puppets in positions they don't fit may also end up in organisational failure pretty soon.

That’s quite often though. You still need to hit the minimum HR requirement for the role.