Comments on: Wall Street: these are in reverse order, start two below http://businessethics.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/wall-street-these-are-in-reverse-order-start-two-below/ Just another WordPress.com weblog Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:00:18 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Ovenbird http://businessethics.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/wall-street-these-are-in-reverse-order-start-two-below/#comment-40 Ovenbird Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:00:18 +0000 http://businessethics.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/wall-street-these-are-in-reverse-order-start-two-below/#comment-40 Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation :) Anyway ... nice blog to visit. cheers, Ovenbird. Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation :) Anyway … nice blog to visit.

cheers, Ovenbird.

]]> By: unfit http://businessethics.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/wall-street-these-are-in-reverse-order-start-two-below/#comment-39 unfit Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:51:49 +0000 http://businessethics.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/wall-street-these-are-in-reverse-order-start-two-below/#comment-39 Unfit says : I absolutely agree with this ! Unfit says : I absolutely agree with this !

]]> By: Jan Gambardella http://businessethics.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/wall-street-these-are-in-reverse-order-start-two-below/#comment-31 Jan Gambardella Tue, 23 Oct 2007 01:42:41 +0000 http://businessethics.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/wall-street-these-are-in-reverse-order-start-two-below/#comment-31 Success can be measured in so many different ways. Being a "superior" would imply the you are more successful and an expert in that certain field, but essentially that is not the case all of the time. Smith is too much of a softy to consider any one person so much better than another. He would more relate superiority to the effects of the invisble hand and your self intereste. Hayek on the other hand would also disagree. Scientific (expert) knowledge is valuable, but not as valuable as the knowledge of the true knower, or the one whom posseses the situation knowledge. In some cases the surperior could be the one with the situational knowledge I guess, but as far as CEO making decisions for the entire company, its more so the place for the employees or consumers who have the surperios intelligence in this case. Success can be measured in so many different ways. Being a “superior” would imply the you are more successful and an expert in that certain field, but essentially that is not the case all of the time. Smith is too much of a softy to consider any one person so much better than another. He would more relate superiority to the effects of the invisble hand and your self intereste. Hayek on the other hand would also disagree. Scientific (expert) knowledge is valuable, but not as valuable as the knowledge of the true knower, or the one whom posseses the situation knowledge. In some cases the surperior could be the one with the situational knowledge I guess, but as far as CEO making decisions for the entire company, its more so the place for the employees or consumers who have the surperios intelligence in this case.

]]> By: Elizabeth Cote http://businessethics.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/wall-street-these-are-in-reverse-order-start-two-below/#comment-27 Elizabeth Cote Mon, 22 Oct 2007 02:45:20 +0000 http://businessethics.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/wall-street-these-are-in-reverse-order-start-two-below/#comment-27 On the surface, I believe that the heads of companies are superior to those under them in the business world. If you are in a high position, most likely you have finished school, worked hard, climbed the chain of command and finally landed in a honorable position. You would have the right to be called "superior" becuase you earned it. On a deeper level, no I do not believe that you can be called a better person because you are in a top economic position. The basic standard for the quality of a human being remains the same no matter what job you possess. Smith would say that you are not superior if you have a high position, but rather that you have been rewarded by the invisible hand becuase of your strong pursuit of your own self-interest. Hayek would not agree with this view either, he would just assume that the person with the great job knows the information for his profession very well. But, that does not make him any better than the farmer who knows how to plant crops expertly. The two simply have impressive knowledge about two very different subjective situations. On the surface, I believe that the heads of companies are superior to those under them in the business world. If you are in a high position, most likely you have finished school, worked hard, climbed the chain of command and finally landed in a honorable position. You would have the right to be called “superior” becuase you earned it. On a deeper level, no I do not believe that you can be called a better person because you are in a top economic position. The basic standard for the quality of a human being remains the same no matter what job you possess. Smith would say that you are not superior if you have a high position, but rather that you have been rewarded by the invisible hand becuase of your strong pursuit of your own self-interest. Hayek would not agree with this view either, he would just assume that the person with the great job knows the information for his profession very well. But, that does not make him any better than the farmer who knows how to plant crops expertly. The two simply have impressive knowledge about two very different subjective situations.

]]> By: Emily Clayton http://businessethics.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/wall-street-these-are-in-reverse-order-start-two-below/#comment-23 Emily Clayton Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:13:50 +0000 http://businessethics.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/wall-street-these-are-in-reverse-order-start-two-below/#comment-23 I do not believe that those at the top of the economic order are superior because there are plenty of people who do work that impacts the world yet are not very lucrative. There are also plenty of people who just simply do not care about making money and focus on other aspects of life. Smith would not necessarily consider these people as superior either, rather they are just more adamant about fulfilling their self-interest. Hayek would think that those people are superior because the more successful you are in the economy then the more information you must be in posession and understanding of. Having all that information makes you superior over everyone else who only have bits and pieces of the necessary info. I do not believe that those at the top of the economic order are superior because there are plenty of people who do work that impacts the world yet are not very lucrative. There are also plenty of people who just simply do not care about making money and focus on other aspects of life. Smith would not necessarily consider these people as superior either, rather they are just more adamant about fulfilling their self-interest. Hayek would think that those people are superior because the more successful you are in the economy then the more information you must be in posession and understanding of. Having all that information makes you superior over everyone else who only have bits and pieces of the necessary info.

]]>