3 ms·

You pedantic rant aside, you didn't actually explain your point. How does paying large bonuses to executives protect the interest of creditors? I'm no expert bu

You pedantic rant aside, you didn't actually explain your point. How does paying large bonuses to executives protect the interest of creditors? I'm no expert but this sounds like how a person declaring bankruptcy might max out their credit cards at the apple store then sell them off for cash on Craigslist. I.e. Draining the bank so it doesn't go to creditors. This same pool of money used for gratuitous bonuses could also be paying worker severance, so you justifying it as otherwise moral is exactly the GP's point.

eat_veggies 6y ago
I'm not sure jonahbenton is trying to justify it as moral, but rather trying to identify who exactly I mean by the hand-wavy "ruling class." Their point is well taken.
jonahbenton 6y ago
Heh, no, I didn't say it was moral, and my point wasn't to explain, it was to redirect. But to explain- In fantasy world the money going to bonuses could go to severance, but in reality that is a misuse of cash, in some cases illegal. The owners are the only ones entitled to the cash in the business, well, after creditors are repaid. Reducing the debt owed to creditors is the function of bankruptcy. Workers are not owners and they definitely are not creditors. Giving them severance could in fact be considered stealing. Putting cash into keeping operations going to service debt- THAT is how the owner/creditor dynamic plays out. And key employees- managers- without whom the business crank does not turn- they become MORE valuable. Hence, bonuses. Is this moral? No. It isn't. I never said it was. But the way to make it moral isn't to rant- which I didn't do- and make use of undefinable and wrong/inapplicable terms like "ruling class". Neither "ruling" nor "class" has anything to do with these dynamics. There are a very precisely defined set of roles and relationships here, enshrined in law, going back to tradition, for thousands of years. The way to make it moral is to understand what an owner is, what a creditor is, how the law works, and then to define what morality means. Does it mean that workers become creditors, that labor creates a debt? That might be one avenue to explore, from a moral universe perspective. But changes to one role will change the other roles, and what one person considers moral, others may not. My experience is that most people who make claims of immorality do not understand ownership, a foundation principle upon which nearly all societies that have practiced philosophy and have attempted to define morality have been based on. Forgive me but you cannot talk intelligently about morality if you do not understand ownership. That's my point. Cheers, best wishes.
- Zenbit_UX 6y ago
  Thanks for finally making your point, when you use your words to support your arguments instead of ranting it helps people understand you better. For the record everyone understands the concept of ownership from a very young age, it's the complexities of business and its jargon that confuses. > Forgive me but you cannot talk intelligently about morality if you do not understand ownership. Yikes, you're very inclined to rant aren't you?

eat_veggies 6y ago

I'm not sure jonahbenton is trying to justify it as moral, but rather trying to identify who exactly I mean by the hand-wavy "ruling class." Their point is well taken.

jonahbenton 6y ago

Heh, no, I didn't say it was moral, and my point wasn't to explain, it was to redirect. But to explain- In fantasy world the money going to bonuses could go to severance, but in reality that is a misuse of cash, in some cases illegal. The owners are the only ones entitled to the cash in the business, well, after creditors are repaid. Reducing the debt owed to creditors is the function of bankruptcy. Workers are not owners and they definitely are not creditors. Giving them severance could in fact be considered stealing. Putting cash into keeping operations going to service debt- THAT is how the owner/creditor dynamic plays out. And key employees- managers- without whom the business crank does not turn- they become MORE valuable. Hence, bonuses. Is this moral? No. It isn't. I never said it was. But the way to make it moral isn't to rant- which I didn't do- and make use of undefinable and wrong/inapplicable terms like "ruling class". Neither "ruling" nor "class" has anything to do with these dynamics. There are a very precisely defined set of roles and relationships here, enshrined in law, going back to tradition, for thousands of years. The way to make it moral is to understand what an owner is, what a creditor is, how the law works, and then to define what morality means. Does it mean that workers become creditors, that labor creates a debt? That might be one avenue to explore, from a moral universe perspective. But changes to one role will change the other roles, and what one person considers moral, others may not. My experience is that most people who make claims of immorality do not understand ownership, a foundation principle upon which nearly all societies that have practiced philosophy and have attempted to define morality have been based on. Forgive me but you cannot talk intelligently about morality if you do not understand ownership. That's my point. Cheers, best wishes.

Zenbit_UX 6y ago
Thanks for finally making your point, when you use your words to support your arguments instead of ranting it helps people understand you better. For the record everyone understands the concept of ownership from a very young age, it's the complexities of business and its jargon that confuses. > Forgive me but you cannot talk intelligently about morality if you do not understand ownership. Yikes, you're very inclined to rant aren't you?