Is GREED good?

"Is GREED good?"The notorious question presented to us by the fictional yet infamous Gordon Gekko. Although we know Gordon Gekko as the villainous, self-indulging narcissist, his theory of “Greed is good” is in fact true, sort of. In arguably Gekko’s most memorable quote he states; “Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the U.S.A.”

The true essence of this quote, although boisterous and highly controversial, is feasible. Greed when contained and used competently can be a practical commodity. It is greed that fueled the Westward Expansion and the California Gold rush. From the years 1848-1855 300,000 Americans saw ample opportunity to “strike gold” (literally) and upend their lives and move west. If those “forty-niners” didn’t possess greed for gold, the state of California would certainly not be the state it is today. Means of transportation such as steamships and trans-continental railroads expanded and as a result towns literally developed over night. In 1846, San Francisco had a population of 200, by 852 the population inflated to 36,000.

The ideology of Free Market Capitalism is an exemplary illustration of greed being good. We are our own competition, we dictate how far we want to go in life and how much we want to make. (Ideally) Our nation prides itself in our Capitalistic values and the idea that our potential for success is limitless. We are encouraged to start our own businesses, to work hard and make excess amounts of money if we so desire. It is greed that inspires us to work hard and gives us the utmost sense of jubilation when we see 7 digit numbers in our bank accounts. Greed when in it’s pure from is one of the main reasons for not only our personal success but for the success of the United States.

This idea of greed being good is highly controversial, as there are a surfeit amount of examples I can use to show greed’s catastrophic power. However, if greed can be harnessed into its pure form and used proactively, well I can’t help but agree with Mr. Gordon Gekko’s infamous quote “Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.”

Daniel Soares

Occupy THIS!

               In times of economic crisis, people are frustrated, tensions are high and chaos often follows. Over the course of our nations history we have seen numerous economic rebellions. Rebellions such as The Boston Tea Party or Shay’s Rebellion are historical examples of when the economy is down people go to extreme measures for change. The condition for protest is just right as jobs are scarce, the economy is suffering and hope is dwindling. However, I don’t agree with many of the protesters down on Wall Street. Yes, Freedom of Speech is our given right, but when innocent hard working men and women who earn their salaries are being badgered for the amount of money they make and even our own NYPD officers are being attacked, well that’s crossing the line.

              There have been many gut wrenching details released about what some CEO’S of major banks did with the bail out money they received from Federal Reserve, most notably AIG and its complete catastrophe. Those incidents are ample reason for protest but that’s not what most of these protesters are protesting about. They’re complaining about lack of jobs and small wages, which obviously justifies being distraught but don’t complain about what other people are making. Nobody has the right to tell someone that they are making to much money and then have the nerve to go say “live comfortably so we can comfortably live.” The amount of income tax upper middle class people pay is already ridiculously high let alone corporate tax rate. The corporate tax rate is 35%, highest in the world. That is why major corporations are outsourcing to other countries because it is way to expensive to run a business here.

              President Obama and arguably most of the protesters involved in “Occupy Wall Street” believe in “spreading the wealth.” Definitely a good concept but by raising taxes and targeting upper middle class to upper classes families isn’t the proper way to do so. Obama classifies a household making $250k as “rich,” therefore, they should have to pay even more in tax because obviously they are able to right? Wrong. How can a set number define what being “rich” is, it is simply preposterous to even consider such a thing. I believe that the income tax rate should be equal across the board. Just because a person or family makes a certain amount of money per year shouldn’t mean they have to pay a greater tax rate. It is a slap in the face to hard working Americans everywhere who have a high paying job.  America was made on grounds of Capitalism. Work hard, work long, be persistent and you will be successful. Our ancestors came over here to have a better life, they came here because of freedom and because they’re potential was limitless. Now its almost as if were saying ok good you made it to where you want to be, you make this much amount of money now give even more back. WHY? One can say todays society has the mentality that everything should be given to them, that they don’t have to work hard to make a lot of money, no instead we’ll just tax the upper class and they’ll support us. If an individual wants to live a modest life with a modest income that’s fine, but don’t make the individual who wants more for his or herself and for his or her family suffer because they strive for more. Our country was not brought up this way and we are going away from our Capitalistic values.

              Wall Street banks and their employees work extremely hard and they deserve every penny they get. Yes, mistakes were made in the past but we cant blame them for that now. Appropriate actions were taken and ethics is now stressed. We should not be complaining about the money certain people make, rather try and make the money they make, if of course that’s what you want.  Standing on a street heckling innocent bankers on the way to work and abusing police officers is not the answer to solving this economic crisis.  No, I say if you want to change your life, if you want to start making good money, work for it. Society as a whole is becoming more and more lazy and it seems as if we are better at pointing our fingers rather than using them. Besides if your reason for protesting Wall Street is lack of jobs I’m afraid you are at the wrong street. 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC is where you should be.


Daniel Soares

Wall Street Warriors?!

I'm sure many of you have read and/or heard the news of the portesters who are protesting on Wall Street.  However, why are they protesting? Are they protesting in the proper manner? These are both questions that have not yet been definitively answered.  And I hope to be able to spread some light on the situation.

Recent polls taken in the past few weeks have questioned protesters why they are occupying Wall Street.  Basically, every individual who was polled stated that they are protesting in response to the decreasing economy.  They blame Wall Street for causing the current economic problems as well as the lack of jobs and are protesting in order to demonstrate their frustration.  They also claim that they stand for the people, especially the unanswered voices of the people.  The views of the protesters can be summed up in the words of Judy Lonning, a former school teacher.  She said, "We [being the protestors] are not willing to keep suffering for Wall Street's sins.  People here are waking up and realizing that we can't just go to the ballot box. We're building a movement to make our leaders listen."  Seems harsh right?  She is claiming that Wall Street is responsible for the economic crisis, and that the people have no voice.  Now is that true? are they valid reasons to protest? or are the protestors overreacting?  The answers to these questions are subjective to the indvidual.  So what do you think?  Are they right? Is what they are standing for legitemate?

In regards to the actual protesting itself, a recent poll's results indicated that American view is torn.  Some say that the protesters are protesting in a non violent manner and expressing their rights as any America.  Howver, several others feel that they are acting foolishly, and are tarnishing the name of America (namely New York) through their "obscene" actions.  Again, this is up to the individual.  What do you think?

Regardless of your personal position, the occupation of Wall Street is an important matter that needs to be taken seriously.  It needs to be addressed, but all we can do for now is wait and watch.   

As of last weekend, the Wall Street Journal had a very interesting article concerning the matter.  It discussed how the protesters won a battle when the cleanup of their encampment was cancelled because of "political pressure."  The article explained how the movement is spreading throughout the U.S. in which "tensions between the police and protesters have escalated in several other U.S. cities, including arrests of some two dozen people in Denver."  Now if that doesn't indicate that this is a serious matter, I don't know what does?  Lastly, the article explained why Bloomberg could not step in and force the people to leave the park so it could be cleaned.  It concluded with a quote from one of the protesters, Tucker Mowatt, a 26 year old electrician from Maine.  He said, "Today it's Bloomberg, tomorrow it's the president and Congress and maybe Wall Street.  It's a step in the right direction." 

As mentioned earlier, all one can do is wait it out.  The occupation of Wall Street and other U.S. cities obviously illustrates the growing concern of Americans with the condition of the economy.  How the leaders of the U.S. (and the world) deal with the rather rapidly increasing unrest, and more importantly, how they deal with the worsening economy is what it ultimately comes down to. 

What's next?.................. Who knows?

Eric Haslbauer

Accounting test

Being a student who took accounting in high school, when I saw that it was part of my schedule for my first semester in college I thought it was going to be an easy A. After my first test unfortunately I was sadly mistaken, much like many of my fellow peers who also took accouting in high school. "The test was much more harder than I expected, I figured since I took accounting in high school I'd have a big advantage but I was mistaken," said my fellow classmate Max Dizon. Other students seemed to follow this trend such as my fellow peer Caroline McGaan who said, " I shouldve taken our professors advice and studied the recommened four hours." Even though many students are coming in with accounting experience we have all come to realize college is a different ball game and we must prepare and study just as hard as we would if we had zero accounting experience. Some students, such as Tom Barricelli, who took professors advice and studied for four hours had much of an easier time with the exam. When asked he said, "The four hours of studying was definitely worth it beacuse it prepared me extremely well for the test." This was reflected in his grade because Tom was one of the students to get a higher grade on the test in the class. Ive taken this first test as a learning experience and a chance to grow and do better next time. Instead of relying on knowledge I gained in high school, I will take my professors advice and study the recommended four hours before I take the test.     

By: Freddy Cepeda

NBA lockout:Whose to blame, Owners or Players?

For all my sports fans out there, the fall season is a special time. The MLB playoffs are in full swing (this year being quite the spectacle), the NFL starts up again with its loyal fanbase which keeps holy the Sabath and of course there is College Football. However, fall is also the time in which NBA training camps begin and we so passionately dissect our respective favorite team. This year, however, the NBA will not start at its normal time and may not start at all. as a result of probably the most disheartening word in professional sports, Lockout. 

On June 30th NBA owners and the players association met to discuss the expiring collective bargaining agreement. The current bargaining agreement had expired and the deadline for a new deal was mere hours away. A new deal was not reached and the lockout was made official. All indications were that the two sides would meet numerous times over the summer to work on a new deal. As the summer came to a close, a new deal was not reached and the two sides were "lightyears" apart. As of Monday, commissioner David Stern cancelled all pre-season games and the first 2 weeks of the regular season. So now that this has accumulated to a cancellation of games and ultimately a shortened season, we have no choice but to ask, whose to blame? Is it the owners fault for wanting to decrease salary expense and increase revenue or is it the players fault for being stagnant on their already inflated salaries revenue sharing percentage.

  

Owners want an understandable 50/50 revenue sharing plan while player unions are not willing to go less then 53%. The NBA generated an estimated $3.8 billion last year in revenue. 57% of that goes to players. The total salaries of NBA players combined for the 2010-2011 was $2.17 billion, which comes out to about $4.5 million per player.(485 players in the NBA) At the end of the day owners walk away with $1.63 billion in revenue which does not include operating expenses and luxury tax. NBA owners are not bringing in anywhere near the amount of money they should be making because after all owning a sports team is owning your own business and the purpose of business is to make a profit. So now with these two sides so far apart, us the fans, are left to suffer and ultimately sit and wait until a new deal can be reached. For the meantime, Lets go Globetrotters?

Daniel Soares

My views on the "Occupy Wall Street Movement"

I think the Occupy Wall Street movement should not surprise anyone. Nor should it surprise anyone that the movement has gained so much popularity and support. If anything, i'm surprised it hasn't happened sooner. From what i can understand, the entire movement is based on anger towards Wall Street, in that many ordinary, every day Americans believe that they were treated unfairly while the top firms and executives on Wall Street had been given a free pass. It's true that a lot of the problems we face today arguably resulted from a dysfunction in the financial sector, but Wall Street isn't the only one to blame for these bad economic times. The government's poor foresight and lack of regulation had just as much a part to play in causing the financial crisis and subsequent recession. There were also many parties and factors involved in causing the recession, but it can be argued that most of the blame should rest on Wall Street. What I have to ask myself is, are these protesters justified in their anger? To a certain extent, their anger is justifiable. The crisis caused by problems in the financial sector and its involvement in the housing markets had cost many Americans their jobs. Even though it was due to the excessively risky practices of these institutions that led to their own downfall, they were not the ones who suffered for it. The government intervened, and saved many of them from bankruptcy, even though some of them like Lehman Brothers did go bankrupt. While the whole situation seemed unfair,  i believe that many of the protesters are just protesting without fully understanding the role Wall Street had played. I think a lot of them are just protesting because they are just angry and need to pick someone to mount this anger against. On that note, i guess Wall Street does make the best candidate. What all of this reflects is this growing separation between the very rich, and the rest of us. As seen in the 2010 poverty report, we can see how the middle class in America is slowly disappearing and being slowly replaced by just a poor and rich class. If things don't get better soon, this class conflict will only increase until eventually something drastic will happen. What that may be, I can't say.    

Joseph Antony

The Apple of Our "i"

Death of Steve Jobs affects more than Apple.

Apple’s former CEO, Steve Jobs, recently passed from cancer complications. Consequently, the pressing question is, will Apple continue to supply the consumer with new and appealing products. Speculation of how Apple will recover as well as what they will do to keep the market involved has the media buzzing.

(Lanier Mason) “Many investors and consumers continue to ask the question of will Apple continue to be the big leaders in the technology market and I feel as if they certainly will be. Steve Jobs was in my opinion, the parent of Apple and I believe during his tenure as CEO he has done enough so that the company will continue to prosper without his presence.”

(Anthony Viray) “What people tend to not realize is that Steve Jobs left an incredible legacy behind. I believe that Apple producers will continue to stun the consumer market with advanced technological products. With all the spotlight, Apple cannot afford  to let the death of Steve Jobs deter them from continuing supremacy in their industry.”

Despite the early passing of a beloved family member, friend and modern innovator, Steve Jobs has truly left his mark on this age of technology for years to come.

A is for APPL

Steve Jobs, one of technology's greatest minds, saddly died fighting cancer not even a week ago.  His death comes at a time of economic struggles, and therefore, many are asking: what is to become of Apple?  How will it fair in the market now that the muse, the inspiration, of this great company is no longer with us?  What's Apple's next move?

These along with various other questions are circling around the minds of many and no one can be certain what the future holds for Apple.  However, recent research indicates that Jobs's passing will not effect Apple's market as much as expected.  Even though APPL stock closed in today's maket down 2.01%, it continues to survive.  People are still investing in Apple and with the release of the new iPhone 4S, prospects are high.  Over 200,000 people preordered the new iPhone 4S (clearly a number to go down in the record books) and the release of it will more than likely help to improve APPL's numbers.  As long as Tim Cook and Apple continues to live in Jobs's memory, creating and continuously innovating, Apple will thrive again.  Just like any other great company, Apple just needs to pick itself up, rub off the dust, and get back into it.  Every company has obstacles and falls it must deal with, but it is how they rebound from such hurdles that make them great! 

All we can really do is wait and see.  And expect great things from Apple in the coming months. God Bless Steve Jobs - he will be missed.

Eric Haslbauer and Lance Mason

Yahoo! open to selling?!?

Amid the news of Yahoo! removing CEO Carol Bartz, the Wall Street Journal cited 'people familiar with the matter' as stating Yahoo! is willing to sell to the right bidder.  As to what the 'right bidder' is, one can only guess.  In 2008, Microsft offered Yahoo! $44.6 billion but it flat out refused (Yahoo! was the top search engine at the time selling at $37 a share).  Three years later, Yahoo! is selling at $13 a share and only seems to be decreasing even more.  Now, finding the 'right bidder' will probably prove to be much harder than Yahoo! executives expect.  Of lately, Yahoo seems to be returning to Microsoft in hope of stirring some sort of agreement.  The two companies have agreed to have Microsoft's Bing search engine power Yahoo!'s search engine.  Although this seems somewhat insignificant, it is small compromises such as these that eventually can lead to the subsidizing of companies.  From an outside perspective, Yahoo! either needs to strategically reanalyze itself in hope of discovering new ways to grow, or find said 'right bidder'.  Personally, I see Yahoo! becoming a subsidiary of Microsoft in the next few years.

Eric Haslbauer