Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

I will take the test but is seems a bit stupid to me... first question: "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations." Yes... I "Strongly Agree". Does that show that I am a lefty or just that I own no shares of any trans-national corporations?

It shows you're a tree hugger...!! Re Sotiri or in Cypriot ...apeas dentroudia ..

tree hugger
a tree hugger is someone who cares about the only thing in the world that gives us oxygen...they want to save trees from people that dont recognize the importance of them.
"please dont cut down this tree,, i want my grandchildren to be able to breath, and the animals to have a home,,is this a good enough reason to be a tree hugger?

It probably means you don't own shares full stop.

If you did, you would understand that your hip pocket and trans nationals are not a charity or the Red Cross!

They are in business to make money and look after their share holders!

I guess I am a realist more than anything. I am also a Liberal, but you guys are falling over yourselves with the touchy feely stuff!

Therefore, Paphitis is probably the most rational realist here, followed by DT. The rest of you live in fantasy land!

You also can't run a country, a multi national, military or other organisation or business without some level of Authoritarianism! Without rules and institutions, society will break down quicker than anything and before you know it, you will all be arming yourselves Texas style just to protect your homes and loved ones.

[Get Real!]

Therefore, Paphitis is probably the most rational realist here,...

Knowing your ever-fluctuating nature, if you were to take this test on four different days of the same week you’d probably end up in a different quadrant each time!

[Paphitis]

Therefore, Paphitis is probably the most rational realist here,...

Knowing your ever-fluctuating nature, if you were to take this test on four different days of the same week you’d probably end up in a different quadrant each time!

I doubt it. I answered the questions realistically, and so I doubt there would be much fluctuation.

Realism is where I differ.

For example, with the following question:

"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations".

Most of you would have agreed or strongly agreed to it whereas as I disagreed on fundamental and practical grounds.

[Sotos]

I owned shares mostly of banks but fortunately I sold them long time ago Obviously it is unrealistic ... which is why I wrote that the test was stupid.

[Paphitis]

I owned shares mostly of banks but fortunately I sold them long time ago Obviously it is unrealistic ... which is why I wrote that the test was stupid.

Good for you!

You were one of the lucky ones.

Bravo for having the foresight.

[Sotos]

"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations".

Most of you would have agreed or strongly agreed to it whereas as I disagreed on fundamental and practical grounds.

Assuming there was a way that economic globalisation could primarily serve humanity then the ONLY reason you could disagree with that statement is for purely selfish reasons in the case that you owned shares in such corporations. What other "fundamental and practical grounds" could exist that you would choose the interests of a small group of people over the interests of humanity?

[Paphitis]

"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations".

Most of you would have agreed or strongly agreed to it whereas as I disagreed on fundamental and practical grounds.

Assuming there was a way that economic globalisation could primarily serve humanity then the ONLY reason you could disagree with that statement is for purely selfish reasons in the case that you owned shares in such corporations. What other "fundamental and practical grounds" could exist that you would choose the interests of a small group of people over the interests of humanity?

Well aside from the multi Billion Dollar profits, multi nationals do have a dramatic social effect for the better mind you. The fundamental grounds I talk about is investment into the local community, creating jobs and an expanding middle class. The effects are very dramatic when you go to a developing country like India and China.

For example, the RoC Government is currently looking for an investor to reopen the privately owned Cyprus Airways. If an investor comes forward, there would be dramatic social benefits to Cyprus at large. the problem is attracting the investor because no one will come forward if there is no chance of making a profit or benefiting their shareholders.

[Paphitis]

OK let's expand our horizons a little.

Let's say the RoC was able to attract a huge multi national to set up in Cyprus. Think big like mercedes, or BMW setting up a production line, or Motorola or Apple for instance.

All of a sudden they want to employ thousands of locals in good jobs. Think of all the tax money being reaped by the Government that will get pumped back into education and health. All of a sudden, there is also less unemployed or welfare burden on the state. Society is more content because people can afford a roof over their head, buy essentials, educate their children and have spare money for frivolities, holidays and entertainment.

Now, there is buckley's chance of these multi nationals setting up in Cyprus without any incentive which the RoC will need to provide and which will reap ten fold back in time.

And why shouldn't these companies set up in Cyprus rather than Turkey, China and India. I think Cyprus is just as competitive as the other countries. It's just countries like Germany, Australia, US and Canada who are not competitive enough which is why manufacturing is in decline there and which have a bigger emphasis on small to medium enterprise now.

personally, I think Greece and Cyprus are ideally placed.

[Sotos]

"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations".

Most of you would have agreed or strongly agreed to it whereas as I disagreed on fundamental and practical grounds.

Assuming there was a way that economic globalisation could primarily serve humanity then the ONLY reason you could disagree with that statement is for purely selfish reasons in the case that you owned shares in such corporations. What other "fundamental and practical grounds" could exist that you would choose the interests of a small group of people over the interests of humanity?

Well aside from the multi Billion Dollar profits, multi nationals do have a dramatic social effect for the better mind you. The fundamental grounds I talk about is investment into the local community, creating jobs and an expanding middle class. The effects are very dramatic when you go to a developing country like India and China.

For example, the RoC Government is currently looking for an investor to reopen the privately owned Cyprus Airways. If an investor comes forward, there would be dramatic social benefits to Cyprus at large. the problem is attracting the investor because no one will come forward if there is no chance of making a profit or benefiting their shareholders.

All your arguments are about how economic globalisation helps humanity... In which case why did you disagree with the statement in the test?

[Paphitis]

"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations".

Most of you would have agreed or strongly agreed to it whereas as I disagreed on fundamental and practical grounds.

Assuming there was a way that economic globalisation could primarily serve humanity then the ONLY reason you could disagree with that statement is for purely selfish reasons in the case that you owned shares in such corporations. What other "fundamental and practical grounds" could exist that you would choose the interests of a small group of people over the interests of humanity?

Well aside from the multi Billion Dollar profits, multi nationals do have a dramatic social effect for the better mind you. The fundamental grounds I talk about is investment into the local community, creating jobs and an expanding middle class. The effects are very dramatic when you go to a developing country like India and China.

For example, the RoC Government is currently looking for an investor to reopen the privately owned Cyprus Airways. If an investor comes forward, there would be dramatic social benefits to Cyprus at large. the problem is attracting the investor because no one will come forward if there is no chance of making a profit or benefiting their shareholders.

All your arguments are about how economic globalisation helps humanity... In which case why did you disagree with the statement in the test?

Because I do not believe that is their fundamental purpose whether you like it or not. The driver that I see is an economic one, or profit based which drives the social aspect by default. If these multi nationals wanted charity, their board of directors would volunteer for the Red Cross or attend the soup kitchens in Michigan.

Mind you, there is nothing wrong with the Red Cross or any other charity or group and if people want to donate their time or be charitable, then they should do so. Big business also has a responsibility to charities as well, and they often donate Billions on a global scale.

People don't see this social aspect and concentrate on the multi nationals profits which by the way are more often than not used up on the next venture (hopefully) thus creating a snow ball effect in profit but also in social advancement. It's all intertwined.

I bet you that these multi nationals have a far greater social effect than all charities combined.