This appears to be an interesting experiment, however I'm wondering whether or not they will identify "Leadership" to be overshadowed by "Cut throat" business methods that might be questionably immoral. Much like the old Psyche quiz: Technically there is no wrong answer, however if you squeal on your friend it's obviously advantageous to you, at least for the short term, after all further down the line he might be back in force with threats/extortion, or more evidence might be turned up increasing your own conviction to 10+5 years etc. You can imply that businessmen will make dealings similar to this everyday and depending on their type of business implies just how cut throat they actually are. After all no point worry about problems down the line if you only have plan to be a CEO for 5 years etc. (This is the usual one for all those companies that produce drugs or products that are then proven to be unsafe further down the road.)
Technically you'd both get 10 years I'd gather. But you are right I didn't fully put forwards the overall values correctly, was in a rush when I actually wrote the post... my bad Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Perhaps it was a super evil crime that can only be competently decimated by longterm incarceration... The actual point of the matter though wasn't so much the example being 100% accurate, but the understanding that a Business person might well utilise a Cut-throat method of handling potential competitors or achieving short-term goals without considering the long-term impact, this doesn't necessarily imply they are decent leaders just more than capable of lying, deceiving or doing what is necessary to get what they want.
Despite leadership being a unique quality, I think that morality is a luxury afforded after you no longer have to act "by any means necessary." The psyche quiz is actually called the "prisioner's dilemma". When I took macro-econ it was the first concept we learned, and is a cornerstone of free-market economy. IE - Restaurant A opens right next to Restaurant B. Burgers in town go for 2 bucks. -If restaurant A and B both choose to sell equally tasty hamburgers at $2.00, they will both evenly split demand, both will be in good shape. -If Restaurant A attempts to undercut restaurant B by selling Burger's for $1.00, Restaurant B will take the brunt of the negative consequence, Restaurant B is in bad shape. -If they both choose to sell at $1.00, there is no shift in demand, yet both restaurants lose profit. My question - since morality is limiting to anyone involved in competition, should we reconsider capitalism as a viable means of doing business?
SteveCrack, Interesting version, again there are other aspects to it though that exist outside the framework of the initial dilemma, for example if both Restaurants sell at $1.00, it would suggest that their customers would have more money to spend on other products or in other shops. So should the Restaurants own shares in other nearby stores, they can obtain the money that they initially would of gained through the profiteering "overcharge". If the products in all stores are kept to being cheap, then the overall economy is also more buoyant, as each of those stores will require staff to man them, they will all require staff to produce the product being sold and this in the long run increases the number of viable customers since more and more people then have money in their pockets. This of course is where we start getting towards discussion on Game Theory (which to be honest I know less than I wish about.) as for: You could equate the question with a Darwinistic understanding of "Evolution" and "Survival of the Fittest". While those that profiteer and stack their money assign themselves "The fittest", they do so at the risk of undermining the overall "food chain" which eventually brings about the economic collapses that are usually suffered (and then the penalisation of higher taxation to cover the downgraded economics) Obviously having the largest wad of cash in the world isn't going to be any consolation when their head is mounted on a wall and labelled "The Last Great Capitalist Predator: Driven to extinction by it's own greed and skill at entrepreneurialship"
I think that's a valid continuation. "ok I won..now what?" The answer to that question will be determined by our leaders. This is what makes your idea an important one to consider-- I believe you questioned the process by which our leaders are chosen.. why certain men get to where they are. (among other traits) Is it through sheer genius and character, or an ability to sink lower than the next guy?
Ideological bleed-over can warp the scenario. What seems to be good business thinking in one context can end up being harmful in the larger context. :shrug:
