Dakota Office Productsgmo the Value Versus Growth Dilemma

Abstract The case GMO: The Value versus Growth Dilemma describes Dick Mayo’s puzzlement by the New Economy’s continuous bias toward growth-investment strategies. As one of the most celebrated value investors in the United States, he examines the basics of his philosophy versus that of a growth orientation by evaluating long-term expected returns of several value and growth stocks. The following paper was examined to pursue several objectives: (1) to define value and growth investing – where the differences lie and whether one approach is superior to the other or whether both have merit; (2) to perform basic valuations of Cisco Systems (a growth company), CVS, R.R. Donnelly and Manor Care (value companies) and to compute their long-term†¦show more content†¦While value investors may miss out on stock price surges like those experienced back in the days of the dotcom bubble, their shares’ prices are usually less susceptible to market downturns because these investors usually do not unload their investments and flee the market when there are sudden downward swings. In contrast, growth investing is characterized by pursuing stocks that are considered to have some above-average or exceptional future growth due to â€Å"less tangible† qualities that will produce gains higher than those of industry peers, if not the overall market. Investors can have a difficult time evaluating these stocks but are nevertheless drawn by factors such as a sustainable competitive advantage, funds set aside for capital investments in the company, or some potential market opportunity of which the firm can take advantage. These stocks tend to have high price-to-earnings ratios, as investors have faith in the future of the company and are willing to pay handsomely for these securities, which in turn drives prices even higher. During times delineated by a bull market and/or an economic expansion, investing in growth stocks can be very lucrative as they can catch onto the market’s upward momentum and appreciate very quickly, creating opportunities for profit-taking. On the other hand, if there is a sudden downward swing in the market, they tend to be sold more quickly and drop in price more dramatically than value

Morality Of One Spending All Their Time And Money On...

This argumentative essay will discuss the morality of one spending all their time and money on family and friends, rather than helping others. I will argue that it is morally correct to spend all your time and money on friends and family because every individual should be autonomous and govern their own life based on their values. I will argue this with the fact that as humans, we are rational beings and have the ability to give value to our beliefs through action. If a person believes that it is of greater importance to only dedicate their time and money to family and friends, then they must use their autonomy to act in such a way that affirms these beliefs. It is morally correct for a person to spend all their time and money on family†¦show more content†¦Throughout Hare’s writing on utilitarianism, many points can be drawn to say he has a clear objection to not giving to all, those you know and those you don’t know, equally. Hare says that everyone is equal and therefore we must, â€Å"show equal respect and concern for all†. (Hare 2009, 87) He says this in conjunction with Bentham’s statement on the equality of all persons, â€Å"Everybody to count for one, nobody for more than one† (cited in Mill 1861: Ch. 5). (Hare 2009, 87) This is to say that you should not view any single person as more than another person regardless of circumstance, â€Å"in making moral judgments we have to be impartial between the interests of the people affected by our judgments†. (Hare 2009, 87) This entails that not giving to everyone would be a direct violation of morality in Hare’s eyes. In my argument I will discuss why I believe this point faults and cannot be used within the parameters of the giving situation I am arguing for. Continuing in my exposition I will now introduce an objection that Hare raised in his writing, this is the objection that I will use and expand in my argument. The lack of recognition for the distinction of every individual person is one of the most common objections to utilitarianism. (Hare 2009, 88) In Hare’s writing he says that this objection should not be accepted because departingShow MoreRelatedMoral Development in the Adventures of Huckleberry Fin by Mark Twain754 Words   |  4 Pagesbecause â€Å"I was most ready to cry; but all at once I thought of a way, and so I offered [the Gang] Miss Watson - they could kill her† (6). This is when Huck offers her up to the gang in the event that he would spill of the gang’s beans because he didnt have any true family to give up. This clearly shows that Huck has no respect for another’s life and is willing to just throw someone who is good to him under the bus just so he could join a gang with his friends. A similar event occurred when he wasRead MoreOn Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics 1681 Words   |  7 Pagesthe two most important ethical theories throughout contemporary philosophy. Though both attempt to answer questions about morality and behavior, the two theories have many fundamental differences: one evaluates actions in terms of the utility they produce whereas the other considers whether actions fulfill duty; one emphasizes consequence where the other highlights intentions; one sees desire as essential while the other precludes it and values reason. For years, philosophers have raised many objectionsRead MoreThe Graveyard Book By Neil Gaiman1423 Words   |  6 PagesParagraph one The preeminent scene in Neil Gaiman’s,â€Å"The Graveyard Book† is the opening scene that sets off a consequent chain of significant events. Gaiman begins the chapter by setting an ominous tone and then he describes a suspicious scene and man, indicating the massacre of a family. Only one member of this family escaped the bloodshed by crawling out of his crib and hiking up a hill to the nearby graveyard. In the midst of a hot pursuit between a baby and a madman, mysterious identities atRead MoreMadame Bovary Essay1427 Words   |  6 PagesMadame Bovary is a novel by author Gustave Flaubert in which one woman’s provincial bourgeois life becomes an expansive commentary on class, gender, and social roles in nineteenth-century France. Emma Bovary is the novel’s eponymous antiheroine who uses deviant behavior and willful acts of indiscretion to reject a lifestyle imposed upon her by an oppressive patriarchal society. Madame Bovary’s struggle to circum vent and overthrow social roles reflects both a cultural and an existential critique ofRead MoreMy Mothers Selfless Love1698 Words   |  7 PagesMothers are our life philosophers with selfless love. Mothers make us, kids, become especially thoughtful about the nature of life. Among all the lovely things in the nature, mothers are the most rare and precious, as we only have one mother in the whole world. Like Henry Ward Beecher, the 19th century American Congregationalist Clergyman, once said that, â€Å"The mothers’ heart is the child’s schoolroom.† We are influenced by our mothers throughout our life; so am I. I might forget the words that myRead MoreRacism : Discrimination Or Antagonism Directed Against Someone Of A Different Race1636 Words   |  7 PagesAdventures of Huckleberry Finn shows the faults society had during the late eighteen hundreds hundreds. Throughout the novel Mark Twain shows that many people in society are hypocritical. For example Huckl eberry Finn says many times that Jim did something good for an African American. One example that sticks out is the line where Huckleberry says Jim had a uncommon level head for a n----â€Å" (Twain 76). These is hypocritical because even though everyone is a human, African American people are put down and thoughtRead MoreKohlberg s Six Stages Of Moral Development1987 Words   |  8 PagesExam One 1. a. Kohlberg’s six stages of moral development are complex yet very applicable ideas to moral development. The whole point of his six stages is to set the foundation for one’s ethical behavior with a psychological approach. The first stage of moral development is the â€Å"punishment/ obedience orientation†, which refers to how people will only focus on the consequences of certain actions. For example, when a student in elementary school brings a toy weapon to school after being told notRead MoreThe Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn By Mark Twain1840 Words   |  8 PagesEvery decision we make comes with a consequence. Throughout the novel, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain, the protagonist, Huckleberry Finn, makes decisions concerning his friend Jim’s escape from slavery. Along with this novel being coming-of-age, Huckleberry is a coming-of-age character. Huckleberry starts off as a boy who is confused and questions the society he lives in . As the novel progresses, so does Huckleberry’s moral development as he distinguishes between right and wrongRead MoreDangers Of Counterfeit Pharmaceutical Drugs1595 Words   |  7 PagesDangers of Counterfeit Pharmaceutical Drugs Remember that time you really wanted to buy a Louis Viton bag? Then the thought of spending thousands on it held you back? So instead you bought a knock off, and saved yourself a boat load of money. No harm done right? Well not exactly, of course your wearing your new bag out with your friends didn’t make a difference verse the real one. You felt a little spoiled and your friends loved it too. However, what if it wasn’t just a purse that you bought asRead MoreAnalysis Of The Movie Baby Driver1595 Words   |  7 Pagesovertly displays the practicing of sinful behavior that never ends up paying off for any character. Although the majority of the movie takes place in this sinful environment, certain individuals still exhibit morality and ethical actions in some prominent scenes. In the same way that all humans are incapable of not sinning, this vague concept of sin plagues the lives of every character in the movie. As the movie proves though, just because someone sins does not necessarily mean he or she is a

Modern Political Theory Free Essays

string(81) " promising a beatific afterlife as a reward for the proper conduct of this life\." Freedom, one of our most common and powerful concepts, is used (and misused) with extraordinarily little appreciation of its significance. Not only is freedom poorly understood, but we are falsely confident that we do understand it (Dudley 24). One of my main goals in this paper, therefore, is to explain it. We will write a custom essay sample on Modern Political Theory or any similar topic only for you Order Now In order to do so, freedom ought to be understood or conceived by comparison. In preparation for these interpretations, the paper will consider very briefly the two most important conceptions of freedom on which Mill and Nietzsche build. The first and less comprehensive of these two is that of liberalism. The second, which is more comprehensive than that of liberalism, is that of Nietzsche. The purpose of this paper is to consider the relationships between the conceptions of freedom developed by Mill and Nietzsche. These conceptions, while undeniably different, are complementary. Nietzsche believed that freedom is one of the fundamental problems. But not freedom understood in conventional or political terms. Freedom for Nietzsche depends upon both moral virtue and intellectual virtue, yet it is neither exercised in or nor achieved through political life. That does not mean that Nietzsche’s account of freedom is devoid of political implications. To the contrary, his peculiar identification of freedom with philosophy and mastery reflects a rank order of values in which political liberty and legal slavery are essentially indistinguishable—both, from the perspective afforded by the commanding heights above political life where the free spirit dwells, are equally forms of unfreedom. Addressing a â€Å"serious word† to â€Å"the most serious,† Nietzsche connects freedom to devotion to the truth (BGE 25). While he warns â€Å"philosophers and friends of knowledge† about the temptation to martyrdom involved in â€Å"suffering ‘for the truth’s sake’!† (BGE 25), he nevertheless indicates that the truth is worth seeking for those fit for freedom and solitude. Whereas scientific knowledge serves life by fostering ignorance, philosophical knowledge seems to undermine life by estranging the knower from society. Whereas the scientist, a lover of ignorance from Nietzsche’s perspective, is destined to a pleasant unfreedom, the philosopher, in Nietzsche’s sense of the term a lover of truth, achieves an excruciating freedom through fidelity to his vocation. This fidelity consists in a measured skepticism directed toward all doctrines, accompanied by a prudent withdrawal from political life. The free spirit’s knowledge and freedom are not the highest of which human beings are capable. The highest awaits the advent of a â€Å"new species of philosophers† (BGE 42-44). These future philosophers are especially characterized by the risky experiments they undertake. They probably will be â€Å"friends of ‘truth†Ã¢â‚¬Ëœ and very likely will love â€Å"their truths,† but, Nietzsche insists, they â€Å"will certainly not be dogmatists† (BGE 43). By this he does not mean that the new philosophers will lack beliefs they hold to be true, but rather that they will refrain from insisting that what is true for them must be â€Å"a truth for everyman.† Yet so far from reflecting a leveling doctrine that celebrates the equality or dignity of all opinions, Nietzsche’s understanding of dogmatism is rooted in the deeply aristocratic view that only the â€Å"higher type of man† is fit to hear, and to live in accordance with, the highest insights (BGE 30). While the free spirit remains the new philosopher’s herald and precursor (BGE 44), there is a chasm on the opposite side between the freedom of the free spirit (der Freie Geist) and the freedom of the â€Å"falsely so-called ‘free spirits,†Ã¢â‚¬Ëœ that is, the freethinkers (Freidenker), the democrats, all the â€Å"goodly advocates of ‘modern ideas†Ã¢â‚¬Ëœ (BGE 44). Free thinkers reveal their unfreedom in their â€Å"basic inclination† to see aristocratic political life as the root of all suffering and misfortune. Nietzsche discovers in the democratic interpretation of political life the same offense against truth that he claims Plato perpetrated, for it is â€Å"a way of standing truth happily up on her head† (BGE 44). Democratic freethinkers, wishing to spread material prosperity, guarantee comfort and security, establish universal equality, and most characteristically abolish suffering, are blind to the rank order of human types and hence enslaved to ignorance. What is so terrible from Nietzsche’s point of view in the promotion of democratic, bourgeois notions of the good is not simply that the democratic interpretation of man is false but rather that, like Socrates’ theoretical interpretation of reality and Christianity’s religious interpretation of the world, the democratic interpretation cripples those of high rank by poisoning the air that free spirits breathe. The free spirit is educated and elevated not by material prosperity but by deprivation, not by comfort and security but by fear and isolation, not by equality but by slavery, not by the abolition of suffering but by the release of â€Å"everything evil, terrible, tyrannical in man,† and not by happiness but by â€Å"malice against the lures of dependence that lie hidden in honors, or money, or offices, or enthusiasms of the senses† (BGE 44). Nietzsche knows of no interest that supersedes, recognizes no right that limits, and sees no good beside that of the higher type. This is not a matter of calculation but of principle. Embracing as his own the struggle to return truth to her feet and restore her dignity, Nietzsche defends truth’s honor by challenging not only Plato but Christianity, the form in which Platonism has conquered Europe. The struggle against Christianity has opened up tremendous new possibilities; it â€Å"has created in Europe a magnificent tension of the spirit, the like of which has never yet existed on earth.† Note that Nietzsche not only makes philosophy, and its political reflection in Christianity, responsible for the worst, most durable, and most dangerous of all errors, but, in proclaiming that â€Å"with so tense a bow we can now shoot for the most distant goals,† he also finds in philosophy the source of his highest hope (Dudley 31). That most distant goal, which he speculates is only now coming into view for â€Å"good Europeans, and free, very free spirits,† among whom he classes himself, is a philosophy of the future. Platonism and Christianity granted human beings a sense of security as individuals. Christianity did this by promising a beatific afterlife as a reward for the proper conduct of this life. You read "Modern Political Theory" in category "Essay examples" Platonism gave the individual the hope that individual limitations could be transcended by rational insight which, when fully developed, could transport the soul to an experience of the ultimate, atemporal reality. Christianity and Platonism offered the individual a sense that the activities of this life were meaningful by referring them to unchanging realities outside life. The Platonic-Christian interpretation of individual existence is, in a sense, already dead, according to Nietzsche. The members of the modern world do not really experience their lives as meaningful as a consequence of these traditions’ extraworldly visions. But modern human beings who have come to believe that this world is the only world, this life the only life the individual will ever experience, are likely to be disturbed by this insight. Our Platonic and Christian background has given us the sense that our activities have meaning, yet the ground of that meaning no longer seems available. Nietzsche’s version of this critique of liberalism is implicit in his discussions of decadence. For the decadent subject, it turns out, is precisely one whose will fails to be self-determining. Free willing is reserved for, and is the determining characteristic of, the noble subject, with whom Nietzsche contrasts the decadent. Nietzsche’s discussions of decadence and nobility can thus fruitfully be understood as addressing the question of the necessary requirements of a free will. Nietzsche also recognizes, like Mill, that even the most freely willing subject remains incompletely free, and that an adequate account of freedom must therefore discuss the activities that provide a liberation that willing cannot. Nietzsche’s account of the limitations of willing is implicit in his critique of nobility. The noble subject manages to will freely, but nonetheless remains externally determined and so incompletely free. This incomplete freedom of nobility is overcome only by those individuals and communities able to develop the stance that Nietzsche characterizes as tragic. Nietzsche understands the development of the tragic stance required by freedom to depend upon philosophy. He thus agrees with Mill that freedom is not only treated in philosophical works, but also produced through philosophical practice. Mill’s discussion of liberty focuses on when society may impose constraints on individuals, rather than on the nature of constraint. Accordingly, his discussion generally refers to intentional, rather than unintentional, constraints on individuals. Nevertheless, Mill believes that customs and traditions are constraining. To the extent that these are the unintentional results of human life, he is committed to the view that some constraint is unintentional. Mill has argued that the social tyranny of others which takes place in moral coercion, custom, and tradition is one of the most important constraints that people face today (Mill 1956: 7). For instance, if people express their views that homosexuality or polygamy ought to be allowed, but their neighbors and employers strongly disagree (even though the government does not), they may be constrained in their actions and lifestyles. Finding work may be more difficult; access to housing may be blocked. They may feel themselves compelled to move to other cities or countries to live. Thus, though early liberalism placed great emphasis on the limitation of freedom by physical constraint, it is false to maintain that it has only done this. Mill is simply much more sensitive than Nietzsche in recognizing that social pressure may be â€Å"more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself† (Mill 1956: 7). Further, Mill’s view has been dominant amongst liberals. Morality, custom, tradition, and the law are viewed as constraints on people’s freedom. One is less free to the extent that he or she is constrained by any of these institutions. The implication of the preceding expanded concept of constraint is that any narrow or restricted model of liberal freedom can no longer be defended. Once the Pandora’s box of constraints is opened, the thrust and momentum of this view is not to be detoured. The burden will always be placed on the person who claims not to see an obstacle by those who claim to see the obstacle and claim that their activity is hindered, retarded, or impeded by that obstacle. Some liberals have tried to stem this tide, but they fight an overwhelming flood. The thrust of liberalism is such that if an obstacle can be humanly removed, then it will be seen as inhibiting someone’s freedom if it is not removed. The upshot is an enormous extension in the number and kinds of constraints to which people are thought to be subject. The implications of this are of the first importance. There remains one essential aspect of the liberal determination of when constraints may be imposed on other individuals. How directly or indirectly may individuals impose injuries on themselves or others without being legitimately subject to restraint in the name of freedom? To decide this issue is part and parcel of the liberal attempt to define a sphere of privacy as opposed to publicity – a private realm of freedom, in which people may act, think, and relate to consenting others without constraints imposed by others. In this private realm, and only in this private realm, may that ideal of complete freedom be most fully realized. Mill refers to such a sphere of personal, private life, where society may not legitimately interfere as â€Å"the appropriate region of human liberty† (Mill 1956: 16). In this realm, Mill says, â€Å"in the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his body and mind, the individual is sovereign† (Mill 1956: 13). Nietzsche’s philosophical practice, however, is quite obviously not the same as Mill’s. Mill’s philosophy is always systematic philosophy. Nietzschean philosophy is resolutely unsystematic. And thus, although Mill and Nietzsche agree that philosophy has a role to play in our liberation, the liberating roles that they envision for philosophy, and consequently their conceptions of freedom itself, are significantly different. Works Cited Beyond Good and Evil, trans. Walter Kaufmann, New York: Vintage, 1966. Dudley, Will. Hegel, Nietzsche, and Philosophy: Thinking Freedom. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2002. Mill, J. S. On Liberty, Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc, 1956. How to cite Modern Political Theory, Essay examples