finknottle Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 and people profiteered through fannie and freddie. it wasn't mismanagement per se but greed Help me understand where you are coming from here. Are you saying that an economic problem which was caused by greed is automatically attributable to capitalist influences? That greed doesn't spawn corrupt practices in socialism, authoritarianism, or rainbowed unicornism? If not, then why should the behavior of non-capitalistic entities be blamed on capitalism? Well behaved or not, you would find very few free market capitalists supporting any government intervention into the housing markets through a FM/FM entity.
Magox Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 There's a couple things that probably contribute Changes in the share-holder company relationship vis-a-vis pension funds,hedge funds, and mutual funds, formerly when the stock market was more for rich individuals a majority owner had more knowledge of the company and more say in company policies and direction, now that stock holding are more aggregate holdings managed more by statistical analysis more than any knowledge of the company or industry majority owners if there are any are hands off. Changes in the CEO Board relationship- much more cozy for a lot of reasons Pay rate contagion - any company overpaying can quickly turn into a new norm Very large companies are in stiff competition for the best managers - there may only be a slight difference between the very best manager and the 250th best manager but in a huge company that slight difference could be worth hundreds of millions or maybe billions- thus the #1 manager might get offered 5x the salary of the 250th best manager even though the difference in their skills is tiny. There is a problem though called "Regression toward the mean" now the guy you're paying 5x as much isn't preforming any better than the 250th guy in fact he may be a tiny bit worst- now you are going to have 250 CEO's pointing to your CEO saying I'm doing better than him why is he making 5x what I make. and on it goes, oh and there is a lot of fraud going on too- look into restatement of earnings figures for American businesses - and wonder if any bonuses based on original earning statements were ever given back.
erynthered Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 sorry my hands and feet are sore, had to grab my nunchucks and pointy metal stars. who helped fund their war chests for reelection? where do there loyalties lie and why? taking greed out through election reform might help but the supremes go and make it worse! Even though you really didnt answer my question. You seem to be OK, with that coruption, yes?
Nanker Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 Okay, I'll bite. Are these people fair game? Or, is it just okay to think these people are despicable? I mean, after a certain point, you've got enough money - right? Why not hate them all equally? Or does outrage start at the corporate boardroom and end just after you've bought a theatre or concert ticket?
finknottle Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 sorry my hands and feet are sore, had to grab my nunchucks and pointy metal stars. who helped fund their war chests for reelection? where do there loyalties lie and why? taking greed out through election reform might help but the supremes go and make it worse! Why do you think this is particular to capitalism? Do you think politicians in less-capitalistic countries are less beholden to the groups who put them in office? Or is it that you think that in non-capitalist countries there are no interest groups vying for influence? I'm not sure what your non-capitalist ideal is, but there are no shortage of recent illegal contribution/influence peddling/money laundering scandals in places like France, Brazil, Russia, and China.
finknottle Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 Okay, I'll bite.Are these people fair game? Or, is it just okay to think these people are despicable? I mean, after a certain point, you've got enough money - right? Why not hate them all equally? Or does outrage start at the corporate boardroom and end just after you've bought a theatre or concert ticket? I would like to know what he thinks of the salary disparity in the NFL. The top 32 players averaged about $15 million in compensation. The other 1,500 averaged about $1.8 million. Throw in the 1,500 guys signed to contracts and cut in training camp or before the end of the season, and the average falls to more like $700k. Is it fair that a cornerback gets $20 million, while everybody else in his position busts their butts for a twentieth of that? Is he 20 times better than a rookie 6th rounder? What does that even mean?
birdog1960 Posted July 23, 2010 Author Posted July 23, 2010 And you think all of these problems are caused by capitalism? where to start? yes capitalism = greed. despite what gordon gecko said greed is bad. even if all of these scary, terrible things aren't definitively causally related to capitalism (and i believe they are), the fact that they are present and worsening is an indictment of capitalism. and yes, i've read orwell's "animal farm". because people have been unable to remain true to the principles they espouse, should we not attempt to devise systems that better ensure that they do? hope is good.
DC Tom Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 where to start? yes capitalism = greed. despite what gordon gecko said greed is bad. even if all of these scary, terrible things aren't definitively causually related to capitalism (and i believe they are), the fact that they are present and worsening is an indictment of capitalism. and yes, i've read orwell's "animal farm". because people have not been unable to remain true to the principles they espouse, should we not attempt to devise systems that better ensure that they do? hope is good. But socialists aren't greedy?
birdog1960 Posted July 23, 2010 Author Posted July 23, 2010 I don't like 80X, but it is a function of the marketplace. Justification has nothing to do with it. You might as well reject gravity and evolution, and be enraged that WNBA salaries don't match the NBA. But I think the distinction between a Fortune 500 CEO and an average CEO flew right by you, which is the only point I am trying to make. Open your copy of the White Pages and pick a company at random. It's probably a dental practice, or a bicycle shop chain, or maybe an auto parts distributor. Find out if their CEO makes 300 times the average salary - that's about 15 million a year, right? To take your example: lawyers. Sure, they don't average 2 million a year. But how much do you want to bet that the 500 best paid lawyers in the country don't average it? There are 24,000 companies in the US. If you really want to get your underwear in a bunch, it shouldn't be over the fact that the top 500 CEO's out of that group make so much. It should be over the fact that the top 500 companies dominate the US market so thoroughly: 2% of companies account for 73% of GDP. But, ironically, their success at disporportionately dominating the marketplace is something of an argument for paying their CEO's so outrageously. If you are a company doing $10 billion a year in business, what's an extra $10 million if that's what it takes to get the CEO you think might give you an edge in staying on top? Here are your choices: - use $10 million to get the CEO of your choice, - using that money to reduce prices by one one thousandth, or - give everybody in the company a one dollar a year raise (before taxes). What would you do with the money in a company that large? Which option is likely to make the most difference? sorry. i missed this post and missed your earlier point about avg ceo pay from the global company's perspective, i agree with you. from the common man's perpective, i don't. i think this is very dangerous territory. the unmentioned elephant in the room here is anger at dishonesty and exploitation. if one looks at previous generations of robber barons, there were many good reasons for that title. does anyone imagine that a generation from now, we won't think the same of the current robber barons? i feel rewarding this behavior a colossal mistake. occasionally someone gets to the ultra high net worth category by brilliance, hard work, risk taking and fortitude. more often they get there through less honorable means or by the womb lottery (and yet. a poster rated complex derivatives trading as extremely valuable despite the recent melt down) i don't despise wealth. i despise the destructive and life destroying methods employed by so many to obtain and protect it.
DC Tom Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 sorry. i missed this post and missed your earlier point about avg ceo pay from the global company's perspective, i agree with you. from the common man's perpective, i don't. i think this is very dangerous territory. the unmentioned elephant in the room here is anger at dishonesty and exploitation. if one looks at previous generations of robber barons, there were many good reasons for that title. does anyone imagine that a generation from now, we won't think the same of the current robber barons? occasionally someone gets to the ultra high net worth category by brilliance, hard work, risk taking and fortitude. more often they get there through less honorable means or by the womb lottery (and yet. a poster rated complex derivatives trading as extremely valuable despite the recent melt down) i don't despise wealth. i despise the destructive and life destroying methods employed by so many to obtain and protect it. Actually, there's one reason they were called robber-barons: they dominated industries using anti-competitive, monopolistic practices. They also founded universities (Duke, Carnegie-Mellon, Stanford, Vanderbilt, University of Chicago), charitable institutions (the Carnegie Institute, Ford Foundation), libraries (Carnegie - again, the New York public library system), hospitals, churches, museums, and public works (e.g. the NYC sewer system). And JP Morgan himself twice rescued the country from economic crashes - once by bailing out the US Treasury itself. Evil, evil bastards, I tell ya...(okay, Gould really was, at least.)
birdog1960 Posted July 23, 2010 Author Posted July 23, 2010 Actually, there's one reason they were called robber-barons: they dominated industries using anti-competitive, monopolistic practices. They also founded universities (Duke, Carnegie-Mellon, Stanford, Vanderbilt, University of Chicago), charitable institutions (the Carnegie Institute, Ford Foundation), libraries (Carnegie - again, the New York public library system), hospitals, churches, museums, and public works (e.g. the NYC sewer system). And JP Morgan himself twice rescued the country from economic crashes - once by bailing out the US Treasury itself. Evil, evil bastards, I tell ya...(okay, Gould really was, at least.) and the "rescue" may have been from a crisis of their own making. thanks so much, forever grateful and all that. wouldn't need philanthropy if things worked well from the start. do you favor anti competitive, monopolistic practices?
birdog1960 Posted July 23, 2010 Author Posted July 23, 2010 i'm going to risk being trite and open myself up to an even more furious attack: what about morals, ethics, right, wrong and Christian values so frequently cited as the source of strength in this country? don't they matter anymore? did they ever?
DC Tom Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 and the "rescue" may have been from a crisis of their own making. "May have been"? May have been? You don't even know, and you're still passing judgement? That makes you rather retarded now, doesn't it? Go read up on the panics of 1907 and 1893, then spout off. thanks so much, forever grateful and all that. wouldn't need philanthropy if things worked well from the start. Uh...yeah, I'm sure higher education, art museums, and libraries would just magically spring from the ground whole if no one paid for them. do you favor anti competitive, monopolistic practices? My point being that robber-barons were robber-barons because of their anti-competitive, monopolistic practices, not just because they were wealthy. And the only one espousing anti-competitive practices in this thread is...you, as a matter of fact.
DC Tom Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 i'm going to risk being trite and open myself up to an even more furious attack: what about morals, ethics, right, wrong and Christian values so frequently cited as the source of strength in this country? don't they matter anymore? did they ever? Morals, ethics, right, wrong, and Christian values are espoused only by the people lifting your wallet when you're not looking. The country was founded on profiteering and greed.
birdog1960 Posted July 23, 2010 Author Posted July 23, 2010 "May have been"? May have been? You don't even know, and you're still passing judgement? That makes you rather retarded now, doesn't it? Go read up on the panics of 1907 and 1893, then spout off. i'll do that. the point is that they had major influence on world affairs , both governmental and private (as if they are truly separate) of the era. leaders are generally held responsible, whether surrogate or actual. Uh...yeah, I'm sure higher education, art museums, and libraries would just magically spring from the ground whole if no one paid for them. some very fine public museums, universities and libraries do , in fact, exist.
birdog1960 Posted July 23, 2010 Author Posted July 23, 2010 Morals, ethics, right, wrong, and Christian values are espoused only by the people lifting your wallet when you're not looking. The country was founded on profiteering and greed. happy days are here again! we are sodom and gomorrah? speak for yourself.
birdog1960 Posted July 23, 2010 Author Posted July 23, 2010 Morals, ethics, right, wrong, and Christian values are espoused only by the people lifting your wallet when you're not looking. The country was founded on profiteering and greed. let me guess...you're a fan of nietzsche, have you noticed the horizon today? it's there.
DC Tom Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 some very fine public museums, universities and libraries do , in fact, exist. Yeah, like the Smithsonian...oh, wait, that was funded privately (James Smithson). But there's the Met...except it was in large part created by JP Morgan. And public universities, like the UC system...with endowments originally funded largely by private contributions. But public libraries - hey, that New York Public Library is one of the best in the world...but I already mentioned that was privately funded. Fact is, 100-150 years ago most "public works" were privately funded, including such indisputably public works as the Metropolitan Board of Health.
birdog1960 Posted July 23, 2010 Author Posted July 23, 2010 Yeah, like the Smithsonian...oh, wait, that was funded privately (James Smithson). But there's the Met...except it was in large part created by JP Morgan. And public universities, like the UC system...with endowments originally funded largely by private contributions. But public libraries - hey, that New York Public Library is one of the best in the world...but I already mentioned that was privately funded. Fact is, 100-150 years ago most "public works" were privately funded, including such indisputably public works as the Metropolitan Board of Health. just more evidence of who really controls things. when you cotrol culture, you, uh, control culture. you're a walking advertisement for the industrial military complex except... oh, wait...they don't want the publicity.
DC Tom Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 happy days are here again! we are sodom and gomorrah? speak for yourself. Read some history. Or do you really believe that the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock established the first American colony, thereby laying the foundation for a country based on tolerance and freedom? That John Adams and Thomas Jefferson fought for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and not their bank acocunts? Ever wonder why the seat of The Revolution was based in the maritime states and involved shipping magnates competing with British hulls for business? You think the grain convoys that precipitated The Glorious First of June were egalitarian displays of sympathetic charity to the French? You honestly think the Civil War was fought over freedom for blacks (which realistically wasn't achieved until the mid-20th century)? Or that Matthew Perry's expedition was based on anything more than opening Japan to American trade?
Recommended Posts