Can wild CEO Pay Be Tamed? Probably Not

[The Rabbi]

So 30 years of creating the largest economy in the world is really a "pseudo-economy"? Yeah, that gives you credibility, sure.

There is no "problem" of wealth distribution. Any more than there is a problem of distribution in piano playing talent. Some people will work harder, be smarter or have other talents that makes them in demand than other people. With globalization that only becomes more pronounced. There is no problem per se. It is not like South America, which the leftists love to point to, where the issue is gov't regulation leading to monopolies.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So 30 years of creating the largest economy in the world is really a "pseudo-economy"? Yeah, that gives you credibility, sure.

The economy was psuedo-robust, not a psuedo econoomy, as you attempt to twist what was laid down.

There is a wealth distribution problem. But it does not stem from corporate greed or any other anti-capitalist sentiment. It is the govt. that has fostered monopolies that drive out competition and consolidate wealth and power within almost every sector of our economy. The answer is for govt. to get out of business and do its original role of upholding the law of the land, instead of helping out, and being a part of lawless corruption, too big to fail, lender of last resort and putting the issuance of currency and monetary policy into the hands of a private cartel.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

At least they produce something that America wants. Something I can't say for:

Lehman Bros.’ Richard Fuld, $40 million.
Merrill Lynch’s Stanley O’Neal, $46 million.
Bear Stearns' James Cayne, $40 million.

So do CEO's, otherwise they'd have no company to be CEO of. Corporations don't exist simply for the sake of existing. How many jobs does Tom Cruise create when he stars in a movie? Perhaps a couple hundred temporary ones. On the other hand, the CEO of my company oversees close to 60,000 full time employees around the world and he doesn't make nearly as much as Tom Cruise does.

I showed you that 5 years ago it was 200 times more than the average employee and now its 320 times. But the average worker hasn't gotten a raise in 30 years.

At what point will you agree that maybe the workers should get a raise? Just curious.

Whether it's 200 times or 320 times more is completely irrelevant. CEOs and workers should get paid according to what the market is willing to pay them. I showed you that Hollywood celebrities make 1,000 times the average working wage and you thought that was just dandy and you exposed your bias in your reply so forgive the rest of us here if we don't quite take your concern all that seriously.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If I'm not in a union, I don't say a word. I just keep working harder for less.

Well, that's your choice then, isn't it. It doesn't surprise me in the least that it's a choice you'd make either.

Guess what. I'm not in a union and I haven't done what you said at all.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I started a company 10 years ago and hired some workers for $30K each and I hit it big. I should say we but I'm a Republican so I think I did it all myself. Anyways, the first year my take home was $100K. The next year it was $200K. The 3rd year it was $300K and it went up another $100K every year after that for 10 years in a row. I make $1 million dollars a year.

But I never gave those employees raise. Fuck em. I could hire other people for $30K. Why should I have given them a raise. They didn't take any risk. I did. Me, me, me.

And this is exactly why you'll never be a business owner. You're too damn stupid.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I just don't understand it - why do you liberals worry about what some dipweed CEO makes instead of how to improve the lot in life for the bottom income earners?

It's easier to sit back and be jealous of others than it is to actually get on your own two feet and take some personal responsibility.

 

[Sallow]

the solution of wealth redistribution is not a solution. That is why I reject it. It is this very policy of redistribution via favoritism that is the problem. Therefore, more of it is not going to solve the problem. That's like standing on your head to get blood tot he feet.

The regulatory structure in place was not the cause for the psuedo-robust economy of the 50s - 80s. Which actually, is a falsehood in even saying so. The problem is not one thing but ahost of them that come down to two main problems. Central planning and terrible, awful monetary policies.

50s - 80s was all debt incurrance from unsustainable social programs and wars. What we see today, after leaving th egold standard completely in 71, in the end of inflationary ammo t keep creating booms and busts. The appearance of a healthy economy via the printing press has run its course and will fail as all fiat systems fail.

Sure it was. It's when that structure got broken that you started seeing a decline in the middle class..and big boom and busts. Reagan started that whole slide which continues to this day. There's been a fleecing of the average American to bump of a very small elite class of people in this country. It's crazy that you have these wild disparities in wealth. Makes no sense.

Some inequality in the market is healthy. It gives people something to strive for..but this is nuts.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Pay teachers decent salaries and there will be less average workers.

And what should a teacher's salary be, exactly?

 

[Katzndogz]

The problem isn't corporations it's government involvement in corporations in picking and choosing which ones will succeed (the ones most helpful to the govrernment) and which ones fail (the ones who refuse to pay off).

The people, the public now serves the government's interests instead of the government protecting the public's liberty.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

And that's why the progressive tax system was introduced.

No, it isn't. The income tax was introduced as a way to make up the lost federal revenue due to the reduction in foreign tariffs.

And it worked great. It encouraged investment. Why? Because many of these guys are loathe to "give" their money to the government. Instead, they put that money into their company or their workers.

No, they don't. They move the money offshore or they pay themselves in stock options.

This was working great until someone had the great idea to cut taxes on the top earners. The theory being, that the top earners would invest more of the cash they held. And that theory couldn't be more wrong.

Yeah, in the bizarro world. You don't know what you're talking about so just stop. Every cut in marginal tax rates has been followed by increased federal revenue and lower unemployment, all things being equal.

 

[Widdekind]

CEOs earn "hundreds" of times what workers make; CEOs make millions

meanwhile, total accumulated US debts near $60 trillion

perhaps "everybody" is looking in the wrong directions ?

 

[Katzndogz]

It's Cloward Piven at work. It was their theory that the economy would collapse when the majority of people are non working poor. Then, the glory of the Worker's Paradise would emerge.

 

[Sallow]

And that's why the progressive tax system was introduced.

No, it isn't. The income tax was introduced as a way to make up the lost federal revenue due to the reduction in foreign tariffs.

And it worked great. It encouraged investment. Why? Because many of these guys are loathe to "give" their money to the government. Instead, they put that money into their company or their workers.

No, they don't. They move the money offshore or they pay themselves in stock options.

This was working great until someone had the great idea to cut taxes on the top earners. The theory being, that the top earners would invest more of the cash they held. And that theory couldn't be more wrong.

Yeah, in the bizarro world. You don't know what you're talking about so just stop. Every cut in marginal tax rates has been followed by increased federal revenue and lower unemployment, all things being equal.

Wrong on all counts..

 

[TakeAStepBack]

the solution of wealth redistribution is not a solution. That is why I reject it. It is this very policy of redistribution via favoritism that is the problem. Therefore, more of it is not going to solve the problem. That's like standing on your head to get blood tot he feet.

The regulatory structure in place was not the cause for the psuedo-robust economy of the 50s - 80s. Which actually, is a falsehood in even saying so. The problem is not one thing but ahost of them that come down to two main problems. Central planning and terrible, awful monetary policies.

50s - 80s was all debt incurrance from unsustainable social programs and wars. What we see today, after leaving th egold standard completely in 71, in the end of inflationary ammo t keep creating booms and busts. The appearance of a healthy economy via the printing press has run its course and will fail as all fiat systems fail.

Sure it was. It's when that structure got broken that you started seeing a decline in the middle class..and big boom and busts. Reagan started that whole slide which continues to this day. There's been a fleecing of the average American to bump of a very small elite class of people in this country. It's crazy that you have these wild disparities in wealth. Makes no sense.

Some inequality in the market is healthy. It gives people something to strive for..but this is nuts.

We've been having booms and busts regularly in one sector or another for well over 30 years. One piece of regulation always has unseen consequences, which then legislators attempt to make yet more measures to offsett he dmage caused by the prior measure and round we go.

Reagan did not address the root probelm of the system and instead, tried to make changes within it by peeling back some layers to allow for prosperity again. It worked for the short term but caused a snowball of increased debt mass while the root cause snickered and went about its business unscathed.

So Reagan had good intentions and probably prolonged our ability to have such a massively flawed system. More regulation is not the answer. If it was, we wouldn't have had so many recessions, bubbles and wealth disparity since the beginning of the last central banker cycle in 1913.

 

[Flopper]

It is none of my business if some corporation want to pay their CEOs to lose money for them.

And the government has no role in deciding what these CEOs make, either.

If the stockholders are stupid enough to put up with this nonsense, that's their problem.

My first thought was as yours. Why should I care how some corporation that I have no interest in spends their money? When corporate boards, squander huge sums on incompetent CEO's it puts our economic system in peril. Shareholders and workers who have little to say about who boards hire demand action. Because of the way corporate laws protects boards, it is difficult for shareholders to take action and of course workers have no say. So they turn to government with their complaints. Anti-corporate forces jump on the bandwagon demanding government control runaway CEO salaries.

Corporate America needs to cleanup their act. Boards need to stop hiring cronies, employing compensation specialist who are compromised, and focus on leadership aimed at long term success of the businesses instead of the next quarter.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It is none of my business if some corporation want to pay their CEOs to lose money for them.

And the government has no role in deciding what these CEOs make, either.

If the stockholders are stupid enough to put up with this nonsense, that's their problem.

My first thought was as yours. Why should I care how some corporation that I have no interest in spends their money? When corporate boards, squander huge sums on incompetent CEO's it puts our economic system in peril. Shareholders and workers who have little to say about who boards hire demand action. Because of the way corporate laws protects boards, it is difficult for shareholders to take action and of course workers have no say. So they turn to government with their complaints. Anti-corporate forces jump on the bandwagon demanding government control runaway CEO salaries.

Corporate America needs to cleanup their act. Boards need to stop hiring cronies, employing compensation specialist who are compromised, and focus on leadership aimed at long term success of the businesses instead of the next quarter.

Funny, Lehman, Bear and ML are all gone yet Fannie and Freddie continue to crush the life out of the US housing market.

Government needs to clean up its act.

 

[The Rabbi]

So 30 years of creating the largest economy in the world is really a "pseudo-economy"? Yeah, that gives you credibility, sure.

The economy was psuedo-robust, not a psuedo econoomy, as you attempt to twist what was laid down.

There is a wealth distribution problem. But it does not stem from corporate greed or any other anti-capitalist sentiment. It is the govt. that has fostered monopolies that drive out competition and consolidate wealth and power within almost every sector of our economy. The answer is for govt. to get out of business and do its original role of upholding the law of the land, instead of helping out, and being a part of lawless corruption, too big to fail, lender of last resort and putting the issuance of currency and monetary policy into the hands of a private cartel.

"Pseudo-robust". All that GDP growth and growth in living standards was just a lie by the gov't. It's all a conspiracy, I guess.
What monopolies has the gov't fostered?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

And that's why the progressive tax system was introduced.

No, it isn't. The income tax was introduced as a way to make up the lost federal revenue due to the reduction in foreign tariffs.



No, they don't. They move the money offshore or they pay themselves in stock options.

This was working great until someone had the great idea to cut taxes on the top earners. The theory being, that the top earners would invest more of the cash they held. And that theory couldn't be more wrong.

Yeah, in the bizarro world. You don't know what you're talking about so just stop. Every cut in marginal tax rates has been followed by increased federal revenue and lower unemployment, all things being equal.

Wrong on all counts..

You saying I'm wrong doesn't make it true. Feel free to elaborate at any time.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So 30 years of creating the largest economy in the world is really a "pseudo-economy"? Yeah, that gives you credibility, sure.

The economy was psuedo-robust, not a psuedo econoomy, as you attempt to twist what was laid down.

There is a wealth distribution problem. But it does not stem from corporate greed or any other anti-capitalist sentiment. It is the govt. that has fostered monopolies that drive out competition and consolidate wealth and power within almost every sector of our economy. The answer is for govt. to get out of business and do its original role of upholding the law of the land, instead of helping out, and being a part of lawless corruption, too big to fail, lender of last resort and putting the issuance of currency and monetary policy into the hands of a private cartel.

"Pseudo-robust". All that GDP growth and growth in living standards was just a lie by the gov't. It's all a conspiracy, I guess.
What monopolies has the gov't fostered?

Already did in my first post in this thread. It is no conspiracy.


Freddie and Fannie are state sponsored. Bear Stearns was bought by JP Morgan in 2008. Another state sponsored monopoly. Lehman Bros. failed and was given a state sponsored parachute. Merrill Lynch is a capital management offshoot of BoA. Another state sponsored monopoly.

As just a few examples...

 

[The Rabbi]

The economy was psuedo-robust, not a psuedo econoomy, as you attempt to twist what was laid down.

There is a wealth distribution problem. But it does not stem from corporate greed or any other anti-capitalist sentiment. It is the govt. that has fostered monopolies that drive out competition and consolidate wealth and power within almost every sector of our economy. The answer is for govt. to get out of business and do its original role of upholding the law of the land, instead of helping out, and being a part of lawless corruption, too big to fail, lender of last resort and putting the issuance of currency and monetary policy into the hands of a private cartel.

"Pseudo-robust". All that GDP growth and growth in living standards was just a lie by the gov't. It's all a conspiracy, I guess.
What monopolies has the gov't fostered?

Already did in my first post in this thread. It is no conspiracy.


Freddie and Fannie are state sponsored. Bear Stearns was bought by JP Morgan in 2008. Another state sponsored monopoly. Lehman Bros. failed and was given a state sponsored parachute. Merrill Lynch is a capital management offshoot of BoA. Another state sponsored monopoly.

As just a few examples...

Fannie and Freddie are not monopolies. I'd suggest you look up the word.
Bear Stearns is not a monopoly. Lehman Bros is not a monopoly. Merril is not a monopoly. And the proof is they all compete against each other in the marketplace.
Looks like a big fail-o on your part.