Capitalism: A Dish Best Served Cold

[Toro]

Thank God for capitalism. Without it, we'd be living in mud huts and eating grass.

 

[gipper]

Capitalism is not inherently greedy, as leftists claim.

What is greedy are the left wing ideologies of socialism, Marxism, and communism because these terrible systems ALWAYS centralize power and wealth into the hands of a GREEDY small elite.

Capitalism is the opposite of leftist ideologies, since it offers access to all people to succeed and this is why the Left must denigrate it. The exact things the Left criticizes capitalism of are what their ideologies will cause.

Sadly many foolish Americans, like Lil Joe fall for the lies of the elite left over and over and over................................................

Guy, if Capitalism offers all these "oppurtunities", then why does 40% of the population have less than 1% of the wealth while 1% has 43% of the wealth.

The Secretary General of the USSR Never lived with as much decadence as your average Kardashian or Hilton.

Guy, you have made it quite clear you have no understanding of economics or political systems that work.

The very system you want, will result in the very thing you despise.

But, I fear you are unable of comprehending this truth.

 

[Boss]

[
I don't know of ANY CEO making an 8-figure salary. Only a handful make 7-figure salaries.

Here's a list of the top 100 CEO's. ALL Of them make 8 figure salaries. Except the top guy. He makes a NINE figure salary.

100 Highest Paid CEOs

Those are "compensation" not salary. Still, doesn't matter if they are making 100-figure salaries and added 100-figure bonuses and compensation packages... if that's their value to a capitalist who's objective is to make as much profit as possible. You are taking these amounts which seem large to you, and inferring the CEO is not worth what the capitalist is paying. There is no basis for this other than your uninformed opinion on what you think CEOs should make. But you are not the capitalist hiring them or paying them, so your opinion doesn't really matter.

Again... In a capitalist system... ANY capitalist system, the emphasis is on generating profit. Paying more for CEOs or anything else, is counterproductive to that objective. Why don't you address this point? It's a valid point, and I've made it three times now, but you just seem to ignore it and prattle on about the outrageous salaries.

[
Again... Whether it's American or not, capitalism is not conducive with paying too much for CEOs. You see, the capitalist is trying to make profit, so any cost that is not needed is a direct obstacle to that objective. In other words, your argument doesn't make logical sense.

Now, I didn't ask if you had worked for companies. I said I doubted you know what a CEO does because you've probably never known one and they probably aren't available on your Marxist blogs.

I've met the CEO's of most of the companies I've worked for. And, yes, most of them are nothing special.

Again... did not ask if you had met a CEO or what you thought about them. I asked if you knew what a CEO does, and this is the second time you've responded as if I asked a different question. How are we to have an objective debate if you continue to run from the questions? Are you not interested in an objective debate? Is your intention to simply be a troll? That's starting to be how it's looking, you simply ignore or avoid my questions and points.

[
Joe, what I have discovered in my many years of debating liberal mush-brains, is they don't know what they are talking about most of the time. This is the case with CEOs and what they make. The liberal simply repeats the garbage propaganda without thinking for themselves. You don't know what a CEO does, you don't have a clue. In the liberal's mind, the CEO simply consumes wealth of the workers and contributes nothing. As I stated, this is contradictory to the principles of capitalism.

Guy, Capitalism and Communism have one thing in common.

They both look GREAT on paper.

And they are both a shit sandwich when real people apply them.

[/QUOTE]

LMAO... Wow, well we're in deep trouble if there isn't a decent system because humans generally don't thrive well in anarchy.

You're right, both look good on paper, but we know that Communism fails because of human greed. Capitalism, on the other hand, has produced more millionaires and billionaires than any other system ever devised by man.... (another point I have made that you keep ignoring and not addressing.)

 

[Piss Bucket]

[

Do you dream up your blue collar, populist morality while sitting in your easy chair, wearing a cholo wife beater shirt and chugging some off-brand beer, you fucking hillbilly? "I tell ya, Leroy, it jest ain't right dem big city fellers rakin' in all dat money while we'uns have to live in a mobile home." Pathetic peasant morality.

CEOs at large corporations get the big bucks because of what they can do, which involves things you will never understand. The Board has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders when they hire executive officers. Nobody is in "cahoots" with one another, asshole. That is not how it works.

Go suck it, you hick.

Uh, right.

So when the CEO of GM got a 12 million dollar Salary, it was because he was doing such a great job... that the company went bankrupt and required a huge government bailout. Same with AIG- required a bailout and the CEO and executives STILL required their bonuses.

Incidently, it's Leroy in his wife-beater tee-shirt whose the problem. His middle class lifestyle disappears and he still votes for Republicans.

The GM CEO was entitled to the big money he received pursuant to his compensation package included in his employment contract. Does the fact that the company had a contractual obligation mean nothing to you? Do you know what that even means, Jethro?

GM was put through a chapter 11 bankruptcy case whereby all of the compensation agreements of officers could be either set aside or evaluated to be an avoidable transfer whereby the funds could be recouped/recovered for the benefit of unsecured creditors. However, that did not happen, did it? Do you know why? Because it was a valid contractual obligation and because compensation gets priority treatment in bankruptcy.

There is nothing "wrong" with Executive officer compensation, legally or morally. What would be wrong, and would subject the corporation to a lawsuit they will never win, is to violate the employment contract and arbitrarily refuse to pay agreed upon compensation because the Board dislike their job performance.

If a corporation wants compensation reduced based upon performance, then they can certainly write that into the contract if all parties agree. But you can never modify a contract ex post facto without unanimous consent or court order.

You are just jealous and envious of compensation packages so big that they blow your tiny mind. You probably think, "goddamn, I would be happy with just a fraction of that. I could buy enough cigarettes and pork rinds to last the rest of my life!"
Believe me, Buckwheat, even if you were paid as much as a CEO you would blow it and be broke again in a year, living in a rusty old mobile home stuffed full of plasma tvs, NASCAR memorabilia, and Twinkies.

Quit smoking meth, you twat, get yourself some "book-learnin'" (I am talking down on your level here), and free yourself of that pathetic white trash perspective. It is holding you back (assuming that you possess any potential at all).

 

[Toro]

I have a very simple definition of greed.

Greed is taking more than you need because you can. When you have a CEO who collects 8 figures when his company is hemoraging money and they are laying thousands of working folks off, that's greed.

Bullshit. The corporate officers are hired by the Board of Directors. They negotiate an employment contract with officers that includes compensation terms. The CEO and other officers have to answer to the Board.

The CEO is paid according to his or her contract. It is not arbitrary. Moreover, it is not controlled by the CEO. The CEO' s compensation package is negotiated in an arms length transaction with the Board. He or she gets paid no more or less than he or she is entitled to get.

You are parroting typical populist tripe which is ignorant of fact. You may as well have posted "I am an ignorant fucking dumbass". At least that would have some basis in fact.

Yabut

Corporate governance, although improving, is still pretty weak in the US. CEOs are often Chairmen of the Board, who nominate allies to the nomination committee, who then often nominate directors who have their allegiance to the CEO, who then nominate directors to the Compensation Committee, who then recommends a compensation package for the CEO, which is then vote on the recommendation. Also, shareholders - the owners - are almost never on the boards of publicly traded companies. There are gold standard boards, but in America, there often isn't a de facto arms length relationship between the board and the CEO.

I could make an argument for why CEOs should be paid more in the past - generally, companies are better run today - but critics have a point about pay disparity. For example, it has been empirically demonstrated that there is zero correlation between comp and individual company performance, ie the best paid managers don't perform the best within their industries. That demonstrates there is something broken with executive compensation.

 

[skookerasbil]

Naw, it's just laughable that anyone is still trying to push "Greed is Good" after 2008.

Kind of like anyone extolling the virtues of fascism after 1945.

^^^ Somebody who somehow missed the memo......life comes down to "suck" vs "suckier". Pick one and move forward.

Go with socialism and these are the things you lose.........100% certainty: freedom, choice, opportunity.

Go do some research on life in Iceland.....an anti-capitalists wet dream.......then decide if capitalism sucks. 95% of the country can never leave the island and you get to drink one brand of beer ( the national brand ). You might get to go out for dinner 6 times per year.....maybe. You will most definitely wear sweaters every day of your life or freeze your ass off......the cost of heat is a joke. Want a soda? Enjoy your can of Coke......you'll only be able to afford ONE 12 pack/year. Need I elaborate any further?



Living in Iceland and the standard of living

 

[gipper]

I have a very simple definition of greed.

Greed is taking more than you need because you can. When you have a CEO who collects 8 figures when his company is hemoraging money and they are laying thousands of working folks off, that's greed.

Bullshit. The corporate officers are hired by the Board of Directors. They negotiate an employment contract with officers that includes compensation terms. The CEO and other officers have to answer to the Board.

The CEO is paid according to his or her contract. It is not arbitrary. Moreover, it is not controlled by the CEO. The CEO' s compensation package is negotiated in an arms length transaction with the Board. He or she gets paid no more or less than he or she is entitled to get.

You are parroting typical populist tripe which is ignorant of fact. You may as well have posted "I am an ignorant fucking dumbass". At least that would have some basis in fact.

Yabut

Corporate governance, although improving, is still pretty weak in the US. CEOs are often Chairmen of the Board, who nominate allies to the nomination committee, who then often nominate directors who have their allegiance to the CEO, who then nominate directors to the Compensation Committee, who then recommends a compensation package for the CEO, which is then vote on the recommendation. Also, shareholders - the owners - are almost never on the boards of publicly traded companies. There are gold standard boards, but in America, there often isn't a de facto arms length relationship between the board and the CEO.

I could make an argument for why CEOs should be paid more in the past - generally, companies are better run today - but critics have a point about pay disparity. For example, it has been empirically demonstrated that there is zero correlation between comp and individual company performance, ie the best paid managers don't perform the best within their industries. That demonstrates there is something broken with executive compensation.

Agreed. CEO compensation is broken.

However it is a very small negative aspect of capitalism and not nearly the concern depicted by those on the Left. Who denigrate capitalism citing it, when it is a minor feature.

Sadly many Americans are easily duped by the elite Left, in this obvious appeal to envy and jealousy. So they are fooled into damning the best economic system known to man, while demanding changes that will only create more income disparity.

 

[Boss]

Guy, if Capitalism offers all these "oppurtunities", then why does 40% of the population have less than 1% of the wealth while 1% has 43% of the wealth.

The Secretary General of the USSR Never lived with as much decadence as your average Kardashian or Hilton.

I'll take a pop at this, Joe... I can explain it to you in simple terms. 1% has 43% of the wealth because they are better at obtaining wealth than the 99%. And 40% have less than 1% because they lack the motivation, drive and ambition to earn wealth. Now, this is a generalization, we live in a nation of 350 million individuals, all with different circumstances. But for the most part, the wealthy have more of the wealth because they are good at creating and generating wealth.

There isn't anything you can do about this in a free capitalist system, it has always been this way and will always be this way. Not only that but the richest people will continue to become richer at a faster rate than the poor, because again, this is what they are good at. It's not a matter of greed or special laws that only apply to the wealthy, it is because they are good at generating wealth, it's how they got to be wealthy (for the most part.)

So you say, what do we do about this growing income disparity? Unfortunately, there is not much you can do in a free capitalist society, you'll always have this problem to a degree. One thing you can do to help mitigate it, is teach poor people to become wealthy. Of course, in order to teach someone, they must have motivation to learn. The most DE-motivating thing for a poor person is to be told they are a victim and their condition is someone else's fault. Continuing to finagle money from capitalists and wealthy people so you can placate the poor and support them, does nothing to motivate them in any way. In fact, it exacerbates the problem.

It's important also to note, the alternative preference to Capitalism, a socialistic Marxist-Communist system is different in terms of income disparity. You simply replace the free market capitalists with ruling class elite. 1% has 95% of the wealth because they own the guns, the media, the courts, the political power. There is no more recourse by the people, they are slaves to the state. In this system, there is no solution for the income disparity other than revolution.

In a free market capitalist system, I can teach anyone [*with motivation and determination] to become wealthy. It's really not that difficult. Government is becoming the biggest obstacle, but it's still very much a dream any American can achieve. What you are selling is gloom and despair, you can't envision how anyone can become rich, you're finding excuses to continue believing this is impossible and we should just give up and have government redistribute wealth.

 

[Boss]

Agreed. CEO compensation is broken.

Bad move. CEO compensation is controlled by the market. It's no different than Peyton Manning being signed by the Broncos for $30 mil. If he wins a Super Bowl, the team owner is probably going to be satisfied with the investment because of all the 'profit' that investment resulted in.

Is the amount out of ordinace with the general population? Sure, but can you do what Peyton Manning can do? Can you do what a CEO can do? There is a limited supply and a lot of demand, so the price is high, that is how capitalism works.

 

[gipper]

Agreed. CEO compensation is broken.

Bad move. CEO compensation is controlled by the market. It's no different than Peyton Manning being signed by the Broncos for $30 mil. If he wins a Super Bowl, the team owner is probably going to be satisfied with the investment because of all the 'profit' that investment resulted in.

Is the amount out of ordinace with the general population? Sure, but can you do what Peyton Manning can do? Can you do what a CEO can do? There is a limited supply and a lot of demand, so the price is high, that is how capitalism works.

There are many cases of CEOs making huge salaries, while the corporation they lead falters. As Toro outlined above, there is a degree of corruption at the c-level in many corporations. When the CEO controls the board of directors and when most board members are cronies of the CEO, outlandish salaries CEO's pay themselves is the result. However, the system corrects itself over time, as those ineffective CEOs are ultimately forced out.

That being said, CEO pay is a minor concern and one that should be treated as such.

 

[Toro]

I have a very simple definition of greed.

Greed is taking more than you need because you can. When you have a CEO who collects 8 figures when his company is hemoraging money and they are laying thousands of working folks off, that's greed.

Bullshit. The corporate officers are hired by the Board of Directors. They negotiate an employment contract with officers that includes compensation terms. The CEO and other officers have to answer to the Board.

The CEO is paid according to his or her contract. It is not arbitrary. Moreover, it is not controlled by the CEO. The CEO' s compensation package is negotiated in an arms length transaction with the Board. He or she gets paid no more or less than he or she is entitled to get.

You are parroting typical populist tripe which is ignorant of fact. You may as well have posted "I am an ignorant fucking dumbass". At least that would have some basis in fact.

Yabut

Corporate governance, although improving, is still pretty weak in the US. CEOs are often Chairmen of the Board, who nominate allies to the nomination committee, who then often nominate directors who have their allegiance to the CEO, who then nominate directors to the Compensation Committee, who then recommends a compensation package for the CEO, which is then vote on the recommendation. Also, shareholders - the owners - are almost never on the boards of publicly traded companies. There are gold standard boards, but in America, there often isn't a de facto arms length relationship between the board and the CEO.

I could make an argument for why CEOs should be paid more in the past - generally, companies are better run today - but critics have a point about pay disparity. For example, it has been empirically demonstrated that there is zero correlation between comp and individual company performance, ie the best paid managers don't perform the best within their industries. That demonstrates there is something broken with executive compensation.

Agreed. CEO compensation is broken.

However it is a very small negative aspect of capitalism and not nearly the concern depicted by those on the Left. Who denigrate capitalism citing it, when it is a minor feature.

Sadly many Americans are easily duped by the elite Left, in this obvious appeal to envy and jealousy. So they are fooled into damning the best economic system known to man, while demanding changes that will only create more income disparity.

Capitalism is far from perfect but it is by far the best engine for wealth creation and increasing standards of living.

 

[Boss]

Agreed. CEO compensation is broken.

Bad move. CEO compensation is controlled by the market. It's no different than Peyton Manning being signed by the Broncos for $30 mil. If he wins a Super Bowl, the team owner is probably going to be satisfied with the investment because of all the 'profit' that investment resulted in.

Is the amount out of ordinace with the general population? Sure, but can you do what Peyton Manning can do? Can you do what a CEO can do? There is a limited supply and a lot of demand, so the price is high, that is how capitalism works.

There are many cases of CEOs making huge salaries, while the corporation they lead falters. As Toro outlined above, there is a degree of corruption at the c-level in many corporations. When the CEO controls the board of directors and when most board members are cronies of the CEO, outlandish salaries CEO's pay themselves is the result. However, the system corrects itself over time, as those ineffective CEOs are ultimately forced out.

That being said, CEO pay is a minor concern and one that should be treated as such.

There are many cases of CEOs making huge salaries, while the corporation they lead falters.
Really? You mean like, there are actually capitalists who make dumb financial decisions like paying a CEO way too much and these things cause their capitalist enterprise to falter? No shit?

As Toro outlined above, there is a degree of corruption at the c-level in many corporations.
Well no, there's actually NOT. This is part of the myth they want you to believe. It's very rare and when it does happen, capitalism is self-cleaning. Stupid capitalists falter and corrupt capitalists go to prison.

When the CEO controls the board of directors and when most board members are cronies of the CEO, outlandish salaries CEO's pay themselves is the result.
The CEO doesn't pick the board of directors. So they're not cronies of the CEO. The CEOs also don't pay themselves. You see, this dynamic has been flipped to promote the rhetoric. In most cases, the CEO is hired by a board of directors and they are accountable to the stockholders and/or shareholders. In a few cases, the CEO is also the owner of the company or is hired by the owner and there is no board or shareholders.

 

[Toro]

I wouldn't say there is corruption at the board level per se. Rather, there are many conflicts of interest not properly addressed in laws and regulations.

Capitalists, BTW, are all for strong corporate governance. Management sells the notion to the Right that they are the defenders of free markets and to oppose governance reforms. But that is often couched in defending their own personal interests at the expense of the owners of the firms.

 

[hazlnut]

I had hoped this thread would at least spark a conversation.
Did I scare the Marxists by being too bluntly honest?

You are a dolt and not qualified to debate most of the liberals and moderates on USMB.

Hows that for blunt honesty?

 

[Boss]

I wouldn't say there is corruption at the board level per se. Rather, there are many conflicts of interest not properly addressed in laws and regulations.

Capitalists, BTW, are all for strong corporate governance. Management sells the notion to the Right that they are the defenders of free markets and to oppose governance reforms. But that is often couched in defending their own personal interests at the expense of the owners of the firms.

Whether management or not, MOST people defend self interests at the expense of others. This is simply human nature and we'll never be able to eliminate that. Management doesn't control owners, CEOs are not despotic tyrants who seized power. Most capitalists are opposed to government interfering in how they plan financial decisions.

But again, let's go back to the basic concepts of capitalism. A capitalist is interested in making a profit by filling a need for their product or service, to the mutual satisfaction of both themselves and the customer. Capitalists who are consumed with self interests over this objective will ultimately fail because competition will eliminate them.

 

[JoeB131]

Guy, Capitalism and Communism have one thing in common.

They both look GREAT on paper.

And they are both a shit sandwich when real people apply them.

LMAO... Wow, well we're in deep trouble if there isn't a decent system because humans generally don't thrive well in anarchy.

You're right, both look good on paper, but we know that Communism fails because of human greed. Capitalism, on the other hand, has produced more millionaires and billionaires than any other system ever devised by man.... (another point I have made that you keep ignoring and not addressing.)[/QUOTE]

Um, guy, the fall of the USSR was the failure of a nation. The fall of the Soviet Empire is no more a "failure of communism" than the fall of the British Empire was the failure of Capitalism.

Yes, Communism sucked if you were a Pole or a Uzbek, and Capitalism sucked if you were an Indian or a Kenyan. Which is why those empires fell.

Here's the bonus question. Why do you pretend those two shit sandwiches are the only thing on the menu?

 

[Boss]

Guy, Capitalism and Communism have one thing in common.

They both look GREAT on paper.

And they are both a shit sandwich when real people apply them.

LMAO... Wow, well we're in deep trouble if there isn't a decent system because humans generally don't thrive well in anarchy.

You're right, both look good on paper, but we know that Communism fails because of human greed. Capitalism, on the other hand, has produced more millionaires and billionaires than any other system ever devised by man.... (another point I have made that you keep ignoring and not addressing.)

Um, guy, the fall of the USSR was the failure of a nation. The fall of the Soviet Empire is no more a "failure of communism" than the fall of the British Empire was the failure of Capitalism.

Yes, Communism sucked if you were a Pole or a Uzbek, and Capitalism sucked if you were an Indian or a Kenyan. Which is why those empires fell.

Here's the bonus question. Why do you pretend those two shit sandwiches are the only thing on the menu?

There should only be one thing on the menu and it should be the system which has produced more millionaires and billionaires than any other. All other systems should be discarded in the trash bin of history. Especially Socialist, Marxist and Communist systems which tend to make people poorer and cause mass genocide when they fall apart.

I'm sorry you don't realize the fall of the Soviet Union was a failure of Communism. The British Empire was a totalitarian Monarchy, it has no place in this discussion of free market capitalism. No other nation has tried what we did here. About 250 years ago, we decided to set up a free market and free enterprise system under a constitutional republic. It was a bold move... at the time, it was considered a very liberal idea. Not only has it been successful, it has been successful beyond our wildest dreams.

 

[Bfgrn]

Guy, Capitalism and Communism have one thing in common.

They both look GREAT on paper.

And they are both a shit sandwich when real people apply them.

LMAO... Wow, well we're in deep trouble if there isn't a decent system because humans generally don't thrive well in anarchy.

You're right, both look good on paper, but we know that Communism fails because of human greed. Capitalism, on the other hand, has produced more millionaires and billionaires than any other system ever devised by man.... (another point I have made that you keep ignoring and not addressing.)

Um, guy, the fall of the USSR was the failure of a nation. The fall of the Soviet Empire is no more a "failure of communism" than the fall of the British Empire was the failure of Capitalism.

Yes, Communism sucked if you were a Pole or a Uzbek, and Capitalism sucked if you were an Indian or a Kenyan. Which is why those empires fell.

Here's the bonus question. Why do you pretend those two shit sandwiches are the only thing on the menu?

There should only be one thing on the menu and it should be the system which has produced more millionaires and billionaires than any other. All other systems should be discarded in the trash bin of history. Especially Socialist, Marxist and Communist systems which tend to make people poorer and cause mass genocide when they fall apart.

I'm sorry you don't realize the fall of the Soviet Union was a failure of Communism. The British Empire was a totalitarian Monarchy, it has no place in this discussion of free market capitalism. No other nation has tried what we did here. About 250 years ago, we decided to set up a free market and free enterprise system under a constitutional republic. It was a bold move... at the time, it was considered a very liberal idea. Not only has it been successful, it has been successful beyond our wildest dreams.

If what you say is true, PLEASE provide the vast wealth of writings of our founding fathers on capitalism?

'The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.'
Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Larkin Smith (1809).

 

[JoeB131]

[

There should only be one thing on the menu and it should be the system which has produced more millionaires and billionaires than any other. All other systems should be discarded in the trash bin of history. Especially Socialist, Marxist and Communist systems which tend to make people poorer and cause mass genocide when they fall apart.

I'm sorry you don't realize the fall of the Soviet Union was a failure of Communism. The British Empire was a totalitarian Monarchy, it has no place in this discussion of free market capitalism. No other nation has tried what we did here. About 250 years ago, we decided to set up a free market and free enterprise system under a constitutional republic. It was a bold move... at the time, it was considered a very liberal idea. Not only has it been successful, it has been successful beyond our wildest dreams.

Guy, the British Monarchy hadn't had any real power since the 17th century.

The British Empire was a bunch of English people imposing Capitalism on a bunch of people who didn't want to be ruled by England.

The USSR was a bunch of Russian people imposing not quite communism on a bunch of people who didn't want it.

And clearly, after 2008, Capitalism can be rated as a failure. the ONLY thing that prevented a complete meltdown of the world economy was that governments infused these failing capitalists with a bunch of money from the taxpayer.

Essentially, the system has 'socialized' risks and "capitalized" benefits.

Most of us aren't going to be the Billionaires and Millionaires when they are successful, but man, when they fuck it up, we all suffer. Like we did in 2008.

 

[Boss]

Imposing Capitalism? LMAO... How exactly do you do that? If you don't want to participate in capitalism, you don't have to. There is no imposition about it.

No, what they imposed was British rule under the King of England. A monarchy. Capitalism was the economic practices of the British at the exploitive expense of the people, not free market capitalism by any stretch of the imagination.

In 2008, the world economy began to melt down due to massive debt accumulated as the result of socialist entitlement programs that failed. Capitalist growth was no longer able to sustain the burden. The massive amounts of stimulus spending we did in the US was essentially worth a 1.6% increase in the GDP. The companies we bailed out that were "too big to fail" ...failed anyway. The housing market collapse was the result of socialist policy of providing low-interest loans to poor people who defaulted.

In one experiment after another, we see socialism fail and fail miserably. When the forces of free market capitalism are unleashed, millionaires and billionaires are made.