Do You Understand capitalism?

[Tehon]

I see. And so in your opinion maximizing short term profits at the expense of long term value investors is not something corporate managers participate in, because of their fiduciary responsibilities?

Not successful ones, every corporation have short, mid and long term strategies that must work hand in hand. An executive that ignores the long term won't be around long.

.

Well, I'm probably not well enough versed to continue the conversation. And my ego can't afford any more of a beating. I can leave you with the words of Alan Greenspan who unquestionably has more knowledge in business than I.

FRB: Speech, Greenspan -- Corporate governance -- March 26, 2002
Not surprisingly then, with the longer-term outlook increasingly amorphous, the level and recent growth of short-term earnings have taken on especial significance in stock price evaluation, with quarterly earnings reports subject to anticipation, rumor, and “spin.” Such tactics, presumably, attempt to induce investors to extrapolate short-term trends into a favorable long-term view that would raise the current stock price.

CEOs, under increasing pressure from the investment community to meet short-term elevated expectations, in too many instances have been drawn to accounting devices whose sole purpose is arguably to obscure potential adverse results....

The one thing about the long term, your short term mistakes will always show up. I guess you think investors and board members are idiots.

.

On the contrary, I think they have smartly manipulated the game in their favor. I think the casual investor has drawn the short straw.

If I may be permitted to draw from Alan Greenspan once again.

FRB: Speech, Greenspan -- Corporate governance -- March 26, 2002
By law, shareholders own our corporations and, ideally, corporate managers should be working on behalf of shareholders to allocate business resources to their optimum use.

But as our economy has grown, and our business units have become ever larger, de facto shareholder control has diminished: Ownership has become more dispersed and few shareholders have sufficient stakes to individually influence the choice of boards of directors or chief executive officers. The vast majority of corporate share ownership is for investment, not to achieve operating control of a company.

Thus, it has increasingly fallen to corporate officers, especially the chief executive officer, to guide the business, hopefully in what he or she perceives to be in the best interests of shareholders. Indeed, the boards of directors appointed by shareholders are in the overwhelming majority of cases chosen from the slate proposed by the CEO. The CEO sets the business strategy of the organization and strongly influences the choice of the accounting practices that measure the ongoing degree of success or failure of that strategy. Outside auditors are generally chosen by the CEO or by an audit committee of CEO-chosen directors. Shareholders usually perfunctorily affirm such choices.

So he's saying share holder apathy is putting them at risk, sounds a lot like voters and the federal government.

.

The way you put it, yes, I would agree. But I don't think that is what he is saying exactly. He actually says that investors have had no recourse to change the paradigm. Government serves at the corporation's pleasure not the casual investor's.

FRB: Speech, Greenspan -- Corporate governance -- March 26, 2002
For the most part, despite providing limited incentives for board members to safeguard shareholder interests, this paradigm has worked well. We are fortunate, for financial markets have had no realistic alternative other than to depend on the chief executive officer to ensure an objective evaluation of the prospects of the corporation. Apart from a relatively few large institutional investors, not many existing or potential shareholders have the research capability to analyze corporate reports and thus to judge the investment value of a corporation. This vitally important service has become dominated by firms in the business of underwriting or selling securities.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Proletariat arise !!!!! Justice !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lol

 

[RASTAMEN]

You don't understand capitalism.

Do you understand socialism?

Do you understand CORPORATE GREED?????

 

[RASTAMEN]

I do. get rich off your workers then proceed to fuck them out of their union, their benefits and their retirement, then build shit as cheaply as fucking possible to last just long enough that you cant bring it back while charging you up the ass for the same product that that employer fired his workforce and moved to china for. To bilk and screw the public by taking all consumer protections and removing all responsibility from their actions whatever they might be all the while getting tax cuts and subsidies and "incentives" from our government they bought off by the transfer of wealth from a corrupt capitalistic system.
There.

No actually you don't. Capitalism is a series of contracts. If you don't like what an employer offers, don't enter into a contract to work for them. If you don't like the price or quality of a product, don't enter into a contract to purchase it. No one is forcing you to engage in commerce, well except the commiecrats.

.

Thank you Rand Paul.

 

[RASTAMEN]

The Curse of Capitalism

Print Friendly or Save as PDF



By Alan Adaschik

Guest Writer for Wake Up World

Government is government and business is business, and the two are very different from each other. A business exists solely to earn profits for its owners. On the other hand, a prime function of government is to keep the playing field level between citizens so that no one person or groups of people can take unfair advantage of others.

XXXX -- Mod Edit --- Don't see a link to copyright here. Also 3 or 5 paragraphs at the most. Never more than 1/4 of the material. RASTAMEN

America , wake up! It is already too late for an easy solution. Soon, it will be too late for any solution.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

You don't understand capitalism.

Do you understand socialism?

Do you understand CORPORATE GREED?????

Why don't you explain it for everyone.

 

[RASTAMEN]

You don't understand capitalism.

Do you understand socialism?

Do you understand CORPORATE GREED?????

Why don't you explain it for everyone.

Its called uncontrolled-resistriant "CAPITALISM"!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

You don't understand capitalism.

Do you understand socialism?

Do you understand CORPORATE GREED?????

Why don't you explain it for everyone.

Its called uncontrolled-resistriant "CAPITALISM"!

What?

 

[OKTexas]

Not successful ones, every corporation have short, mid and long term strategies that must work hand in hand. An executive that ignores the long term won't be around long.

.

Well, I'm probably not well enough versed to continue the conversation. And my ego can't afford any more of a beating. I can leave you with the words of Alan Greenspan who unquestionably has more knowledge in business than I.

FRB: Speech, Greenspan -- Corporate governance -- March 26, 2002
Not surprisingly then, with the longer-term outlook increasingly amorphous, the level and recent growth of short-term earnings have taken on especial significance in stock price evaluation, with quarterly earnings reports subject to anticipation, rumor, and “spin.” Such tactics, presumably, attempt to induce investors to extrapolate short-term trends into a favorable long-term view that would raise the current stock price.

CEOs, under increasing pressure from the investment community to meet short-term elevated expectations, in too many instances have been drawn to accounting devices whose sole purpose is arguably to obscure potential adverse results....

The one thing about the long term, your short term mistakes will always show up. I guess you think investors and board members are idiots.

.

On the contrary, I think they have smartly manipulated the game in their favor. I think the casual investor has drawn the short straw.

If I may be permitted to draw from Alan Greenspan once again.

FRB: Speech, Greenspan -- Corporate governance -- March 26, 2002
By law, shareholders own our corporations and, ideally, corporate managers should be working on behalf of shareholders to allocate business resources to their optimum use.

But as our economy has grown, and our business units have become ever larger, de facto shareholder control has diminished: Ownership has become more dispersed and few shareholders have sufficient stakes to individually influence the choice of boards of directors or chief executive officers. The vast majority of corporate share ownership is for investment, not to achieve operating control of a company.

Thus, it has increasingly fallen to corporate officers, especially the chief executive officer, to guide the business, hopefully in what he or she perceives to be in the best interests of shareholders. Indeed, the boards of directors appointed by shareholders are in the overwhelming majority of cases chosen from the slate proposed by the CEO. The CEO sets the business strategy of the organization and strongly influences the choice of the accounting practices that measure the ongoing degree of success or failure of that strategy. Outside auditors are generally chosen by the CEO or by an audit committee of CEO-chosen directors. Shareholders usually perfunctorily affirm such choices.

So he's saying share holder apathy is putting them at risk, sounds a lot like voters and the federal government.

.

The way you put it, yes, I would agree. But I don't think that is what he is saying exactly. He actually says that investors have had no recourse to change the paradigm. Government serves at the corporation's pleasure not the casual investor's.

FRB: Speech, Greenspan -- Corporate governance -- March 26, 2002
For the most part, despite providing limited incentives for board members to safeguard shareholder interests, this paradigm has worked well. We are fortunate, for financial markets have had no realistic alternative other than to depend on the chief executive officer to ensure an objective evaluation of the prospects of the corporation. Apart from a relatively few large institutional investors, not many existing or potential shareholders have the research capability to analyze corporate reports and thus to judge the investment value of a corporation. This vitally important service has become dominated by firms in the business of underwriting or selling securities.

Sure they have recourse, just like in any transaction, take your money elsewhere. Personally I'll play blackjack before the wall street casinos.

.

 

[Iceweasel]

There's no such thing as unregulated capitalism. Never was. You don't understand it either. The schools are fucking America.

Fuck you you weasel. FDR The New Deal. Your a traitorous piece of shit.

The new deal was unregulated capitalism? More like socialism mr. history buff.

No one has unregulated capitalism. It would destroy itself and take society with it.

How could it destroy itself if it couldn't exist? What planet are you on?

Did I say it couldn't exist? Ah, no. I said no one has such a thing. When are you going to learn to read?

Learn to understand your own words. If capitalism cannot exist without any regulations then obviously no one has it or ever has. So you said nothing. Idiot.

 

[Iceweasel]

Capitalism is for go getters, entrepreneurs, visionaries and individuals who want succees on their own merits.

The opposite is for the slugs who want the government to force wealth redistribution and to regulate.

No one has unregulated capitalism. That is a horrible idea.

It can't exist, dumbfuck. There has to be a standard just to know what a dollar is. You commie retards love to say that, as if it did have any meaning, in order to promote the idea that we need your guidance on what to do with our money. Socialism is for losers like you that need to feed off of others.

 

[RightyTighty]

Fuck you you weasel. FDR The New Deal. Your a traitorous piece of shit.

The new deal was unregulated capitalism? More like socialism mr. history buff.

No one has unregulated capitalism. It would destroy itself and take society with it.

How could it destroy itself if it couldn't exist? What planet are you on?

Did I say it couldn't exist? Ah, no. I said no one has such a thing. When are you going to learn to read?

Learn to understand your own words. If capitalism cannot exist without any regulations then obviously no one has it or ever has. So you said nothing. Idiot.

Unregulated capitalism is possible but no one has it, it would be a disaster, because - it would be a disaster. What's possible doesn't mean - desirable.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Private property should be limited in favor of the public good....

Civil servants can distribute it in a socially just manner.

Lmfao

 

[Mac1958]

Why do I get the feeling that this "definition" of "capitalism" was "learned" in a college course?

No. I learned how thing are by finding out with out bias how things work. By watching and living many many decades. My only agenda is The Constitution and The Bill of Rights, Freedom and Democracy none of which is even remotely compatible with capitalism unless heavily regulated with consumer protections in place.

I worked for more than 40 years in banking, finance and law and the level of ignorance on all of these topics on this board is astounding, especially among conservatives. They truly believe every Republican lie about supply side economics, the poor are robbing the middle class and Obama (not Bush) crashed the economy.

I'm in the industry, and I see shallow, mis-informed, under-informed, hyperbolic, ignorant, biased, ridiculous comments and opinions on the topic pretty regularly from both ends of the spectrum.

Including the OP.
.

 

[Iceweasel]

The new deal was unregulated capitalism? More like socialism mr. history buff.

No one has unregulated capitalism. It would destroy itself and take society with it.

How could it destroy itself if it couldn't exist? What planet are you on?

Did I say it couldn't exist? Ah, no. I said no one has such a thing. When are you going to learn to read?

Learn to understand your own words. If capitalism cannot exist without any regulations then obviously no one has it or ever has. So you said nothing. Idiot.

Unregulated capitalism is possible but no one has it, it would be a disaster, because - it would be a disaster. What's possible doesn't mean - desirable.

You can't offer an example of "unregulated capitalism" nor can you explain how it could work. The definition for unregulated systems is anarchy.

 

[2aguy]

I do. get rich off your workers then proceed to fuck them out of their union, their benefits and their retirement, then build shit as cheaply as fucking possible to last just long enough that you cant bring it back while charging you up the ass for the same product that that employer fired his workforce and moved to china for. To bilk and screw the public by taking all consumer protections and removing all responsibility from their actions whatever they might be all the while getting tax cuts and subsidies and "incentives" from our government they bought off by the transfer of wealth from a corrupt capitalistic system.
There.

No....you obviously don't understand Capitalism...which is the free exchange of goods and services...what you want, they already have in Venezuela.....go live there for a while...see how you like socialism....

 

[imawhosure]

I do. get rich off your workers then proceed to fuck them out of their union, their benefits and their retirement, then build shit as cheaply as fucking possible to last just long enough that you cant bring it back while charging you up the ass for the same product that that employer fired his workforce and moved to china for. To bilk and screw the public by taking all consumer protections and removing all responsibility from their actions whatever they might be all the while getting tax cuts and subsidies and "incentives" from our government they bought off by the transfer of wealth from a corrupt capitalistic system.
There.

No....you obviously don't understand Capitalism...which is the free exchange of goods and services...what you want, they already have in Venezuela.....go live there for a while...see how you like socialism....

Lol, they live in the greatest country the world has been witness to, built upon capitalist principles, and they bitch and want to change it.

Can someone show us a better system? The answer is no, because if they could, the country using it would be top dog.

I would point out to the OP and people that think as he does that----> freedom is measured in choices......the more choices you have, the more free you are.

Capitalism creates choices as everyone attempts to create something you are willing to buy, thus profit for the creator.

And YOU as the consumer, gets to decide if you want to purchase it, along with how much you are willing to pay for it.

It is a great deal, is it not? I think if not, then the OP needs to tell us what is better, why it is better, and show us stellar examples of where it is working along with the balance sheet!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[IM2]

I do. get rich off your workers then proceed to fuck them out of their union, their benefits and their retirement, then build shit as cheaply as fucking possible to last just long enough that you cant bring it back while charging you up the ass for the same product that that employer fired his workforce and moved to china for. To bilk and screw the public by taking all consumer protections and removing all responsibility from their actions whatever they might be all the while getting tax cuts and subsidies and "incentives" from our government they bought off by the transfer of wealth from a corrupt capitalistic system.
There.

No....you obviously don't understand Capitalism...which is the free exchange of goods and services...what you want, they already have in Venezuela.....go live there for a while...see how you like socialism....

Lol, they live in the greatest country the world has been witness to, built upon capitalist principles, and they bitch and want to change it.

Can someone show us a better system? The answer is no, because if they could, the country using it would be top dog.

I would point out to the OP and people that think as he does that----> freedom is measured in choices......the more choices you have, the more free you are.

Capitalism creates choices as everyone attempts to create something you are willing to buy, thus profit for the creator.

And YOU as the consumer, gets to decide if you want to purchase it, along with how much you are willing to pay for it.

It is a great deal, is it not? I think if not, then the OP needs to tell us what is better, why it is better, and show us stellar examples of where it is working along with the balance sheet!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I wouldn't exactly say this country was built on capitalism.

 

[RightyTighty]

No one has unregulated capitalism. It would destroy itself and take society with it.

How could it destroy itself if it couldn't exist? What planet are you on?

Did I say it couldn't exist? Ah, no. I said no one has such a thing. When are you going to learn to read?

Learn to understand your own words. If capitalism cannot exist without any regulations then obviously no one has it or ever has. So you said nothing. Idiot.

Unregulated capitalism is possible but no one has it, it would be a disaster, because - it would be a disaster. What's possible doesn't mean - desirable.

You can't offer an example of "unregulated capitalism" nor can you explain how it could work. The definition for unregulated systems is anarchy.

Unregulated capitalism is the black market, loan-sharking, smuggling, etc. and while those all exist no nation bases its economy on that. That's also - not anarchy.

 

[Darkwind]

I do. get rich off your workers then proceed to fuck them out of their union, their benefits and their retirement, then build shit as cheaply as fucking possible to last just long enough that you cant bring it back while charging you up the ass for the same product that that employer fired his workforce and moved to china for. To bilk and screw the public by taking all consumer protections and removing all responsibility from their actions whatever they might be all the while getting tax cuts and subsidies and "incentives" from our government they bought off by the transfer of wealth from a corrupt capitalistic system.
There.

So, you don't really understand capitalism. That is some handy information to have. Saves Me the time of interacting with you.