CEO's very concerned ?

transformer_99

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Posts
2,429
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
To me one of the problems with our system is that CEOs and Director Boards only answer to their stockholders, and are only interested in increasing stockholders' investments. It seems to me that corporations should have the good of the country or at least their own communities as a part of their interests. When the CEO and the corporation fails, so does everyone around them.

Absolutely, and the bigger part of that is that they did not even answer in the best interests of their stockholders/stakeholders. I agree with you that the community /nation is who they need to answer to both ST and LT. Because at the end of the day, the community is who invests in the company. First, as consumers, when we buy their products and services, those are the very profits that make the stock prices gain for the ST. These people stuck it to their customers on the front end with ridiculous prices/inflation. Second, as investors, the community invests, not only thru the stock market in a ST or LT investment purchase of stocks, but we also invest in these corporations thru a company retirement investing program with 401-k's and 403-b's for the LT.. In the end their investors got hosed on the front end and back end of all of this. We paid higher prices for everything at the front end. We paid for it again when it crashed in the form of bailouts and we've paid for it as well as the values of homes and retirement savings have dropped. And it's still not over, as those that were bailed out, they're going to bring new shell games that we'll have to pay even more for, so that the bailed out corporations can pay back those loans with interest. Faith in the system, sorry but I have very little at this point if I ever had any at all. Now, if I were one of the one's on the gravy train of all of this, perhaps I'd be enamored with it more, even singing a different tune ? But the only thing I can see is that we were lied to and forced to comply with those inflated prices on the front end, and as it turned to sh*t, like everyone knew it would, been paying for it every step of the way and will be going forward, until someone declares that the obligation has been satisfied. And after investing roughly $ 6,000 per taxpayer, I really need to ask these questions ? Where are our shares in these corporations ? What portion of the interest will any of us get ? What rate of return is anyone getting out of this ? The US govt. owes us at least this much. Make these corporations issue every tax payer on record common shares of stock and then when they're ready to retire that obligation, they need to pay each of us back and include a rate of return. That's how the system has always worked, not this corporate welfare bullsh*t The way it's structured, the taxpayer looks like they are worse at/for investing thru a bailout. If that means scaling back incomes on Wall Street and the NYSE and global markets, so be it. If it takes a year, 2, 3, 4, 10 or 20 years, so be it. A long time ago I heard someone say it for the first time. Choose a profession you enjoy, something you'd do for free, well it's time Wall Street and the rest of these people got their chance to practice what they preached. They had their prosperous times and now it's time to ply theuir trade, even if they break even for the next few years. they won when it was great and now they have to lose when it sucks ? Because that's exactly where the rest of us have been there and done that. Time to spread the misery in the way the game was intended to be played, as a risk/reward game.
 

D_Harry_Crax

Account Disabled
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Posts
4,447
Media
0
Likes
994
Points
228
Sexuality
No Response
gota look at it this way, if it wasn't for the TARP, the free market would have told these CEOs to fuck off months ago, and they would be nothing more than another unemployment statistic right now. We could bannish these fuckers to the South Pole for all I care, they've proven themselves inadequate at their jobs; they do not deserve my money, they are not working any harder than I am right now, that I can guarentee you.

Nice fantasy. But since when, in modern corporate America, did incompetent CEOs become unemployed? Note how few get fired when revenues and/or profits and/or stock prices go down, even a lot. Note how few get their salaries cut when revenues and/or profits and/or stock prices go down, even a lot (at best, they get a smaller or no bonus). U.S. CEOs get their contracts written so that if they do well, they win, and if they do poorly, they still win. If you don't believe me, look at any annual chart of CEO pay, benefits, revenues, profits, and stock prices published in The Wall Street Journal, Forbes magazine, Fortune magazine, etc.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Nice fantasy. But since when, in modern corporate America, did incompetent CEOs become unemployed? Note how few get fired when revenues and/or profits and/or stock prices go down, even a lot. Note how few get their salaries cut when revenues and/or profits and/or stock prices go down, even a lot (at best, they get a smaller or no bonus). U.S. CEOs get their contracts written so that if they do well, they win, and if they do poorly, they still win. If you don't believe me, look at any annual chart of CEO pay, benefits, revenues, profits, and stock prices published in The Wall Street Journal, Forbes magazine, Fortune magazine, etc.

This is totally correct. The reason is that the market for CEOs is a free market, therefore it is subject to inflationary bubbles just like any other market.
 

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
That is what I am arguing against. I am advocating free market with a certain bit if regulation. To argue against that is like arguing that we shouldn't allow anyone to use any medicine for fear that we are interfering with "free evolution". Free market capitalism is like evolution. Both, if left completely to their own devices, are merciless and ruthless. As humans, we ask ourselves how much we want to mitigate that ruthlessness. So we give sick people medicine, and we make dangerous things like CDOs illegal.




I am not sure we are doing exactly the right thing with the bailout. I do know one thing, though. The free market is currently stalled because it cannot figure out the value of anything. That is why banks are sitting on their bailout money and not lending it to anyone.

Except for commercial paper, nothing is moving and no one is investing in anything. The bailout is an attempt to free up that log jam. But I think it will have to play out for a few months until people can figure out the value of things, such as real estate.

I've long found it ironic that those that don't believe in evolution (i.e. the survival of the fittest) are pro evolutionary free market types and those that do believe in evolution are, well, basically socialist - as a stereotype of course.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I've long found it ironic that those that don't believe in evolution (i.e. the survival of the fittest) are pro evolutionary free market types and those that do believe in evolution are, well, basically socialist - as a stereotype of course.

That's because there's a difference between science and finance.
The theory of evolution goes FAR deeper than just the "survival of the fittest". Although natural selection plays an important role, genetic drift is just as important and that's completely random. That's something we as humans cannot control.

Money? That is a man-made commodity. We can control and take full responsibility of that. And contrary to belief, there aren't that many random unknowns when it comes to dealing with finance. Some just choose to ignore some of the obvious for the sake of making more of it. And when that goes awry, as with our current financial situation, they always want to talk about how complicated the process is. All the while, forgetting that if they did the right thing to begin with we wouldn't even have fiscally "evolved" to this point. For instance, the act of running a business with the intention to bankrupt it just to write it off as a loss and save money? Whoever came up with that theory should be forced to go through Grade School again... twice!
 
Last edited:

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I've long found it ironic that those that don't believe in evolution (i.e. the survival of the fittest) are pro evolutionary free market types and those that do believe in evolution are, well, basically socialist - as a stereotype of course.
Haha, yes. I have wondered the same thing, spiker. Excellent observation!
 

D_Tully Tunnelrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
258
I've long found it ironic that those that don't believe in evolution (i.e. the survival of the fittest) are pro evolutionary free market types and those that do believe in evolution are, well, basically socialist - as a stereotype of course.

Perhaps because socialists believe we only evolve if we all pull together...

If there is no evolution, is there just faith?

The current crisis, like many of past panics, is one of confidence/faith in being repaid.

So where does this leave an evolutionist?
 

D_Tully Tunnelrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
258
I always understood that he was homosexual. He had affairs with the painter Duncan Grant and the writer Lytton Strachey, both gay. Late in life, he married the ballerina Lydia Lopokova, but the marriage produced no children and it seems to have been a union more of sensibilities than of bodies.
But I dunno, duc. What have you just learned?

Senor, I have no greater information regarding the marriage than you. I merely used that as basis for stating he was bi-sexual. It may well have only been a marriage for purposes of social acceptance, but it seems to have lasted for some time, and thus probably some of Keynes publicly professed love was genuine.
 
Last edited: