Greed

[AllieBaba]

Good grief, Madeline, MM...this thread has it all.
Ignorami on parade.

 

[lizzie]

The capitalists have moved operations to China, where capitalism is still encouraged on the business end. They may be "communists", but their growing wealth is due to capitalism.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The capitalists have moved operations to China, where capitalism is still encouraged on the business end. They may be "communists", but their growing wealth is due to capitalism.

Indeed, and perhaps one of the best decisions made by China in it's entire history. China has a unique thing going on there...control the populace with the same iron grip as always, provide extremely small social assistance - while reaping the rewards of capitalism.
What faster way can a country build wealth than this?


P.S.> To note, personally I think China's leaders are clearly in the top 5 worst governments in the world, as in how they treat their citizens...so the above shouldn't be confused with me thinking China's leaders are anything but sleaze.

 

[Flopper]

What these corporations need is some sort of outside regulation. Seems to me, that used to come from shareholders...but these days, most shares are held by institutional investors. I'd be in favor of a law against very high compensation as well as one against closing profitable divisions....though that would need deep thought.

Well that's the dilemma. Government can't dictate to a private entity what to pay its CEOs and can't make layoff decisions. Unfortunately, not too long ago, there was such a thing as integrity in business which generated goodwill among investors and consumers, and profits could be expected to be healthy because of that. But it doesn't seem to exist anymore.

It's not that there are no regulations. The problem is there has been insufficient regulation in some areas and in others the regulation have been ineffective.

It is obvious that the regulations on the home mortgage industry has been insufficient. The secret trading of derivatives allowed Wall Street to put the screws to thousands of investors. Probability the most distressing problem is that large financial institutions have been able to select their own regulator. This has resulted a market for government regulation. where the prize goes to the lowest bidder. Large multinationals have simply move selected operations offshore to escape all regulations.

We are seeing the result of this today. Basically the big financials have been able to do what every wanted without regard to regulations or even the wrath of their stockholders.

 

[loosecannon]

I'd like a peek inside the thought process of someone making $25 Million who decides to lay off workers. How in the fuck do they justify their greed? They must see their own workers as some sort of alien species, not fully human.

"Johnson & Johnson, a family company"

Right...like the Mafia.

Yeah whatever.

ever since Ford v. Dodge in 1916 Dodge v. Ford Motor Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia US corps have been required to operate for the direct benefit of their shareholders bottom line.

While i fully agree that at rule has been subordinated to a new business morality that seems to be far more in the service of executive salaries than stock holder dividends (esp) and profits......It is fully within the legal requirements of corporations to shed labor costs when doing so improves profits.

There is absolutely ZERO legal onus for corporations to provide employment for an excess labor force.

NONE.

Change the system, don't blame those who really are doing their job as the law requires them to do to meet their fiduciary responsibilities.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

So where are all the Randian capitalists who are usually so eager to argue that corporations and their CEOs "need" every penny they make in order to keep Americans employed?

The goal of managers is to maximize profits and investment returns for the shareholders; it's not to give people a job. If those CEOs increased their company's profits during prosperous times by laying off people then the people they laid off obviously weren't necessary to the company's prosperity.

 

[manu1959]

More Layoffs, Bigger Payoffs: CEOs Who Cut More Jobs Got Paid 42% More Money in 2009 - DailyFinance

Combined, the CEOs at those 50 firms made $598 million and laid off 531,363 workers -- accounting for more than three quarters of the 697,448 announced layoffs at the top 500 firms. The study also found that 72% of them announced their mass layoffs during periods of positive earnings reports, and that those companies enjoyed a 44% profit increase in 2009.

Kinda warms the cockles of the heart, doesn't it? Let's hear it for modern capitalism!!

spot on...the bastards should have given everyone a raise and watched the company tank and everyone go on the dole.....assholes....

 

[lizzie]

The capitalists have moved operations to China, where capitalism is still encouraged on the business end. They may be "communists", but their growing wealth is due to capitalism.

Indeed, and perhaps one of the best decisions made by China in it's entire history. China has a unique thing going on there...control the populace with the same iron grip as always, provide extremely small social assistance - while reaping the rewards of capitalism.
What faster way can a country build wealth than this?


P.S.> To note, personally I think China's leaders are clearly in the top 5 worst governments in the world, as in how they treat their citizens...so the above shouldn't be confused with me thinking China's leaders are anything but sleaze.

on your PS- I fully understand.
and as for the rest of your post- agreed. Did you see the program around a year or so ago titled "The People's Republic of Capitalism" (hope I got it right). I think it ran on Discovery Channel (maybe History or HI). It was pretty insightful imo.

 

[MaggieMae]

Good grief, Madeline, MM...this thread has it all.
Ignorami on parade.

Since I'm still not "allowed" to return your neg rep, this will have to do:

 

[MaggieMae]

What these corporations need is some sort of outside regulation. Seems to me, that used to come from shareholders...but these days, most shares are held by institutional investors. I'd be in favor of a law against very high compensation as well as one against closing profitable divisions....though that would need deep thought.

Well that's the dilemma. Government can't dictate to a private entity what to pay its CEOs and can't make layoff decisions. Unfortunately, not too long ago, there was such a thing as integrity in business which generated goodwill among investors and consumers, and profits could be expected to be healthy because of that. But it doesn't seem to exist anymore.

It's not that there are no regulations. The problem is there has been insufficient regulation in some areas and in others the regulation have been ineffective.

It is obvious that the regulations on the home mortgage industry has been insufficient. The secret trading of derivatives allowed Wall Street to put the screws to thousands of investors. Probability the most distressing problem is that large financial institutions have been able to select their own regulator. This has resulted a market for government regulation. where the prize goes to the lowest bidder. Large multinationals have simply move selected operations offshore to escape all regulations.

We are seeing the result of this today. Basically the big financials have been able to do what every wanted without regard to regulations or even the wrath of their stockholders.

 

[johnrocks]

Good grief, Madeline, MM...this thread has it all.
Ignorami on parade.

Since I'm still not "allowed" to return your neg rep, this will have to do:

I could not give you a positive rep but trust me, because of this...I shall(funniest pic I've seen in a looooong time,lol)

 

[MaggieMae]

More Layoffs, Bigger Payoffs: CEOs Who Cut More Jobs Got Paid 42% More Money in 2009 - DailyFinance

Combined, the CEOs at those 50 firms made $598 million and laid off 531,363 workers -- accounting for more than three quarters of the 697,448 announced layoffs at the top 500 firms. The study also found that 72% of them announced their mass layoffs during periods of positive earnings reports, and that those companies enjoyed a 44% profit increase in 2009.

Kinda warms the cockles of the heart, doesn't it? Let's hear it for modern capitalism!!

spot on...the bastards should have given everyone a raise and watched the company tank and everyone go on the dole.....assholes....

Sorry, but I seriously doubt some of the conglomerates mentioned were even close to tanking. Get real.

It's pretty obvious the Randian capitalists missed the point entirely. In an ideal world, of course maximizing profits is the name of the game, but not when the economy is in such desperate need of repair. There's only so much "the government" can do. It would be nice if the private sector pitched in too.

 

[johnrocks]

More Layoffs, Bigger Payoffs: CEOs Who Cut More Jobs Got Paid 42% More Money in 2009 - DailyFinance


Kinda warms the cockles of the heart, doesn't it? Let's hear it for modern capitalism!!

spot on...the bastards should have given everyone a raise and watched the company tank and everyone go on the dole.....assholes....

Sorry, but I seriously doubt some of the conglomerates mentioned were even close to tanking. Get real.

It's pretty obvious the Randian capitalists missed the point entirely. In an ideal world, of course maximizing profits is the name of the game, but not when the economy is in such desperate need of repair. There's only so much "the government" can do. It would be nice if the private sector pitched in too.

When have we had "Randian capitalism"?( I assume you mean Ayn Rand type capitalism)

 

[lizzie]

spot on...the bastards should have given everyone a raise and watched the company tank and everyone go on the dole.....assholes....

Sorry, but I seriously doubt some of the conglomerates mentioned were even close to tanking. Get real.

It's pretty obvious the Randian capitalists missed the point entirely. In an ideal world, of course maximizing profits is the name of the game, but not when the economy is in such desperate need of repair. There's only so much "the government" can do. It would be nice if the private sector pitched in too.

When have we had "Randian capitalism"?( I assume you mean Ayn Rand type capitalism)

Not for about the past 100 years.

 

[johnrocks]

Sorry, but I seriously doubt some of the conglomerates mentioned were even close to tanking. Get real.

It's pretty obvious the Randian capitalists missed the point entirely. In an ideal world, of course maximizing profits is the name of the game, but not when the economy is in such desperate need of repair. There's only so much "the government" can do. It would be nice if the private sector pitched in too.

When have we had "Randian capitalism"?( I assume you mean Ayn Rand type capitalism)

Not for about the past 100 years.

Yup, yet capitalism always takes the hit, it may be crony capitalism or state capitalism perhaps but it certainly isn't "free market "Randian capitalism".

 

[lizzie]

More Layoffs, Bigger Payoffs: CEOs Who Cut More Jobs Got Paid 42% More Money in 2009 - DailyFinance


Kinda warms the cockles of the heart, doesn't it? Let's hear it for modern capitalism!!

spot on...the bastards should have given everyone a raise and watched the company tank and everyone go on the dole.....assholes....

Sorry, but I seriously doubt some of the conglomerates mentioned were even close to tanking. Get real.

It's pretty obvious the Randian capitalists missed the point entirely. In an ideal world, of course maximizing profits is the name of the game, but not when the economy is in such desperate need of repair. There's only so much "the government" can do. It would be nice if the private sector pitched in too.

The reality is that corporations exist to make profits, and capitalism with a minimally-regulated market in the 1900's pretty much made the US the most financially sound country in the world- until 2008, when deregulation of financial institutions, coupled with government social policies encouraging high-risk lending brought us to our knees. If not for the great corporate success of the US in general, we would not have the money for all the social programs that we have gotten into deep debt for. Like it or not, big profits = big government tax receipts, and this is what funds all the programs that so many see as essential in our society. When corporations can't maximize profits in this country, and they can in other countries, they will take their business elsewhere. If our government penalizes success, and other governments reward it, it's pretty much a no-brainer.

related tidbit:

China offers fresh tax break to encourage outsourcing businesses
By Chandan Das on August 12th, 2010
Eager to end India’s supremacy in the outsourcing industry, neighboring China has announced that it will not impose operating taxes on offshore outsourcing services business in 21 of its major cities until 2013 with a view to encourage the growth of this industry. A statement issued by the Communist government in China on Wednesday said that the exemption of five per cent operating taxes will be effective from July 1, 2010 and will remain in effect till December 31, 2013.
A business website reports that the 21 major cities exempted from the operation taxes on offshore outsourcing services, include Beijing, Dalian, Tianjin, Harbin, Shanghai, Daqing, Nanjing, Suzhou, Nanchang, Wuxi, Ji’nan, Hangzhou, Chengdu, Hefei, Xiamen, Guangzhou, Wuhan, Changsha, Shenzhen, Chongqing and Xi’an.
A joint statement issued by the Chinese Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Commerce and the State Administration of Taxation said that revenue from offshore service outsourcing denotes service revenue generated from deals signed with offshore businesses for providing IT outsourcing, BPO and KPO services. Quoting the release, China’s official news agency Xinhua said that Chinese outsourcing firms in these 21 cities that have already paid the operating taxes on their offshore outsourcing services revenues since July 1, 2010 would be entitled to refunds by the end of the current year

Eager to end India’s supremacy in
China offers fresh tax break to encourage outsourcing businesses

 

[Madeline]

What these corporations need is some sort of outside regulation. Seems to me, that used to come from shareholders...but these days, most shares are held by institutional investors. I'd be in favor of a law against very high compensation as well as one against closing profitable divisions....though that would need deep thought.

Well that's the dilemma. Government can't dictate to a private entity what to pay its CEOs and can't make layoff decisions. Unfortunately, not too long ago, there was such a thing as integrity in business which generated goodwill among investors and consumers, and profits could be expected to be healthy because of that. But it doesn't seem to exist anymore.

It's not that there are no regulations. The problem is there has been insufficient regulation in some areas and in others the regulation have been ineffective.

It is obvious that the regulations on the home mortgage industry has been insufficient. The secret trading of derivatives allowed Wall Street to put the screws to thousands of investors. Probability the most distressing problem is that large financial institutions have been able to select their own regulator. This has resulted a market for government regulation. where the prize goes to the lowest bidder. Large multinationals have simply move selected operations offshore to escape all regulations.

We are seeing the result of this today. Basically the big financials have been able to do what every wanted without regard to regulations or even the wrath of their stockholders.

This is not exactly what I meant. There has been a shift in shareholder identity, away from small, individual investors and towards institutional investors. The managers of these funds are overwhelmingly corporate management friendly, and rarely oppose a pay package.

Back in the distant dim past, a small investor unhappy with a management policy could mount a proxy war, etc. Managers used to dread shareholder meetings for this very reason....but no more, not for the Fortune 500.

The interests of management are different from the interests of shareholders, employees, suppliers and all other stakeholders. Since no one with any power can speak from the long POV, insty-profits based upon accounting wizardry are the fad...and those usually cost jobs.

 

[MaggieMae]

spot on...the bastards should have given everyone a raise and watched the company tank and everyone go on the dole.....assholes....

Sorry, but I seriously doubt some of the conglomerates mentioned were even close to tanking. Get real.

It's pretty obvious the Randian capitalists missed the point entirely. In an ideal world, of course maximizing profits is the name of the game, but not when the economy is in such desperate need of repair. There's only so much "the government" can do. It would be nice if the private sector pitched in too.

When have we had "Randian capitalism"?( I assume you mean Ayn Rand type capitalism)

Yes. The flaw in the application of Ayn Rand's philosophy today is that it doesn't take into consideration that markets can be irrational, misunderstand risk, and misallocate resources, or that financial systems without vigorous government oversight and the capacity for pragmatic intervention can constitute a recipe for disaster. Which is precisely what happened with the crash of the housing market which led to the crash of the big investment houses which [almost] led to a crash of the financial structure on a global scale.

 

[MaggieMae]

When have we had "Randian capitalism"?( I assume you mean Ayn Rand type capitalism)

Not for about the past 100 years.

Yup, yet capitalism always takes the hit, it may be crony capitalism or state capitalism perhaps but it certainly isn't "free market "Randian capitalism".

But her capitalism is the only way, according to the new right. Capitalism completely unencumbered by anything other than free will. While it's always a noble approach, in the modern world, that brand of capitalism would quickly create two distinct classes of people: The rich and the poor. At least the middle are still hanging on, or trying to.

 

[johnrocks]

Sorry, but I seriously doubt some of the conglomerates mentioned were even close to tanking. Get real.

It's pretty obvious the Randian capitalists missed the point entirely. In an ideal world, of course maximizing profits is the name of the game, but not when the economy is in such desperate need of repair. There's only so much "the government" can do. It would be nice if the private sector pitched in too.

When have we had "Randian capitalism"?( I assume you mean Ayn Rand type capitalism)

Yes. The flaw in the application of Ayn Rand's philosophy today is that it doesn't take into consideration that markets can be irrational, misunderstand risk, and misallocate resources, or that financial systems without vigorous government oversight and the capacity for pragmatic intervention can constitute a recipe for disaster. Which is precisely what happened with the crash of the housing market which led to the crash of the big investment houses which [almost] led to a crash of the financial structure on a global scale.

Housing market crash was due to government, not free markets, it went like this.....

1. The Federal Reserve cut interest rates to as low as 1% so that after inflation we had negative interest rates.

2. As a result, mortgage rates fell to an all time low.

3. Low rates caused borrowing and lending to explode, particularly in real estate. For example, commercial banks more than doubled the amount of real-estate loans they made.

4. All these low interest loans had to be extended to people with worse credit ratings and this increased the demand for homes and other real-estate assets. It should not be surprising that home prices skyrocketed.

Real Estate Roller Coaster


Blaming it on free markets is akin to a kindergarten teacher bringing boxes of chocolate and cokes to class and then blaming the five year olds for getting a sugar rush.