Overpaid CEOs and Greedy Capitalists.. oh my!

Discussion in 'Economy' started by Boss, May 7, 2013.

  1. Boss
    Offline

    Boss Take a Memo:

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Messages:
    21,884
    Thanks Received:
    2,760
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    Ratings:
    +10,112
    We've been hearing this left-wing anti-capitalist claptrap meme for several years now. The buzz words are heard over and over, and what happens is, reasonable thinking people hear it so often, they start to believe it and accept it. You start hearing otherwise sane and pragmatic people saying, "well, maybe the rich don't pay their fair share," or "yeah, some CEOs do make too much." The left simply chips away at the dumbed-down masses, until they succeed in convincing enough support for their insanity.

    I was so disappointed in Bohner recently, telling us that they had "reached a compromise" on tax hikes, and only people making over a million a year would have a tax increase. As if, this was some sort of conservative victory! The old saying that came to mind was; "Madame, we've established what you are, now we are merely discussing price." Bohner, you moron, you just conceded a prime conservative free market capitalist point, and you don't even seem to realize it. This was all about the principle of increasing taxation on the very people who we need to bail us out of economic malaise. It just goes to show the power of persuasion, for months on end, we are bombarded with this liberal meme, and eventually, people start to cave and give in.

    Well, I am here to set the record straight on a couple of my favorite memes. First up, the one about those wealthy CEOs making so much money they can't even count it all. Next time some snot-nose pops off about this, ask them point blank, if they know what a CEO does, and see what they say. Chances are, they are clueless. In a recent conversation with such a person, I discovered that CEOs have phone calls and meetings, then they go play golf and fly around the country on private jets. (Yes, I made sure he wasn't talking about Obama here.) But the bottom line is, this person had not a clue, regarding the day-to-day responsibilities that come with the CEO title. Literally, their job is to fix problems. A myriad of challenging and difficult to solve problems, most of the time. They have to be very good at this, because many of these actions have the entire company in the balance.

    Now this brings me to capitalism, and how it works regarding CEOs. Let's say you have a business corporation. You likely also have a competitor, maybe even several. You all do the same thing, and your success as a company, depends on the response from consumers. These consumers can be motivated by a lot of things, price, location and convenience, quality, service, reputation, you get the picture. So the company who can do the best job in all possible areas of satisfying the consumer, is the one who best solves problems which may arise in the process. One day, you as an owner, get to thinking, how can I make my company better than my competitor? You decide, it would be a good idea to hire a person who is good at solving problems, to come in and be there to deal with these things as they arise. Your competitor doesn't have this, so you'll have an advantage. So that's what you do, now you have a CEO, so your competitor gets one too. Only, your competitor finds one who is better and pays him more. Now you have to go out and find a CEO better than theirs, and you do, but you have to pay him more. See where this is going?

    When you start to feel despair at how much CEOs are making, remember that capitalists pay them according to the value they bring to the capitalist. They simply can't make "too much" if that is their value to a capitalist. To a capitalist, the primary objective is profit. Don't you think, if CEOs were "making too much" that some capitalist out there would say.. "hmm, we could make a butt load more profit not having to pay this fool to play golf and fly all over the country in a private jet?" So, either capitalists are really stupid people who are squandering an awful lot of profit paying a figurehead, or CEOs do more than the morons realize, and have a value to the capitalist which is reflected in the salary they are paid.

    When I point this out to lefties, the first thing they come flying back with, is examples of corrupt white collar criminals who we've convicted and sent to prison. I'm not sure what this has to do with legitimate CEOs who operate in compliance with the law, but since we haven't ever been able to pass a law to effectively prevent people from breaking the law, I have to assume the reason they bring up criminals, is to insinuate that all CEOs are corrupt white collar criminals who belong in prison. Again, why would a capitalist knowingly hire and pay such people? Seems like hiring criminals and crooks to run your company, wouldn't be a good idea for profits.

    The next meme we hear is "greedy capitalists" and it really rubs me the wrong way. There is no place for "greed" in a regulated free enterprise, free market system. We have laws and agencies to regulate and monitor capitalist activity, to ensure "greed" doesn't rear its ugly head through monopoly or exploitation of environment, or risk to public safety, etc. Oh, but so-and-so reported "record profits" last year! Isn't that greed? Nope... that's success as a capitalist. It means, a capitalist provided a product or service to a consumer base who was satisfied, more so than his competitors did. If the capitalist were 'gouging' customers, another capitalist would have capitalized, in a free market system.

    The ironic thing is, it is the Socialist system the left advocates, which will GUARANTEE greed, corruption, graft, and undeserved figurehead pay, but this will all be done by the people who also hold the political reins of power. There is no free market competition, everything becomes a monopoly, controlled by the ruling class elite and their hand-picked cronies. Environment? You think you'll get the government to condemn the government for destroying the environment? Has that ever happened in history?

    Finally, it is important to note where all of this rhetoric we are hearing, comes from. It is basically a template of how Socialism was introduced across Europe. The big giveaway, is how the arguments simply fail in our country because of our free market system which operates in our unique Constitutional republic. You see, back when Karl Marx and others were kicking their ideas around Europe, those people lived under rule of kings and dictators. There was no free market competition, such a thing was forbidden from the commoners, they were peasants. In a system without free enterprise and free market capitalism and competition, Socialist arguments of class warfare and "greedy capitalists" is much easier to swallow. But since this argument utterly fails here, they have to work on building a perception of something that doesn't actually exist in our system.
     
  2. georgephillip
    Offline

    georgephillip Platinum Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    32,241
    Thanks Received:
    1,721
    Trophy Points:
    1,125
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    Ratings:
    +5,072
    Those Kings were rich, right?
    They got rich by socializing cost and privatizing profit.
    Not unlike some of today's corporate royalty.

    "The ratio of CEO-to-worker pay has increased 1,000 percent since 1950, according to data from Bloomberg. Today Fortune 500 CEOs make 204 times regular workers on average, Bloomberg found. The ratio is up from 120-to-1 in 2000, 42-to-1 in 1980 and 20-to-1 in 1950."

    Are you worth a thousand times more than you were in 1950?

    CEO-To-Worker Pay Ratio Ballooned 1,000 Percent Since 1950: Report
     
  3. Boss
    Offline

    Boss Take a Memo:

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Messages:
    21,884
    Thanks Received:
    2,760
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    Ratings:
    +10,112
    The kings got rich by flagrantly violating people's right to property, because they had no constitutional protection against kings. In a free market capitalist system, competition mitigates greed, because the less greedy capitalist will always be favored by the consumer.

    I don't care if CEO pay has increased a MILLION percent, CEOs are still paid by capitalists to perform a valued function. If that is ever "too much" another capitalist can compete and do it cheaper, and the consumer will take care of the rest. In a kingdom, the king decides what you, the subject, has to accept. And here is the real kick in the shorts... whenever we've transitioned to a statist socialist system and killed free market capitalism, there will be no convenient reports and studies to show the disparity between the ruling class and the working class, this information will be hidden from you, because the people with all the money, also now control all the power too. You just start noticing the quality of life decline, year after year, until it becomes so unbearable, you rise up in revolt... that's when the socialists line you up in front of an open ditch and put some lead in your head.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. georgephillip
    Offline

    georgephillip Platinum Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    32,241
    Thanks Received:
    1,721
    Trophy Points:
    1,125
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    Ratings:
    +5,072
    "Lead in the head."
    You're too funny.
    What's your take on the latest rich bitch to join Obama's cabinet?

    "(Penny) Pritzker, the billionaire heir to part of the Hyatt Hotels fortune, has long been first off an avaricious capitalist, and if she backed Obama, it wasn’t for his looks. Never one to rest on the laurels of her immense inherited wealth, Pritzker has always wanted more.

    "That’s what drove her to run Superior Bank into the subprime housing swamp that drowned the institution’s homeowners and depositors alike before she emerged richer than before.

    Robert Scheer: Obama Did It for the Money - Robert Scheer's Columns - Truthdig

    Would you cry if someone cut off rich Penny's head with a dull shank and shit in it?
     
  5. Boss
    Offline

    Boss Take a Memo:

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Messages:
    21,884
    Thanks Received:
    2,760
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    Ratings:
    +10,112
    Wow. What an amazing use of the Ronald Reagan strategy to invoke the name of an individual to illustrate your point. I know nothing about Pritzker, or where/how/when she obtained her wealth. If she violated the laws, she should go to jail for it. If she didn't, it doesn't matter to me how much she made, the more she made the better.

    It's not wrong for capitalists to make money, that's kind of the whole idea behind it. This notion that capitalists are somehow "making too much money" is ludicrous. Capitalists make money by providing a service or product that is demanded by the consumer. It is a mutual transaction, made between the capitalist and consumer, and both parties are satisfied with the result, because neither are forced to engage in the transaction. Other capitalists compete, in a free market system, preventing any capitalist from becoming "greedy" and "bilking" the consumer. Regulatory constraints prevent capitalists from greedily exploiting the environment or risking public safety, from establishing monopolies, from illegal financial disclosure, etc., etc., etc.

    The bottom line is, the "greedy capitalists" argument FAILS here, because we have a free enterprise, free market system, operating under a constitutional republic form of government, where rights are protected. This wasn't the case in Europe, when Socialists invented the arguments for Socialism, so here... it has to be brainwashed into people, that "greedy capitalists" are the problem.
     
  6. georgephillip
    Offline

    georgephillip Platinum Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    32,241
    Thanks Received:
    1,721
    Trophy Points:
    1,125
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    Ratings:
    +5,072
    For the last 150 years the corporation has been the capitalists' primary wealth generating vehicle. Does the political leverage that corporations exert on today's elections work to further a free market economic system and enhance a democratic republic or do they have just the opposite effect? Do they concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation (producing less competition) while creating the best government money can buy?
     
  7. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    32,279
    Thanks Received:
    1,320
    Trophy Points:
    1,100
    Ratings:
    +4,524
    too stupid of course!! Democrats win most elections and they oppose corporations while it is Republicans who love them and lose!!

    What leverage????

    Besides, any political leverage they get is thanks to Democrats who concentrate power in DC for corporations to buy and utilize. Without Democrats to bribe and lobby corporations would have to survive by producing the best products at the best prices.

    This is all far far beyond a liberal's ability to comprehend
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Dugdale_Jukes
    Offline

    Dugdale_Jukes Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,015
    Thanks Received:
    261
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +263
    You're wasting your time, George.

    Most white trash are employees who know fewer facts about corporations than monkeys can report about Shakespeare. Most of their grandfathers would disown them.
     
  9. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    32,279
    Thanks Received:
    1,320
    Trophy Points:
    1,100
    Ratings:
    +4,524
    We know it is liberals who concentrate power in DC for corporations to buy!!

    In a Republican capitalist world corporations would have to survive buy selling the best products at the best prices in the world.

    Over your head??
     
  10. KevinWestern
    Offline

    KevinWestern Hello

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    4,145
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Ratings:
    +541
    George, just as a counterpoint...

    Companies have changed a lot since the 1950's. What was once a local or regional corporation is now a global corporation.

    Think of it this way; say we have a town with 3 corporations and 3 CEOs making x $'s. If one of those corporations buys out the other two (a trend since the 1950's), do you think the "top" guy is going to make more or less than before?

    Not saying this explains everything, just bringing up a counterpoint.


    .
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2013

Share This Page