Overpaid CEOs and Greedy Capitalists.. oh my!

[Flopper]

If CEO's contribution to the success of the business were as great as you seem to think

too completely 100% stupid, and liberal !! A CEO is 100% responsible for success. Walmart is not Sears because Walmart made better decisions!! It resulted in $trillions more in sales for the tiny few $millions the CEO's earned.


And, if libturd idiots stole all the money from top CEO's it would not run the government for half a day so why on earth do you care about something so trivial about which you are 100% ignorant????????????

See why we say liberals are 100% worthless?

Despite popular folklore, high pay for top execs does not correlate with high performance. CEO superstars of today are tomorrow's has-beens. It's not just the stockholders who should be concerned but everyone.

Businesses need leadership committed to the future of the business, not superstars who's only interest is meeting their compensation goals. When the business falters, or they get a better offer, there're off to greener pastures. Free agent CEO's is a terrible idea. There is little or no commitment to the long term future of the business because they aren't going to be there. This permeates throughout the corporate structure. Employee's don't give a damn what happens to the business in 5 years because they'll be long gone. These corporations were built by people with a lifelong commitment to the success of the company.

 

[Flopper]

Look folks what a privately owned company pays it's CEOs employees or whoever is not your concern.

Yes, they should be concerned because over half those people own stock in those companies directly, or through retirement plans, or mutual funds. Unfortunately the success of corporate giants effects most of us.

 

[Boss]

It's difficult to comprehend this post, you seem to be jumping around from one meme to another in an emotive rant, but I understand you think it's making perfect sense.

"Free market" means, a market structure in which the distribution and costs of goods and services, along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods, are coordinated by supply and demand unhindered by external regulation or control by government or monopolies. "Free enterprise" means we live in a society where you are free to compete in the free market system. Competition in this system ensures the best prices and quality for consumers, across the board. Nothing ever tried in the history of man, has EVER been as successful at raising overall quality of life, bringing people out of poverty, and creating millionaires. NOTHING.

What you and the Occutards want, is a Socialist-Marxist system, where the State controls prices instead of supply and demand, where the State holds monopolies and there is no capitalist competition. This system leads to graft and corruption on a scale we can't even fathom in a free market system, because there is no mechanism of competition. The wealth is not redistributed, it is accumulated by the "New 1%" who are now the people who control all the political power... not just "influence" it, but actually control it outright!

Yeah...after rereading my post, I feel your pain.

Let's start with what sort of "free market" you are talking about.
Adam Smith is where I would start: He wanted a market free of the influence of hereditary (eternal) wealth, "the masters of mankind." Today's masters of mankind who control the economic life of this country also tend to control US politics; they are multinational corporations and financial institutions who reinforce Smith's lesson and help explain why the state-corporate complex is the biggest threat to individual freedom and unfettered competition.

Hold on, let's throw it in reverse a sec... Wealth, has absolutely NOTHING to do with supply or demand. Ergo, it has nothing to do with free market capitalism.

Again, let's be clear, you are complaining that capitalists have political influence, which they use to their advantage. To "fix" this, you want to implement a system where the "capitalist" is the government, and they are accountable to nobody, because there are no competitors, and they control (not influence) all the power AND wealth. You are trading in a Mercedes for a Yugo, because of the new car smell. And that analogy is actually being complimentary to Socialism, to even make it a Yugo, it's more akin to roller skates.

 

[Boss]

Despite popular folklore, high pay for top execs does not correlate with high performance. CEO superstars of today are tomorrow's has-beens. It's not just the stockholders who should be concerned but everyone.

Businesses need leadership committed to the future of the business, not superstars who's only interest is meeting their compensation goals. When the business falters, or they get a better offer, there're off to greener pastures. Free agent CEO's is a terrible idea. There is little or no commitment to the long term future of the business because they aren't going to be there. This permeates throughout the corporate structure. Employee's don't give a damn what happens to the business in 5 years because they'll be long gone. These corporations were built by people with a lifelong commitment to the success of the company.

Why would a capitalist voluntarily choose to overpay a CEO? Does the CEO have some special kind of mind control, or are they witches? Because, capitalists are in business to make profit, and it seems to me, if they are paying $2 million more to a CEO than they deserve, that's $2 million in profit the capitalist is losing. Until you can properly explain to me, how CEOs manage to get capitalists to pay them "too much," then I have to presume the capitalist did so because they thought the CEOs salary was a wise investment.

Also, in a free market system, if there is a CEO out there who is "making too much," why can't another equally qualified CEO come along, and offer to do the job for less? Since you people are such experts, why don't you go out there and offer your CEO services at a lower salary, and put the 'greedy' CEOs out of business? I guarantee, if you can do as good of a job as the well-paid CEOs, the capitalists would rather pay you less, they are there to make profit. The thing is, most of you would be really shitty CEOs, because you don't have the first clue of what a CEO does.

 

[Flopper]

Despite popular folklore, high pay for top execs does not correlate with high performance. CEO superstars of today are tomorrow's has-beens. It's not just the stockholders who should be concerned but everyone.

Businesses need leadership committed to the future of the business, not superstars who's only interest is meeting their compensation goals. When the business falters, or they get a better offer, there're off to greener pastures. Free agent CEO's is a terrible idea. There is little or no commitment to the long term future of the business because they aren't going to be there. This permeates throughout the corporate structure. Employee's don't give a damn what happens to the business in 5 years because they'll be long gone. These corporations were built by people with a lifelong commitment to the success of the company.

Why would a capitalist voluntarily choose to overpay a CEO? Does the CEO have some special kind of mind control, or are they witches? Because, capitalists are in business to make profit, and it seems to me, if they are paying $2 million more to a CEO than they deserve, that's $2 million in profit the capitalist is losing. Until you can properly explain to me, how CEOs manage to get capitalists to pay them "too much," then I have to presume the capitalist did so because they thought the CEOs salary was a wise investment.

Also, in a free market system, if there is a CEO out there who is "making too much," why can't another equally qualified CEO come along, and offer to do the job for less? Since you people are such experts, why don't you go out there and offer your CEO services at a lower salary, and put the 'greedy' CEOs out of business? I guarantee, if you can do as good of a job as the well-paid CEOs, the capitalists would rather pay you less, they are there to make profit. The thing is, most of you would be really shitty CEOs, because you don't have the first clue of what a CEO does.

Some Boards are far more interested in next year's earnings than they are the long term success of the business. They hire CEO's who have become famous for quick turnarounds and pay huge salaries contingent on short term performance. Long term success is sacrifice for quick profits. What is really needed is a committed leader at the helm who's there for the long haul, not a short term contract worker.

The real problem is the corporate culture that develops around this kind of leadership. No one plans on being around that long so no one is committed to future.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Look folks what a privately owned company pays it's CEOs employees or whoever is not your concern.

Yes, they should be concerned because over half those people own stock in those companies directly, or through retirement plans, or mutual funds. Unfortunately the success of corporate giants effects most of us.

If you don't like a CEO you are free to sell your stock or mutual funds holding stock in that company. No one is forcing anyone to buy stock or mutual funds.

 

[Toro]

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.

I have no problem with the owners of a company paying whatever they want to their employees. The problem, however, are the laws that separate the shareholders from their agents, ie management. The interests of management are not necessarily the same as the owners of the business. Corporate governance laws are meant to align those interests, but the truth is that they often don't. These laws in America are generally weak, which allows managements to extract excessive wealth from shareholders. Managements, often in the name of shareholders but not in the actual interests of shareholders, will use shareholder money to insulate themselves even at the expense of shareholders, either through the nominating committee to appoint friendly directors and through the articles of incorporation on how the governing bodies of the corporation are structured, or through lobbying the political system to suppress shareholder rights. This is most visibly evident in The Chamber of Commerce's relentless opposition to changes in laws giving shareholders more say over the corporation, ie proxy access or say on pay.

Conservatives who claim to support capitalism and thus corporations fail to understand this. A stronger capitalist system would increase shareholder rights whereas managements often use shareholder funds to suppress shareholder rights and paint those who advocate for it as enemies of capitalism when they are really promoting their own parochial interests.

CEO pay is a great example of this. There is no correlation between performance and compensation for CEOs. In fact, CEOs who are considered stars and receive big compensation packages have tended to do worse.

Today, less than 1% of directors on the largest 500 companies in America are those with substantial wealth tied up in the company that wasn't granted to them through stock options. Virtually none of the largest shareholders are on the boards of these companies.

This is a problem in American capitalism. Americans can learn a lot about shareholders controlling their companies from the Scandinavians, where shareholders have real say on what goes on in a company.

 

[georgephillip]

Yeah...after rereading my post, I feel your pain.

Let's start with what sort of "free market" you are talking about.
Adam Smith is where I would start: He wanted a market free of the influence of hereditary (eternal) wealth, "the masters of mankind." Today's masters of mankind who control the economic life of this country also tend to control US politics; they are multinational corporations and financial institutions who reinforce Smith's lesson and help explain why the state-corporate complex is the biggest threat to individual freedom and unfettered competition.

Hold on, let's throw it in reverse a sec... Wealth, has absolutely NOTHING to do with supply or demand. Ergo, it has nothing to do with free market capitalism.

Again, let's be clear, you are complaining that capitalists have political influence, which they use to their advantage. To "fix" this, you want to implement a system where the "capitalist" is the government, and they are accountable to nobody, because there are no competitors, and they control (not influence) all the power AND wealth. You are trading in a Mercedes for a Yugo, because of the new car smell. And that analogy is actually being complimentary to Socialism, to even make it a Yugo, it's more akin to roller skates.

The accumulation of wealth by those capitalists who subscribe to Smith's vile maxim of all for ourselves and nothing for other people depends on the manipulation of supply and demand. Since those with the most wealth have controlled every government ever created, my fix is to construct a wall separating the influence of private wealth and the state. And to prosecute those who commit crimes like control accounting fraud as economic terrorists.

 

[Katzndogz]

There are no over paid CEOs.

 

[Boss]

The accumulation of wealth by those capitalists who subscribe to Smith's vile maxim of all for ourselves and nothing for other people depends on the manipulation of supply and demand. Since those with the most wealth have controlled every government ever created, my fix is to construct a wall separating the influence of private wealth and the state. And to prosecute those who commit crimes like control accounting fraud as economic terrorists.

So the more wealthy you become, the fewer Constitutional rights you retain? Yeah, read the 1st Amendment again, the part about "petition for redress of grievances." You are saying, if you are wealthy, this right should be taken away from you. Problem is, "inalienable" rights belong to rich people too, and you can't take them away.

In a true free market, there is no "manipulation of supply and demand" because of free market competition. Demand can't really be manipulated by the capitalist, short of some kind of illegal activity. Supply can be manipulated, but if there are other capitalists free to compete, this becomes problematic. Now, in a Socialist system, like most liberals clamor for, the State can indeed manipulate supply and demand, because they control the monopoly, there is no more free market competition, and consumers pay what is determined by state agents and their cronies.

I can agree with you on one point. Making accounting fraud punishment more severe, will decrease the amount of accounting fraud. I have no problem with that, it would do way more to help than totally destroying free market capitalism so we can have Socialism.

 

[georgephillip]

The accumulation of wealth by those capitalists who subscribe to Smith's vile maxim of all for ourselves and nothing for other people depends on the manipulation of supply and demand. Since those with the most wealth have controlled every government ever created, my fix is to construct a wall separating the influence of private wealth and the state. And to prosecute those who commit crimes like control accounting fraud as economic terrorists.

So the more wealthy you become, the fewer Constitutional rights you retain? Yeah, read the 1st Amendment again, the part about "petition for redress of grievances." You are saying, if you are wealthy, this right should be taken away from you. Problem is, "inalienable" rights belong to rich people too, and you can't take them away.

In a true free market, there is no "manipulation of supply and demand" because of free market competition. Demand can't really be manipulated by the capitalist, short of some kind of illegal activity. Supply can be manipulated, but if there are other capitalists free to compete, this becomes problematic. Now, in a Socialist system, like most liberals clamor for, the State can indeed manipulate supply and demand, because they control the monopoly, there is no more free market competition, and consumers pay what is determined by state agents and their cronies.

I can agree with you on one point. Making accounting fraud punishment more severe, will decrease the amount of accounting fraud. I have no problem with that, it would do way more to help than totally destroying free market capitalism so we can have Socialism.

I have no use for the solution to Capitalism that Marx came up with, but that doesn't mean he didn't see its paradox of accumulation as clearly as anyone who has ever lived.

My choice for reform begins with CH Douglas's cultural inheritance of mankind:

"Douglas disagreed with classical economists who recognised only three factors of production: land, labour and capital. While Douglas did not deny the role of these factors in production, he saw the 'cultural inheritance of society' as the primary factor.

"He defined cultural inheritance as the knowledge, technique and processes that have been handed down to us incrementally from the origins of civilization."

 

[Boss]

I have no problem with the owners of a company paying whatever they want to their employees. The problem, however, are the laws that separate the shareholders from their agents, ie management.

You'll need to provide relevant examples of this, I have no idea what you're talking about.

The interests of management are not necessarily the same as the owners of the business.

Really? How do you figure?

Corporate governance laws are meant to align those interests, but the truth is that they often don't. These laws in America are generally weak, which allows managements to extract excessive wealth from shareholders. Managements, often in the name of shareholders but not in the actual interests of shareholders, will use shareholder money to insulate themselves even at the expense of shareholders, either through the nominating committee to appoint friendly directors and through the articles of incorporation on how the governing bodies of the corporation are structured, or through lobbying the political system to suppress shareholder rights.

If I were a shareholder in such a company, I would cash in my shares and look for another company to invest in. As far as I am aware, there is no law stating a shareholder HAS to maintain their shares in a company. If I were a competing capitalist, I would structure a corporation where this monkey business wasn't happening, and shareholders would abandon the other company to invest in mine.

This is most visibly evident in The Chamber of Commerce's relentless opposition to changes in laws giving shareholders more say over the corporation, ie proxy access or say on pay.

Again, you will need to specify some examples. The CoC is generally opposed to things that harm business. Therefore, I would surmise, if the CoC is relentlessly opposed, it's probably not the best idea for business.

Conservatives who claim to support capitalism and thus corporations fail to understand this. A stronger capitalist system would increase shareholder rights whereas managements often use shareholder funds to suppress shareholder rights and paint those who advocate for it as enemies of capitalism when they are really promoting their own parochial interests.

Again, the shareholder can always sell their shares, if they feel their money is being misappropriated. Competing capitalists can offer a more friendly corporate structure to attract those disgruntled shareholders, and the free market capitalist train keeps moving.

CEO pay is a great example of this. There is no correlation between performance and compensation for CEOs. In fact, CEOs who are considered stars and receive big compensation packages have tended to do worse.

Again, capitalists pay CEOs according to value. CEOs don't show up at corporations with a machine gun, demanding they be given lavish compensation packages. As for how things pan out... Is Peyton Manning worth $26 million? He wasn't to the Colts, he was to the Broncos. Now, to a simpleton, all he seems to do is play a game. Why is that worth so much money? Was it a wise investment for the Broncos or a smart move by the Colts? This remains to be seen, we don't know the outcome at this time. However, we can't say he isn't worth this kind of money, based on a statistic that shows most players who get huge contracts don't pan out to be worth it.

Today, less than 1% of directors on the largest 500 companies in America are those with substantial wealth tied up in the company that wasn't granted to them through stock options. Virtually none of the largest shareholders are on the boards of these companies.

This is a problem in American capitalism. Americans can learn a lot about shareholders controlling their companies from the Scandinavians, where shareholders have real say on what goes on in a company.

Scandinavian countries are Socialist. As I have pointed out numerous times, the socialist model is only successful in small isolated areas, where most commerce is internal, and you have small populations where families tend to be close-knit and trusting of each other. Whenever this same model is expanded to a diverse country of 350 million, it simply fails.

As I said before, no other system devised by man, is responsible for as much economic prosperity for all, than our free market capitalist system.

 

[Flopper]

Look folks what a privately owned company pays it's CEOs employees or whoever is not your concern.

Yes, they should be concerned because over half those people own stock in those companies directly, or through retirement plans, or mutual funds. Unfortunately the success of corporate giants effects most of us.

If you don't like a CEO you are free to sell your stock or mutual funds holding stock in that company. No one is forcing anyone to buy stock or mutual funds.

That doesn't help the 51 million people that have 401K, retirement plans. The employee has little or no control of the investments. It is often a choice of having no retirement plan or accepting what's provided.

55% of the outstanding shares of American corporations are owned by the general public either directly or indirectly yet they have little or no voice in who manages the companies they own. If you own shares through a mutual fund, you have no say at all. If you own shares directly you get to vote for directors however the board will almost always have enough proxies to control the voting. No wonder 75% of the shareholder don't bother to vote.
Here's Who Owns The Stock Market - Business Insider
Proxy Monitor 2012 | A Report on Corporate Governance and Shareholder Activism

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yes, they should be concerned because over half those people own stock in those companies directly, or through retirement plans, or mutual funds. Unfortunately the success of corporate giants effects most of us.

If you don't like a CEO you are free to sell your stock or mutual funds holding stock in that company. No one is forcing anyone to buy stock or mutual funds.

That doesn't help the 51 million people that have 401K, retirement plans. The employee has little or no control of the investments. It is often a choice of having no retirement plan or accepting what's provided.

There are choices in almost all retirement plans. That people don't exercise those choices is their fault not the fault of a corporation. And last time I checked participation in retirement plans was also optional.

 

[Toro]

I have no problem with the owners of a company paying whatever they want to their employees. The problem, however, are the laws that separate the shareholders from their agents, ie management.

You'll need to provide relevant examples of this, I have no idea what you're talking about.

The interests of management are not necessarily the same as the owners of the business.

Really? How do you figure?



If I were a shareholder in such a company, I would cash in my shares and look for another company to invest in. As far as I am aware, there is no law stating a shareholder HAS to maintain their shares in a company. If I were a competing capitalist, I would structure a corporation where this monkey business wasn't happening, and shareholders would abandon the other company to invest in mine.



Again, you will need to specify some examples. The CoC is generally opposed to things that harm business. Therefore, I would surmise, if the CoC is relentlessly opposed, it's probably not the best idea for business.



Again, the shareholder can always sell their shares, if they feel their money is being misappropriated. Competing capitalists can offer a more friendly corporate structure to attract those disgruntled shareholders, and the free market capitalist train keeps moving.

CEO pay is a great example of this. There is no correlation between performance and compensation for CEOs. In fact, CEOs who are considered stars and receive big compensation packages have tended to do worse.

Again, capitalists pay CEOs according to value. CEOs don't show up at corporations with a machine gun, demanding they be given lavish compensation packages. As for how things pan out... Is Peyton Manning worth $26 million? He wasn't to the Colts, he was to the Broncos. Now, to a simpleton, all he seems to do is play a game. Why is that worth so much money? Was it a wise investment for the Broncos or a smart move by the Colts? This remains to be seen, we don't know the outcome at this time. However, we can't say he isn't worth this kind of money, based on a statistic that shows most players who get huge contracts don't pan out to be worth it.

Today, less than 1% of directors on the largest 500 companies in America are those with substantial wealth tied up in the company that wasn't granted to them through stock options. Virtually none of the largest shareholders are on the boards of these companies.

This is a problem in American capitalism. Americans can learn a lot about shareholders controlling their companies from the Scandinavians, where shareholders have real say on what goes on in a company.

Scandinavian countries are Socialist. As I have pointed out numerous times, the socialist model is only successful in small isolated areas, where most commerce is internal, and you have small populations where families tend to be close-knit and trusting of each other. Whenever this same model is expanded to a diverse country of 350 million, it simply fails.

As I said before, no other system devised by man, is responsible for as much economic prosperity for all, than our free market capitalist system.

There is no reason why American laws cannot be made more shareholder friendly. Empty bromides and nonsequiters about how awesome capitalism is aside, true capitalists empower the owners of the business. Scandinavia gives more rights and powers to the owners of businesses than Americans do. Some American businesses have very good corporate governance but many do not, and the ability to remove bad management is much more difficult here than there.

There is a whole investment strategy dedicated to improving corporate governance. As one example, google "Relational Investors" to see an example of a firm which tries to remove bad managements that waste shareholders' money. Sometimes they are successful and sometimes they are not. It can be very difficult for shareholders to remove bad management.

It's naive - and wrong - to assume that if the CoC supports something, it must be good for business. Google "Chamber of Commerce and proxy access" to see the opposition of the Chamber to shareholders having more rights over their companies. Run a proxy contest and try to remove a staggered board to see how difficult this is.

I am pro business and pro capitalism, which is why shareholders should have more say over their companies.

As for selling shares, it's not that simple. Some shareholders have no choice but to own shares. ERISA defines fiduciary standards of diversification and practical limitations and best practices lead many shareholders into what is known as passive investing or indexing. There is always a pool of shareholders that will own your stock by law or by mandate. These funds do not have the resources or the wherewithal to unseat bad managements, so they continue to own the stock regardless.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"He defined cultural inheritance as the knowledge, technique and processes that have been handed down to us incrementally from the origins of civilization."

and does that mean he wanted freedom like in America or government like in the USSR???

 

[georgephillip]

"He defined cultural inheritance as the knowledge, technique and processes that have been handed down to us incrementally from the origins of civilization."

and does that mean he wanted freedom like in America or government like in the USSR???

Eb, I know how sensitive you are to comments about your meds, but please...take the red pill.
You might come to value labor?

"'We are merely the administrators of that cultural inheritance, and to that extent the cultural inheritance is the property of all of us, without exception.'[8] Adam Smith, David Ricardo and Karl Marx claimed that labour creates all value. While Douglas did not deny that all costs ultimately relate to labour charges of some sort (past or present), he denied that the present labour of the world creates all wealth."

Social Credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MikeK]

[...]

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.[...]

While it might be ludicrous to you it's not at all funny to an increasing number of ninety-nine percenters who are beginning to realize that "trickle down" really means siphon up and what's being done to America by the One Percent is insidiously destructive to the very purpose of this Nation -- which is the elimination of aristocracy. And while you have made an earnest nine-paragraph effort to explain (rationalize) why most CEOs deserve to squat over gold-plated toilet bowls and to hoard more money than any reasonable person needs to live a luxurious life, the fact remains that CEOs who once earned thirty times what their lowest paid employee earned are now earning three-hundred and more times what the peons earn -- in addition to multi-million dollar bonuses. And we are pissed off about it.

While there does remain a percentage of brainwashed right-wing water-carriers who have been conditioned to believe what the emerging corporatocracy has been doing to America is okay, that percentage is slowly being overtaken by a more radical element. I am a part of that element and I believe the only way to restore balance to America's economy and to strengthen our social integrity is for the IRS to confiscate all personal assets in excess of twenty million dollars and for Government to devote most of the acquired revenue to fully restoring, updating, and improving our crumbling infrastructure.

While such radical confiscatory action will produce millions of jobs and will create many thriving industries it will not eliminate wealth, because twenty million dollars of net worth is wealth by any rational standard. The second important effect of the confiscation will be the elimination of excessive wealth, which translates to political power and is presently having a toxic effect on our political atmosphere.

While I agree that what I'm proposing is a revolutionary concept, it was a Revolution that gave rise to this nation and I believe nothing short of revolutionary action can save it from the greedy hoarders in our midst.

 

[Flopper]

If you don't like a CEO you are free to sell your stock or mutual funds holding stock in that company. No one is forcing anyone to buy stock or mutual funds.

That doesn't help the 51 million people that have 401K, retirement plans. The employee has little or no control of the investments. It is often a choice of having no retirement plan or accepting what's provided.

There are choices in almost all retirement plans. That people don't exercise those choices is their fault not the fault of a corporation. And last time I checked participation in retirement plans was also optional.

No, there are many companies, particular small ones that have very limited 401K choices. But even if there is a choice, participates in the plan have very limited information as to what companies the fund currently owns. Fund disclosure is every 3 mos, however the rules that government 401K's only require full reporting yearly. So, a 401K investor is not likely to know where his money is invested.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

We need ethical politicians too but that's an oxymoron. Power has corrupted and I fear there is nothing we can do about it.

There definitely is something we can do about it -- but not within the existing atmosphere, which is stagnant, lethargic, and politically ignorant. What is needed is a political revolution, one in which the Congress is swept clean of known patrons of the One Percent and replaced by opponents of the rising plutocracy.

But now is not the time. Things will need to get a lot worse before the mass is educated by pain and is motivated to make them better.

And it will get worse. Rest assured of that.