Overpaid CEOs and Greedy Capitalists.. oh my!

[Boss]

[...]

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.

You are insane. First of all, monetary assets are personal property, and the Constitution is pretty clear on the power of government to seize it. This is prohibited.

Even IF this were doable, which it's not, because of the Constitution, the results would NOT be as you have been promised by the Socialists. Take a few minutes away from your Marxist blogs to go study up on Chairman Mao in China. Stunningly, the "people's revolution" in China, began with the VERY SAME MESSAGE that you people are promoting today. The wealthy controlled "too much" and the poor had nothing, and the only way to "fix" this was redistribution on a mass scale. The People were all for this, they revolted and overturned the Chinese government, and installed Mao as their ruler. They were a bit more aggressive than you, they rounded up all the rich greedy capitalists and executed them, then confiscated their wealth. All capitalist dealings were handled by the government, trade was severely curtailed. And the People who rose up to install Mao, were markedly worse off in the end. Seems once the "Ruling Class" was able to confiscate wealth, those in political power became very wealthy, while the rest in society languished.

Look... you are always going to have a 1% who control most of the wealth. That dynamic will never change, and even IF WE COULD suddenly and miraculously, redistribute all wealth equally, within 20 years, we would see everything return as it is today. There would still be a certain percentage of people who are predisposed to attain wealth, and do it better than the rest. There would still be people who lacked the motivation to do so. In the end, the same "rich people" would eventually become rich again. But we already know from experience, those of us who've studied history, that redistribution never works. The political powers you entrust to do this, steal the wealth, because they control the means to do this, and no one is there to prevent it. They aren't capitalists trying to please shareholders and turn a profit anymore, they are politicos who have been given a license to steal and not be held accountable.

All of the examples of Enron and corporate fraud, would be replaced by inter-government agencies operating undercover, and unaccountable to anyone. The government goes after crooked capitalists, they put them in prison! The government doesn't go after itself. What you are essentially wanting to do, is replace free market capitalists, who can be controlled through regulation as well as by the consumers and competitors, with a statist system of government cronies who answer to no one, and not only control all the wealth, but the political power as well. If you ever manage to ignorantly take us there, we're FUBAR!

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

What's with the tiny font?

My business has 10 employees and they can pick any fund offered by Fidelity. The idea that there is not choice in even the plans of small companies is passe.

When one opens a 401k he has to pick the funds. If he doesn't want to deal with funds he can opt out or buy bonds or keep his money in a cash position.

There are no valid excuses here. Where a person's money is invested is 100% up to him.

 

[georgephillip]

[...]

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.

It sounds like you're talking about the Internet Reformation, Mike.
The revolutionary changes needed to save this republic from the fascists won't happen as long as voters continue "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat in the voting booth.
Both parties march in lock-step to the commands of the 1%.

There are already established third party candidates appearing on ballots across this country.
The tool we're using this instant could convince millions of US voters to select from whatever third party offering that best reflects their political leanings.
FLUSH 100, 200 or more Republicans AND Democrats from DC in a single news cycle and things will stop getting worse for 90% of Americans.

 

[editec]

Personally I have always thought that the issue of CEO payment was a red herring.

Do I think some CEOs are overpaid.

Probably.

Is it my business (or the anyone else not involved in that company) to do anything about it?

ABSO-forking-LUTLEY NOT!

This is another of those issues where I am many self proclaiming lefties part company.

 

[Flopper]

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.

What's with the tiny font?

My business has 10 employees and they can pick any fund offered by Fidelity. The idea that there is not choice in even the plans of small companies is passe.

When one opens a 401k he has to pick the funds. If he doesn't want to deal with funds he can opt out or buy bonds or keep his money in a cash position.

There are no valid excuses here. Where a person's money is invested is 100% up to him.

Because you have a choice does not mean everyone does and as I said, there is no way of knowing what companies your money is invested in today.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

What's with the tiny font?

My business has 10 employees and they can pick any fund offered by Fidelity. The idea that there is not choice in even the plans of small companies is passe.

When one opens a 401k he has to pick the funds. If he doesn't want to deal with funds he can opt out or buy bonds or keep his money in a cash position.

There are no valid excuses here. Where a person's money is invested is 100% up to him.

Because you have a choice does not mean everyone does and as I said, there is no way of knowing what companies your money is invested in today.

They absolutely have a choice, the ultimate choice; not to invest at all if they think corporations and CEOs are screwing them.

As I said there is no excuse.

 

[oldfart]

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."

Today growth economists call this "social overhead capital" and expand the scope. It should include things like a workable system of commercial law and effective consumer protection.

 

[MikeK]

You are insane. First of all, monetary assets are personal property, and the Constitution is pretty clear on the power of government to seize it. This is prohibited.

[...]

You have overlooked the fact that my proposal to confiscate and recirculate excess revenue hoards for the purpose of excising the malignancy from our Economy is radical. In keeping with that radical objective, please be advised that the U.S. Constitution is amendable and has been amended several times when radical action has been necessary to preserve the essential nature of our democratic republic.

The rationale for proposing such amendment is the fact that the Framers could not have anticipated the kind of phenomenal wealth the Industrial Revolution would generate and the corruptive influence excessive accumulations of this wealth by individuals would have on our political system. If they could have foreseen the devious maneuvering by which massive fortunes are acquired, with emphasis on the arrogantly imposed notions that corporations are persons and that money is speech, there is no question they would have written safeguards into the Document to prevent such perversion.

 

[Flopper]

You are insane. First of all, monetary assets are personal property, and the Constitution is pretty clear on the power of government to seize it. This is prohibited.

[...]

You have overlooked the fact that my proposal to confiscate and recirculate excess revenue hoards for the purpose of excising the malignancy from our Economy is radical. In keeping with that radical objective, please be advised that the U.S. Constitution is amendable and has been amended several times when radical action has been necessary to preserve the essential nature of our democratic republic.

The rationale for proposing such amendment is the fact that the Framers could not have anticipated the kind of phenomenal wealth the Industrial Revolution would generate and the corruptive influence excessive accumulations of this wealth by individuals would have on our political system. If they could have foreseen the devious maneuvering by which massive fortunes are acquired, with emphasis on the arrogantly imposed notions that corporations are persons and that money is speech, there is no question they would have written safeguards into the Document to prevent such perversion.

Good Points. The foundation of all nations are built on the experiences of the founders and the conditions of that day. Governments that survive are those that adapt to change. Those that can't become irrelevant.

 

[MikeK]

[...]


Even IF this were doable, which it's not, because of the Constitution, the results would NOT be as you have been promised by the Socialists. Take a few minutes away from your Marxist blogs to go study up on Chairman Mao in China. Stunningly, the "people's revolution" in China, began with the VERY SAME MESSAGE that you people are promoting today. The wealthy controlled "too much" and the poor had nothing, and the only way to "fix" this was redistribution on a mass scale. The People were all for this, they revolted and overturned the Chinese government, and installed Mao as their ruler. They were a bit more aggressive than you, they rounded up all the rich greedy capitalists and executed them, then confiscated their wealth. All capitalist dealings were handled by the government, trade was severely curtailed. And the People who rose up to install Mao, were markedly worse off in the end. Seems once the "Ruling Class" was able to confiscate wealth, those in political power became very wealthy, while the rest in society languished.

[...]

You hold the Constitution in defense of your religion of greed much in the way the Crucifix was held in defense of the Inquisition. And comparing pre and post revolutionary China with the United States is to compare apples and oranges.

Please understand if I were a communist I would not be advocating a system in which individuals are free to accumulate twenty million dollar fortunes. In fact I'm not even a socialist in the pure sense of the word. I happen to approve of the capitalist nature of the U.S. Economy. My problem is with the kind of laissez-faire capitalism you advocate, which is increasingly devoid of the kind of socialistic regulation which held it in check from the late 1940s to the early 1980s, when the man from General Electric was installed for the purpose of imposing Reaganomics and commencing destruction of the union movement.

Briefly stated, I believe in horizontal rather than vertical distribution of the Nation's wealth resources. I believe there should be many millionaires but no billionaires. And I have no doubt that such circumstances are achievable and would vastly improve the health, strength, well-being, and the general happiness of our society.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Look... you are always going to have a 1% who control most of the wealth. That dynamic will never change, and even IF WE COULD suddenly and miraculously, redistribute all wealth equally, within 20 years, we would see everything return as it is today. There would still be a certain percentage of people who are predisposed to attain wealth, and do it better than the rest. There would still be people who lacked the motivation to do so. In the end, the same "rich people" would eventually become rich again. But we already know from experience, those of us who've studied history, that redistribution never works. The political powers you entrust to do this, steal the wealth, because they control the means to do this, and no one is there to prevent it. They aren't capitalists trying to please shareholders and turn a profit anymore, they are politicos who have been given a license to steal and not be held accountable.

[...]

What I am proposing is an essential lowering of the bar.

If a twenty million dollar limit on personal assets is imposed it will eliminate any need for competitive acquisition of wealth. The impulse to hoard will be rendered pointless. Once the limit is reached the mine is bigger than yours game is over. The orientation will shift from how to get more to how to better enjoy what one has.

 

[Boss]

Mike, with all due respect, we are finished with this conversation. You are delusional if you think this radical idea would ever even be uttered on the floor of the house or senate as a possible suggestion. I don't even think Bernie Sanders would have the balls. It's a total non-starter.

 

[georgephillip]

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."

Today growth economists call this "social overhead capital" and expand the scope. It should include things like a workable system of commercial law and effective consumer protection.

"Social Overhead Capital (SOC) is defined as basic services without which primary, secondary and tertiary productive activities cannot function.

"In a narrow sense, Social Overhead Capital is defined to include transportation and electricity, while in a wider sense, it includes all public services, including law and order and education. Criteria for classifying an asset as Social Overhead Capital include:

The services provided by the activity should facilitate a great variety of economic activities.
The services provided should be subject to public control.
The services cannot be imported.
The investment needed to provide services should be characterized by some unevenness as well as by high capital output ratio."

Factors of Production and Value

"Douglas carefully distinguished between value, costs and prices.

"He claimed that one of the factors leading to a misdirection of thought in terms of the nature and function of money was economists' obsession over values and their relation to prices and incomes.[9]

"While Douglas recognized 'value in use' as a legitimate theory of values, he also saw values as subjective and not capable of being measured in an objective manner.

"Thus he rejected the idea of the role of money as a standard, or measure, of value.

"Douglas believed that money should act as a medium of communication by which consumers direct the distribution of production.

Economic sabotage ..."

 

[georgephillip]

Mike, with all due respect, we are finished with this conversation. You are delusional if you think this radical idea would ever even be uttered on the floor of the house or senate as a possible suggestion. I don't even think Bernie Sanders would have the balls. It's a total non-starter.

Bernie will have all the balls and backup he needs should US voters open their eyes to how much the richest 1% of Americans control their "democracy." Should internet-based social media ever find a way to convince millions of voters to FLUSH hundreds of Republican AND Democrat incumbents alike from DC in a single news cycle by replacing the corporate tools with patriots from already established third parties, it will be American oligarchs who are economically castrated.

 

[Boss]

Mike, with all due respect, we are finished with this conversation. You are delusional if you think this radical idea would ever even be uttered on the floor of the house or senate as a possible suggestion. I don't even think Bernie Sanders would have the balls. It's a total non-starter.

Bernie will have all the balls and backup he needs should US voters open their eyes to how much the richest 1% of Americans control their "democracy." Should internet-based social media ever find a way to convince millions of voters to FLUSH hundreds of Republican AND Democrat incumbents alike from DC in a single news cycle by replacing the corporate tools with patriots from already established third parties, it will be American oligarchs who are economically castrated.

What the voters need to open their eyes to, is the incessant rants from Marxist Socialists, preaching the tenets of failed Marxist Socialism. Those of you who truly buy into this 1% bullshit, are too ignorant to help. You are the type who failed world history, didn't bother studying about the past, and have been brainwashed by Marxist Socialists into believing in Utopia.

You fucktards aren't going to repeal the 4th amendment any more than you are going to repeal the 1st or 2nd amendments. You'd need a Congress FULL of Bernie Sanders, then you still would need 37 states to ratify your lunacy. IF you should ever get that far, I predict you'll get your asses kicked in the biggest civil war you can imagine.

It is stunning to me, you people live in the most opportunity-filled society man has ever devised. Every one of you degenerates have the freedom and liberty to go out there and BECOME one of the 1%, if you so desire. Nowhere else on this planet, is that more possible and likely, than here in the US, with free market, free enterprise capitalism. And you want to destroy this so you can implement a failed model of European socialist government, which has been responsible for more death and poverty than any system man has devised. Why? Because you are ignorant proles who believe in something that doesn't exist.

 

[georgephillip]

Mike, with all due respect, we are finished with this conversation. You are delusional if you think this radical idea would ever even be uttered on the floor of the house or senate as a possible suggestion. I don't even think Bernie Sanders would have the balls. It's a total non-starter.

Bernie will have all the balls and backup he needs should US voters open their eyes to how much the richest 1% of Americans control their "democracy." Should internet-based social media ever find a way to convince millions of voters to FLUSH hundreds of Republican AND Democrat incumbents alike from DC in a single news cycle by replacing the corporate tools with patriots from already established third parties, it will be American oligarchs who are economically castrated.

What the voters need to open their eyes to, is the incessant rants from Marxist Socialists, preaching the tenets of failed Marxist Socialism. Those of you who truly buy into this 1% bullshit, are too ignorant to help. You are the type who failed world history, didn't bother studying about the past, and have been brainwashed by Marxist Socialists into believing in Utopia.

You fucktards aren't going to repeal the 4th amendment any more than you are going to repeal the 1st or 2nd amendments. You'd need a Congress FULL of Bernie Sanders, then you still would need 37 states to ratify your lunacy. IF you should ever get that far, I predict you'll get your asses kicked in the biggest civil war you can imagine.

It is stunning to me, you people live in the most opportunity-filled society man has ever devised. Every one of you degenerates have the freedom and liberty to go out there and BECOME one of the 1%, if you so desire. Nowhere else on this planet, is that more possible and likely, than here in the US, with free market, free enterprise capitalism. And you want to destroy this so you can implement a failed model of European socialist government, which has been responsible for more death and poverty than any system man has devised. Why? Because you are ignorant proles who believe in something that doesn't exist.

I don't believe a corporation is a person, do you?
America's middle class made the society greedy parasites like you take credit for.
Before you get too caught up in your civil war delusion, keep this ratio in mind: 99:1
or don't...it won't change the outcome.
Maybe you'll be happier speaking Mandarin, Comrade.

 

[Boss]

Bernie will have all the balls and backup he needs should US voters open their eyes to how much the richest 1% of Americans control their "democracy." Should internet-based social media ever find a way to convince millions of voters to FLUSH hundreds of Republican AND Democrat incumbents alike from DC in a single news cycle by replacing the corporate tools with patriots from already established third parties, it will be American oligarchs who are economically castrated.

What the voters need to open their eyes to, is the incessant rants from Marxist Socialists, preaching the tenets of failed Marxist Socialism. Those of you who truly buy into this 1% bullshit, are too ignorant to help. You are the type who failed world history, didn't bother studying about the past, and have been brainwashed by Marxist Socialists into believing in Utopia.

You fucktards aren't going to repeal the 4th amendment any more than you are going to repeal the 1st or 2nd amendments. You'd need a Congress FULL of Bernie Sanders, then you still would need 37 states to ratify your lunacy. IF you should ever get that far, I predict you'll get your asses kicked in the biggest civil war you can imagine.

It is stunning to me, you people live in the most opportunity-filled society man has ever devised. Every one of you degenerates have the freedom and liberty to go out there and BECOME one of the 1%, if you so desire. Nowhere else on this planet, is that more possible and likely, than here in the US, with free market, free enterprise capitalism. And you want to destroy this so you can implement a failed model of European socialist government, which has been responsible for more death and poverty than any system man has devised. Why? Because you are ignorant proles who believe in something that doesn't exist.

I don't believe a corporation is a person, do you?
America's middle class made the society greedy parasites like you take credit for.
Before you get too caught up in your civil war delusion, keep this ratio in mind: 99:1
or don't...it won't change the outcome.
Maybe you'll be happier speaking Mandarin, Comrade.

NO ONE has said "a corporation is a person." That is a popular meme from morons like you, who deliberately take things out of context to make your points. The SCOTUS ruled corporations can't be denied individual constitutional rights, because a corporation is an assembly of individuals. The Constitution guarantees us the right of assembly, and you can't deny rights on this basis. I also don't believe a Union or PAC is a person, but as assemblies of individuals, they still retain their constitutional rights.

America was made by Americans practicing free market, free enterprise capitalism. As I correctly pointed out, it's the greatest system ever devised by man, to provide the most opportunity to be economically prosperous to the widest range of people. Nothing else even comes remotely close. Our system literally gives homeless people the opportunity to become billionaires, if they have the drive and ambition to achieve. There is no other system that works better, to raise more people out of poverty, to provide economic opportunity to everyone. Is it a "perfect world?" Fuck sakes, NO... but that doesn't exist.

You want to destroy this magnificent system, so we can implement a failed model of Marxist Socialism, which has been responsible for more death, oppression and poverty, than any other system ever tried. A system that offers NO opportunity, NO hope for individual economic prosperity, and establishes a "Ruling Class" oligarchy, who will make all decisions and hold all the wealth. You foolishly think, if you can use government to steal the wealth of the 1%, they will "equally distribute" the wealth, and we'll all be better off. You totally forget that government is highly self-serving, and those who control political power are going to take care of their own.

Funny you mention Mandarin... you could learn a lesson by studying what happened in China. Way back, China was run by a dynasty, peasants had virtually nothing, all the power was controlled by the dynasty, the people did not have freedom of any kind. Mao started preaching to the crowds about the "greedy capitalists" and the "wealthiest 1%" and how they needed to take control of the government and do something about this, because THAT was the problem. It's the SAME EXACT MESSAGE we hear today from the Occutards.

What happened? Well, the People's Revolution... the 99% rose up and overthrew the government.... your dream come true, right? They installed Mao as their leader, and he immediately began implementing his policies. Capitalism became taboo, they literally EXECUTED the wealthiest 1%, the capitalists who controlled all the wealth, and took their money and property. But it never seemed to make it's way down to the peasants. And the results of killing off all the capitalists was disastrous, because those who ran the government didn't have the first clue as to how to generate economic prosperity, and more importantly, they did not care! Conditions got even worse for the poor in China, they never improved under Mao. Now these people had to suffer and endure decades of poverty and economic decline, until the bastard finally died, and wiser people began reintroducing pro-capitalist policies.

So the plan you have, does not work, it has been tried before. It fails because you can't ever trust government. It fails because it stifles individual opportunity. It fails because, people who control both wealth and power, are easily corruptible. Yet, your ignorant uneducated ass is HELL BENT on trying this FAILED idea one more time!

 

[OnePercenter]

A corporation is an IRS rule. SCOTUS really screwed up on that one.

 

[georgephillip]

Full disclosure: I attempted my first introductory Economics course 18 months ago and dropped it after the first mid-term. That said, if you had to select one of "the (following) three possible policy alternatives with respect to the economic system", which would it be?

"1. The first of these is that it is a disguised Government, of which the primary, though admittedly not the only, object is to impose upon the world a system of thought and action.

"2. The second alternative has a certain similarity to the first, but is simpler. It assumes that the primary objective of the industrial system is the provision of employment.

"3. And the third, which is essentially simpler still, in fact, so simple that it appears entirely unintelligible to the majority, is that the object of the industrial system is merely to provide goods and services."

Social Credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Boss]

A corporation is an IRS rule. SCOTUS really screwed up on that one.

I disagree, I think they actually got that one right. Obamacare, they screwed up.

Look, a "corporation" is merely an assembly of people. It's not a humanless entity lumbering through our world, gobbling up everything in sight. It is a group of people who are organized for their own self interests, just like unions or PACs.

The Constitution says, we have the right to assembly. Our rights can not be infringed because we happen to belong to a group. Now seriously... did you want SCOTUS to rule differently? You DON'T want people to be able to form political activist groups to protest what they don't like about government, etc.? We can't create a double standard, where certain groups get this right and others don't, so if they SCOTUS had ruled the opposite, then ANY organized group of people would have to comply.