Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
wow ace. what a display of conservative submissiveness. ceo worship. i'm not surprised. and i don't see a whole lot of substance to your post, really. it's obvious...
|
Here is what you missed, capsulized in this statement from Obama:
Quote:
|
President Barack Obama would have fired BP's CEO Tony Hayward over controversial comments downplaying the Gulf oil spill — if the executive had been working for him.
|
Obama: I would've fired BP chief by now - Disaster in the Gulf- msnbc.com
I will try to connect the dots, since it may not be as obvious as I think it is.
BP obtained a license to drill for oil from the government.
BP "works" for the government based on the terms and conditions of the license.
Obama is "the government".
BP caused the disaster.
"The government" can "fire" BP based on the terms and conditions of the license.
So rather than "the government" acting like they are in charge, they defer to BP and let the CEO of BP act as if he is in charge. The CEO of BP is more interested in his company than anything else. The CEO of BP is going to act in a manner to preserve his company above all else. BP will survive this. BP will spend money on PR, pay dividends, regain market cap value...and...make more money and profits than they would have if the disaster had not happened. This is going to be in thanks to Obama's leadership.
Hence, the CEO of BP is on track to be the greatest CEO in history given what his company has done. In 3 to 5 years, if there were a Hall of Fame for CEO's he would qualify.
That is why he walks and talks with a swagger. Contrary to CEO worship, the above is more a commentary on what happens when "academics" are put in charge of operational issues.