Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-31-2007, 12:24 PM   #1 (permalink)
Searching for the perfect brew!
 
Brewmaniac's Avatar
 
Bush takes aim at executive salaries

Bush takes aim at executive salaries
President tells Wall Street CEO pay should be tied to shareholder interests
MSNBC News Services
Updated: 2:19 p.m. ET Jan 31, 2007

NEW YORK - In his “State of the Economy” speech today, delivered from the financial center of the world, President Bush aimed at bringing his economic message out of the shadows of the Iraq war. On his second day in a row he focused on the economy, the government reported faster-than-expected growth of 3.5 percent in the final quarter of last year.

In his address, Bush took aim Wednesday at lavish salaries and bonuses for corporate executives, standing on Wall Street to issue a sharp warning for corporate boards to “step up to their responsibilities” and tie compensation packages to performance.

The president acknowledged people’s continuing nervousness about their financial picture, despite a string of similar reports that provide some reason for optimism. He said some workers are being left behind in the booming economy and the disparity between the rich and the poor is growing.

“The fact is that income inequality is real. It has been rising for more than 25 years,” the president said. “The earnings gap is now twice as wide as it was in 1980,” Bush said, adding that more education and training can lift peoples’ salaries.

The president spoke to an audience of business leaders at the venerable Federal Hall — a symbol of both America’s democracy and its economic resilience. Later, he stopped along Broad Street to shake hands with New York police officers and then ducked inside the New York Stock Exchange. The surprise visit caused a frenzy on the already chaotic trading floor. It was so crowded that traders standing just five feet away of Bush had a better view of him on television screens.

In his address, Bush said he realized that stories about the enormous salaries and other perks for CEOs, for instance, create anger and uncertainty that affect the country’s investors.

The president does not endorse any government role in reducing those packages. Instead, Bush highlighted new federal rules that the administration thinks are a better path toward wise compensation decisions by companies.

“Government should not decide the compensation for America’s corporate executives,” he said. “But the salaries and bonuses of CEOs should be based on their success at improving their companies and bringing value to their shareholders.”

In effect starting last month, the rules give investors access to clearer and more detailed information from public companies on their top executives’ pay packages and perks. Their impact will become apparent as corporations begin issuing 2006 annual reports.

“America’s corporate boardrooms must step up to their responsibilities,” Bush said. “You need to pay attention to the executive compensation packages that you approve. You need to show the world that America’s businesses are a model of transparency and good corporate governance.”

Today, a report showed gross domestic product, the broadest measure of overall economic activity within U.S. borders, expanded at a 3.5 percent annual rate during the October-through-December quarter, according to the Commerce Department.

It was the best quarterly reading in the GDP report since the beginning of last year, when the slide in the U.S. housing market was not yet fully evident. It also was a healthier pace than the annual growth rate of 3.0 percent that economists were expecting. Consequently, it strengthened their sentiment that the Federal Reserve will not cut interest rates soon.

“Overall, we’re seeing some very good growth data, combined with some friendly inflation data, which overall supports the view of a steady Federal Reserve,” said Alex Beuzelin, senior market analyst at Ruesch International, in Washington, D.C.

On the inflation front, the closely watched personal consumption expenditures price index fell 0.8 percent in the quarter, mostly because of falling energy prices. It was the biggest decline since the third quarter of 1954 when it dropped 1.2 percent and surprised economists, who were expecting gain of 1.9 percent.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has said he will push legislation to require shareholder approval of executive compensation plans. And a separate bill before the Senate to raise the minimum wage would fund accompanying tax breaks to ease the burden on small businesses by capping executives’ tax-deferred pay packages at $1 million a year.

Still, even Bush’s words on pay were met with complete silence from the business crowd he addressed.

Huge salaries and other perks for CEO have drawn investor ire and made splashy headlines. Anger over executive compensation unrelated to performance, even as companies stumble, lay off employees or renege on billions of dollars in pension obligations for workers’ retirement, has spread from shareholders to union activists and buttoned-down mutual fund trustees. The chasm between executives’ salaries and the pay of rank-and-file employees continues to widen.

Home Depot chief executive Bob Nardelli was earning an average of $25.7 million a year — excluding stock options — before he was forced out in a furor over his hefty pay. He left with a severance package worth about $210 million.

In 2001, General Electric Co. paid chief executive Jack Welch $16.25 million. Welch was replaced that year with Jeffrey Immelt, who earned $3.4 million in total annual compensation in 2005.

The New York Stock Exchange faced an uproar over former CEO Richard Grasso’s $187.5 million severance package. Former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, now governor, sued members of the NYSE board over the package given to Grasso when he quit as chairman in 2003.

The annual salary of the president is $400,000.

“The state of our economy is strong,” he declared.

Democrats respond that Bush is giving a misleadingly rosy picture about the economy.

“President Bush can deliver all the economic pep talks he wants, but the fact remains that his failed leadership has led to the worst job recovery on record, stagnating household incomes, a rise in poverty and record deficits,” said Stacie Paxton, spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee.

Since Bush took office in 2001, the country has seen one in five manufacturing jobs disappear, a total of 2.96 million lost jobs. The U.S. trade deficit is expected to climb to a fifth consecutive record when final 2006 figures are totaled next month.
© 2007 MSNBC InteractiveThe Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903282/
© 2007 MSNBC.com


It's about time someone started talking about corporate greed and executive compensation.
What really blows me away is who's taking it to the media, Bush has been riding on the coattails of big business for years.
Isn't it like "the kettle calling the pot black" or "bitting the hand that feeds you"?

I noticed in the examples of overpaid CEO's that no oil company big boss was picked on.
Executive's salaries have been out of line for some time now, how can they be brought in line now?
__________________
"That's a joke... I say, that's a joke, son"
Brewmaniac is offline  
Old 01-31-2007, 12:38 PM   #2 (permalink)
Junkie
 
highthief's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brewmaniac
Executive's salaries have been out of line for some time now, how can they be brought in line now? [/B]
Aside from legislation? I dunno. Stock exchange rules to tie compensation to performance for listed companies?
__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.
highthief is offline  
Old 01-31-2007, 01:29 PM   #3 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Google just announced earnings, which grew about 70%. The company has a market cap of over $150 billion, it did not exist 10 years ago. They generate a 20% return on equity. In your view, what should the executives be paid? Who other than the shareholders (the owners of the company) should determine the pay of the executives? If you don't own Google shares why would you care what Google pays its executives as long as they pay taxes?
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 02-01-2007, 05:18 AM   #4 (permalink)
Junkie
 
highthief's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Google just announced earnings, which grew about 70%. The company has a market cap of over $150 billion, it did not exist 10 years ago. They generate a 20% return on equity. In your view, what should the executives be paid? Who other than the shareholders (the owners of the company) should determine the pay of the executives? If you don't own Google shares why would you care what Google pays its executives as long as they pay taxes?
I would think that most people do own shares of large corporations via their mutual funds, RRSP/IRA, and regular trading activities, etc - thus we all do have a stake in how executives are compensated.

Personally, I think if a company performs there is no reason an executive should not be well compensated. However, like most people, I don't think executives who receive whopping big salaries while presiding over poorly performing companies should be well paid while their companies suffer due to the executive's inadequacies.
__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.
highthief is offline  
Old 02-01-2007, 06:30 AM   #5 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by highthief
I would think that most people do own shares of large corporations via their mutual funds, RRSP/IRA, and regular trading activities, etc - thus we all do have a stake in how executives are compensated.
If you are saying shareholders should play a more active role in what goes on in the companies they own, I agree with you. People should attend annual meetings, read quarterly and annual SEC filings, and vote. If they are not willing to do these things they should not invest in equities. If shareholders acted like owners, executive pay would be in-line with what they want. We don't need government invovlment.

Quote:
Personally, I think if a company performs there is no reason an executive should not be well compensated. However, like most people, I don't think executives who receive whopping big salaries while presiding over poorly performing companies should be well paid while their companies suffer due to the executive's inadequacies.
Do you feel the same way about actors in poorly performing movies? Athletes on poorly performing teams? Politicians in poorly performing cities/states? Teachers in poorly performing schools? I know it is relative, but pay for performance - is pay for performance. I agree with pay for performance across the board.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 02-01-2007, 09:52 AM   #6 (permalink)
Searching for the perfect brew!
 
Brewmaniac's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I agree with pay for performance across the board.
Absolutely agree!
__________________
"That's a joke... I say, that's a joke, son"
Brewmaniac is offline  
Old 02-01-2007, 09:54 AM   #7 (permalink)
Junkie
 
highthief's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Do you feel the same way about actors in poorly performing movies? Athletes on poorly performing teams? Politicians in poorly performing cities/states? Teachers in poorly performing schools? I know it is relative, but pay for performance - is pay for performance. I agree with pay for performance across the board.
To some extent - however, in the case of a CEO, who has control over the entire organization, the impact of his performance on the success or failure of the company is much greater than what the performance of a single teacher is in an entire school. Additionally, there is no real way to compensate a really, really great teacher for exemplary performance that is comparable to the vast bonuses and benefits a CEO might earn.

So, while in principle, I like pay for performance tie-ins, it is not valid to compare the influence a CEO has to that which the average worker has.

I do think that sports stars are a more valid comparison and that their compensation works best when tied to performance.
__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.
highthief is offline  
Old 02-01-2007, 10:24 AM   #8 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
i dont see much going on in this move beyond an attempt by a collapsing presidency to regain some footing for itself by shifting into a transparently hollow populist mode.

this is not to say that questions of exorbitant executive pay is not a problem--it is simply an expression of class warfare republican style, during which you (a) define the state as irrational so (b) roll back its regulatory functions while (c) floating this ridiculous fantasy that markets are somehow "rational" so that (d) when things politically are going well, actors who operate within a key conservative demographic can take anything and everything they can with the understanding that (e) when things head south politically, there will be a certain hollow bluster on this whole process that the conservatives--whose economic ideology lay behind this grotesque state of affairs in the first place--can use to position themselves as representing the interests of "the people" on economic matters.

the response from the corporate side of things is predictable, and i think that ace (who i do not agree with, but who is consistent) sums up pretty well: "whaddya talking about? this is the private sector. buzz off."

and that is where things stand.

i dont see anything like a revision of the underlying economic ideology that the neo-hooverites have been working since the 1970s in well-funded think tanks, and since reagan as an element of public ideology. given that, i dont see anything beyond posturing in the bushstatement. well, posturing and an index of the sense of political implosion that must finally have reached the well-protected surface of the planet george w. bush lives on.

when you start to see american conservatives ditching their disastrous but sound-byte friendly neoliberal economic ideology, maybe i'll start taking this sort of thing seriously. but there's no sign of that: no amount of damage seems to falsify it; no amount of human suffering and squandering of resources seems to impact upon it; no coherent analysis from the right is out there that calls their own economic philosophy into question--so this gesture is nothing more than that.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Last edited by roachboy; 02-01-2007 at 10:27 AM..
roachboy is offline  
Old 02-01-2007, 10:38 AM   #9 (permalink)
Banned
 
rocahboy, I find it amazing that anyone still takes "at his word". anything that Mr. Bush says:

The "surge", for example, will have to include up to 48,000 troops to make it effective, or believable:
<center><img src="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/files/1170351179Troop%20Increase%20Spratt%20Letter_Page_2.jpg" height=770 width=615></center>
<br>
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/doc...?resultpage=2&

Last edited by host; 02-01-2007 at 10:42 AM..
host is offline  
Old 02-01-2007, 11:22 AM   #10 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy

the response from the corporate side of things is predictable, and i think that ace (who i do not agree with, but who is consistent) sums up pretty well: "whaddya talking about? this is the private sector. buzz off."

and that is where things stand.
Does your opinion change if it is not "corporate". Let's say your regularlly hire a babysitter. Do you pay her or him based on their skills and experience relative to market rates in your area for babysitters or should you pay based on some formula someone makes up in Washington? Do you think the babysitter should be paid by you based on your household income? I think what you pay the babysitter is a private matter.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 02-01-2007, 11:51 AM   #11 (permalink)
Unencapsulated
 
JustJess's Avatar
 
Location: Kittyville
Actually, until RB's post, no one was saying that gov't *should* regulate business. However, I do agree with the idea of mandating that all executive compensation packages are transparent to all shareholders. I think that will cause a correction by itself, as long as the shareholders are paying attention. If the CEO is supposed to come up with a certain percentage of growth etc, and does not, they should not be entitled to all those gravies. And I cannot conceive of the idea that fired CEO's still get hundreds of millions of dollars in severance packages... you're getting rid of them because they sucked, right? So why are you paying them decades' worth of compensation??
__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.
JustJess is offline  
Old 02-01-2007, 12:16 PM   #12 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loquitur's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
I still don't know what will be accomplished at a public policy level by placing caps on corporate executives' compensation. What's the point? If the shareholders don't mind paying it - and it's their money -- why is that other people's concern? (You know who those shareholders are, by the way? The biggest ones are the government employee and union retirement funds.)
loquitur is offline  
Old 02-02-2007, 07:40 AM   #13 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
a.) ace:

analogies between corporations and a babysitter are false from the outset.


b. general:

in what i wrote above, the key was that there is nothing to this pr move on the administration's part. the economic ideology adopted by the right is the explanation. loquitor restates one of the implications of that ideology.

speaking of loquitor: stakeholder is a better category than shareholder. with stakeholder, it is a bit more difficult to fall into the illusion that corporate activity is private in any meaningful sense of the term. if you do not accept the premise (that corporate activity is private), then (obviously) your argument does not fly.


also: i didnt make a direct argument about whether this sort of issue should or should not be addressed at the regulatory level.
i simply said that it would not be addressed at the regulatory level by the right.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 02-02-2007, 08:56 AM   #14 (permalink)
Unencapsulated
 
JustJess's Avatar
 
Location: Kittyville
Am I missing something?

No one is saying government would be/should be regulating business directly. Not putting caps on things, nothing like that. The only thing Bush suggested - and I actually agree with - is that compensation packages should be transparent to shareholders etc, and SUGGESTED that corporations start tying pay to performance. No one wants to make the pay/performance thing a law. Not the right, and not any of the usually-identified-as-left people here either.

The only thing that I agree should be law is the comp transparency.

It seems like you guys are used to automatically arguing, but no one is actually reading anything.
__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

Last edited by JustJess; 02-02-2007 at 08:58 AM..
JustJess is offline  
Old 02-02-2007, 10:17 AM   #15 (permalink)
Deja Moo
 
Elphaba's Avatar
 
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
Quote:
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has said he will push legislation to require shareholder approval of executive compensation plans. And a separate bill before the Senate to raise the minimum wage would fund accompanying tax breaks to ease the burden on small businesses by capping executives’ tax-deferred pay packages at $1 million a year.
It is this pending legislation that I believe Bush is trying to circumvent by recommending voluntary policing of executive salaries. I'm inclined to think that both proposals will be dead on arrival, and that Bush is merely engaging in populist happy talk.
Elphaba is offline  
Old 02-02-2007, 10:41 AM   #16 (permalink)
Asshole
 
The_Jazz's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
If this is an example of the "kinder, gentler" TFP Politics, it sucks. As JJ suggested, can we all at least argue the same point?
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
The_Jazz is offline  
Old 02-02-2007, 04:56 PM   #17 (permalink)
Deja Moo
 
Elphaba's Avatar
 
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
If this is an example of the "kinder, gentler" TFP Politics, it sucks. As JJ suggested, can we all at least argue the same point?
I believe this is Boatin's point/OP:

Quote:
It's about time someone started talking about corporate greed and executive compensation.
What really blows me away is who's taking it to the media, Bush has been riding on the coattails of big business for years.
Isn't it like "the kettle calling the pot black" or "bitting the hand that feeds you"?
I noticed in the examples of overpaid CEO's that no oil company big boss was picked on.
Executive's salaries have been out of line for some time now, how can they be brought in line now?
Just sayin'...
Elphaba is offline  
Old 02-03-2007, 04:04 PM   #18 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loquitur's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
roachboy, I have no idea what the hell you're talking about in #13. Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't have a clue what you mean.
loquitur is offline  
Old 02-04-2007, 10:34 AM   #19 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
what part of this gives you trouble, loquitor?
the statement that corporate activity cannot coherently be understood as private seems pretty straightforward.
but it contradicts a basic assumption of neliberalism, which has assimilated idiotic claims like those of milton friedman, who argues that corporate activity can be understood through exclusive emphasis on shareholder profits (going so far as to say that corporations act ethically when they generate profits for shareholders)--within this logic, corporate activity would be private.
the only problem with that logic is that it is wholly false--except in a narrow legal sense--but that narrow legal sense is not a viable political sense--because corporate action is NOT private, because it is legitimately a target for public action, for political action--because it is political----the friedmanite line--which your post above repeated, whether you know it or not--has been largely abandoned--except for certain flinstone behemoths like walmart. that because the friedmanite view is bad for business--it blinds corporations to the consequences of their actions, it erases any impetus behind anything like corporate ethics, replacing them with shareholder profits as the main index of coherent action.

now in the fantasyworld of american freemarketeers, the trends of tnc internal monitoring (which increasingly have been shifting over the triple bottom line-based assessement, a move which presupposes replacement of the primacy of shareholders with the broader category of stakeholders, a rearrangement of corporate power, an imperative for greater transparency, etc.) may not matter--but that is (yet another) index of the increasing irrelevance of this ideological position.

have a look at the csr audits collected here, if you like:

http://www.globalreporting.org/Home

and think about what this shift in internal monitoring amounts to from a political viewpoint.
one thing it means is that neoliberalism is bad for business.
another thing it means is that the premises of neoliberalism are being rejected.
among these premises is the logic of your earlier post.

naturally, american conservatives haven't caught up with this kind of tepid move at the level of tnc internal monitoring. what you make of this is an open question. personally, i think this shift functions as a kind of immanent critique of american conservative economic ideology--which has left a trail of disaster everywhere that it has been applied (think structural adjustment or captialist "shock therapy")....but that presupposes that the data about tnc activity is more significant than the statements about that activity you could get from a neoliberal administration and the media apparatus that shares its assumptions about economic activity. one could see this information across a reversal of priority and start with statements from a neoliberal administration--but to my mind, that makes no sense. or you could start with assumptions about economic activity more generally grounded in that ideology--but that too makes little sense. folk do it. i assume the reasoning is mostly based around it being easy. easy peasy.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 02-04-2007, 01:51 PM   #20 (permalink)
Upright
 
EaseUp's Avatar
 
Location: SoCal, beeyotch
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
rocahboy, I find it amazing that anyone still takes "at his word". anything that Mr. Bush says:

The "surge", for example, will have to include up to 48,000 troops to make it effective, or believable:
You ARE aware that this has nothing to do with the subject people wish to discuss in this thread, aren't you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJess
Am I missing something?

No one is saying government would be/should be regulating business directly. Not putting caps on things, nothing like that. The only thing Bush suggested - and I actually agree with - is that compensation packages should be transparent to shareholders etc, and SUGGESTED that corporations start tying pay to performance. No one wants to make the pay/performance thing a law. Not the right, and not any of the usually-identified-as-left people here either.

The only thing that I agree should be law is the comp transparency.

It seems like you guys are used to automatically arguing, but no one is actually reading anything.
I recently sold my Home Depot stock. Partly because its performance sucked, and partly because they compensated a lackluster CEO to the tune of $240 million. That caused me to decide they don't need my money.

If more stockholders did the same, corporate salaries would get back to reality, without the need for government interference.

Agreed on the transparency issue.

Last edited by EaseUp; 02-04-2007 at 01:53 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
EaseUp is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 04:35 PM   #21 (permalink)
Junkie
 
kutulu's Avatar
 
Jesus, talk about missing the point. It is very simple. Bush said executive salaries are out of control and basically said that it's messed up that the gap between the rich and poor is too wide. Does anyone actually dispute that?
kutulu is offline  
Old 02-06-2007, 08:39 AM   #22 (permalink)
Unencapsulated
 
JustJess's Avatar
 
Location: Kittyville
kutulu, I think everyone just got befuddled. No one actually disagrees with what Bush said, and the liberals are used to arguing with everything he does/says (I find myself doing that too) and the conservatives are used to arguing with the liberals. When there's nothing to argue about, they get all confused.
__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.
JustJess is offline  
Old 02-06-2007, 09:14 AM   #23 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
i dont see the bufuddlement.
the critiques of bush's statement seem pretty well-founded--that without a significant revamping of conservative economic assumptions, these statements cannot be seen as anything more than empty, populist grandstanding by a lame duck president.
within the debate here, such as it is, things shook out in a strange direction or 3, but that does not mean that the premise of the critiques of the bush administration is not coherent. it just means that this thread contains sequences where the participants talked entirely past each other. it happens.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 02-06-2007, 09:35 AM   #24 (permalink)
Degenerate
 
Aladdin Sane's Avatar
 
Location: San Marvelous
It is none of your business how much executives or anyone else in the private sector is paid. It's not your money or your property.
__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
Aladdin Sane is offline  
Old 02-06-2007, 09:53 AM   #25 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane
It is none of your business how much executives or anyone else in the private sector is paid. It's not your money or your property.
....LOL.... the wheel keeps turning.... your "sentiments" only fuel the determination of the participants in this never ending, balancing act:
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Reuther
.....In 1936 he became president of tiny local 174 (with 100 members), which on paper had responsibility for 100,000 auto workers on the west side of Detroit, Michigan. Reuther led several strikes and in 1937 and 1940 was hospitalized after being badly beaten by strike-breakers. He also survived two assassination attempts during this period; one attack on April 20th, 1948 left his right hand permanently crippled.

He had a highly publicized confrontation with Ford security forces on May 26, 1937, also known as The Battle of the Overpass. By this time, thanks to the sit-down strikes, UAW membership had exploded and Local 174 was a power inside the UAW. He worked with the left-wing Unity Caucus (which included the powerful Communist groups) to defeat the conservative president Homer Martin. As a senior organizer, Reuther helped win major strikes for union recognition against General Motors in 1940 and Ford in 1941.

After Pearl Harbor, Reuther strongly supported the war effort and refused to tolerate wildcat strikes that might disrupt munitions production. He led a 113-day strike against General Motors in 1945-1946; it only partially succeeded. <b>He never received the power he wanted to inspect company books or have a say in management, but he achieved increasingly lucrative wage and benefits contracts.</b> In 1946 he narrowly defeated R. J. Thomas for the UAW presidency, and soon after he purged the UAW of all Communist elements. He was active in the CIO umbrella as well, taking the lead in expelling eleven Communist-dominated unions from the CIO in 1949.

As a prominent figure in the anti-Communist left, he was a founder of the Americans for Democratic Action in 1947. In 1949 he led the CIO delegation to the London conference that set up the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions in opposition to the Communist-dominated World Federation of Trade Unions. He had left the Socialist party in 1939, and throughout the 1950s and 1960s was a leading spokesman for liberal interests in the CIO and in the Democratic party.

Reuther delivered contracts for his membership through brilliant negotiating tactics. He would pick one of the "Big three" automakers, and if it did not offer concessions, he would strike it and let the other two absorb its sales. Besides high hourly wage rates and paid vacations, Reuther negotiated these benefits for his union: employer-funded pensions (beginning in 1950 at Chrysler), medical insurance (beginning at GM in 1950), and supplementary unemployment benefits (beginning at Ford in 1955). These labor contracts made automobiles more expensive, but since there was very little competition from foreign brands in his lifetime, the consumer paid high prices, the workers took home high wages, and the companies made high profits......
host is offline  
Old 02-06-2007, 10:09 AM   #26 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
see?
there is no incoherence at the level of "what is this thread about?"

but there are radically opposed notions of what is and is not public, where corporate activity falls along that gradient (between the two terms public/private)---and from that both (a) different conceptions of the relationship between economic activity and politics (conservatives would have economic activity be wholly separate from politics, following from their insistence on the public/private split as absolute--so there is nothing to be done by anyone--stakeholder or not--in shaping corporate action--which is assumed to be necessarily for the best in this the best of all possible worlds. needless to say, i think this view worthless--indefensible analytically, disastrous politically)

and

(b) on that basis very different views of whether and how to take bush seriously when he makes some empty gesture toward the rest of us by saying "maybe executive pay levels are a bit out of whack--gentlemen, please think about that--no pressure--not to worry--we know that corporations are owned by the private individuals who invest in them and that everyone who controls capital is exemplary in every way and so we would never dream of telling you, holder of capital, what to do because, well, you are better than most people: wiser, possessed of a broader view, acting with collective interest at heart."
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 02-06-2007, 03:37 PM   #27 (permalink)
Walking is Still Honest
 
FoolThemAll's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
(a) different conceptions of the relationship between economic activity and politics (conservatives would have economic activity be wholly separate from politics, following from their insistence on the public/private split as absolute--so there is nothing to be done by anyone--stakeholder or not--in shaping corporate action--which is assumed to be necessarily for the best in this the best of all possible worlds. needless to say, i think this view worthless--indefensible analytically, disastrous politically)
Apologies if I missed it, but did you ever explain why you find it worthless?

Also:

Quote:
--so there is nothing to be done by anyone--stakeholder or not--in shaping corporate action--
If I'm understanding this correctly - it isn't even the business of stakeholders to shape corporate action - then I don't see where anyone advocated this position.

Quote:
and so we would never dream of telling you, holder of capital, what to do because, well, you are better than most people: wiser, possessed of a broader view, acting with collective interest at heart."
It's my impression that right-wing economic ideology calls for low or zero regulation NOT because the capital-holders are necessarily wiser than the rest of us, but because they are the owners of that capital. Because they have a right to use that property as they see fit, even if the use is foolish, as long as that use does not steal from the health or property of others. Now, it wouldn't shock me if you took issue with this view as well, but it looks like you're currently attacking a strawman.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.
FoolThemAll is offline  
Old 02-06-2007, 03:56 PM   #28 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loquitur's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
roachboy, your position betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what capitalism is all about. Capitalism is not anarchy. It presumes a certain level of societal infrastructure and the rule of law. It does not follow, however, that having a social contract therefore means all activity is at the grace of the government and that nothing is private. That's why your post was incoherent to me: your'e making leaps of inference that have no syllogistic continuity.

Milton Friedman has held a more prestigious professorship than you, won more Nobel Prizes and received considerably more professional recognition. I'd be very careful, if I were you, about calling him an idiot. His theories have largely (though not totally) been vindicated by time, as you can tell from looking at most economic discourse nowadays and the relative weight placed on Keynesian versus Friedmanite solutions. Neither model is followed rigidly, of course, but the emhpasis in recent years has been considerably more Friedmanite (monetary rather than fiscal), especially in the US.

We all need oxygen to breathe. That doesn't mean we are all creatures of oxygen and nothing else matters. Ditto societal infrastructure as provided through government.
loquitur is offline  
Old 02-07-2007, 07:15 AM   #29 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
Quote:
Apologies if I missed it, but did you ever explain why you find it worthless?
not in this thread, fta, i haven't. in what i have put up in the context of this thread, the argument should be simple enough to draw out---the claim is that conservative framing of corporate activity as involving primarily the relation of private shareholders to private corporations is dysfunctional--both as a description of corporations (because it is only one relation amongst any number of relations--like (say) that which links and opposes labor to capital)---and because, taken as a way of thinking about neoliberalism, it had lead to disastroud consequences (think the history of structural adjustment programs of the results of capitalist shock therapy)...

Quote:
If I'm understanding this correctly - it isn't even the business of stakeholders to shape corporate action - then I don't see where anyone advocated this position.
i dont understand what you are saying here. the whole idea behind the stakeholder (a term that floats outward from the planet business ethics) is to empower a wider range of groups in the shaping of the factors that, say, a tnc would take into account in making bidness decisions. it was developed explicitly as a critique of the freidmanite view of bidness and its exclusive emphasis on shareholder profits. it is about the notion that corporate activity is political, is public simply because the effects of that activity run WAY beyond the question of whether shareholders make money or not--and that the public should be represented in various ways in the process of fashioning business strategy. whence stakeholder groups.

i take this claim to be self-evident, not in need of any particular defense.

neoliberalism is bad for business.
it is not bad in the same way for american political purposes, because no matter the problems its actual implementation have generated (and on this the evidence is easy to find and kinda overwhelming), neoliberal arguments nonetheless simplify the world--they minimize the space for political action for example.

Quote:
Now, it wouldn't shock me if you took issue with this view as well, but it looks like you're currently attacking a strawman
both elements are featured in conservative ideology (depending on what sources you have in mind when you happen to generate statements, of course)...so while i am not sure that this line represents a straw man, it is more trivial than the other (about the privateness of corporations and their actions following from the exclusive emphasis on shareholder-corporate entity relations).


loquitor:

Quote:
roachboy, your position betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what capitalism is all about. Capitalism is not anarchy. It presumes a certain level of societal infrastructure and the rule of law. It does not follow, however, that having a social contract therefore means all activity is at the grace of the government and that nothing is private. That's why your post was incoherent to me: your'e making leaps of inference that have no syllogistic continuity.
geez. (1) who is working with syllogisms? when did a 17th century mode of arguing from general principles to the Particular get to be part of the rules that shape the form of arguments?

(2) there is no general characterization of capitalism in the posts i have put up here. i dont know where you get that from. the claim that capitalism presupposes an infrastructure is self-evident. the correlate of this--that therefore capitalism is not anarchy--seems one of those moves that simply restates the premise and which doesnt move the argument.

the fiction of a social contract is nothing more than that: a projection backward in time of legal and institutional arrangements that obtain at a given moment. it doesnt work the other way around--there is no social contract that constititues the basis of any given legal arrangement, not in the literal sense. another way: you dont seriously believe that there were at some point "states of nature" do you?

i can see why you'd play that way, though: you want to attribute the basis of existing social arrangements to a contract that predates the state and various legal arrangements. that way, you can make a separation between that which obtains and the legal and institutional infrastructures that enable that which obtains to function. i dont buy it.

the simple fact of the matter is that markets are legal constructs. corporations are legal entities. economic activity is hedged round with law--it presupposes law (e.g. contracts) to operate at all.
law is a public institution, like it or not.
nothing about this changes if you resort to the fiction of a social contract. so there is a sense in which everything about capitalist activity is public.
there is also a sense in which much of that activity can also be understood as private.
the question in this thread is not which is more true, but rather about how conservative economic ideology frames capitalism and of the consequences that follow from that--and how this framing works at cross purposes with anything that george w bush might say about executive compensation.
so the nature of capitalism itself is an indirect referencepoint in this conversation--there is and has been no general theory of capitalism advanced here.
you act as though i did advance one.
that is wrong.

Quote:
Milton Friedman has held a more prestigious professorship than you, won more Nobel Prizes and received considerably more professional recognition. I'd be very careful, if I were you, about calling him an idiot. His theories have largely (though not totally) been vindicated by time, as you can tell from looking at most economic discourse nowadays and the relative weight placed on Keynesian versus Friedmanite solutions. Neither model is followed rigidly, of course, but the emhpasis in recent years has been considerably more Friedmanite (monetary rather than fiscal), especially in the US.
first, this is really funny. i am sure that the corpse of milton friedman blushed a little as this curious little handjob unfolded in your post.

of course you are correct: friedman won more nobel prizes than i have. he had a more prestigious chair than i have. cultural markets therefore are rational. given the absolute rationality of markets, i, like any good boy, really should just submit--and by submitting i mean that i, like any good boy, should recognize the superiority of arguments advanced by people who have won more nobel prizes than me and who occupy more heavily endowed chairs than i do. really, i do not know what i was thinking. i suppose that i should apply this rule to other areas as well: i should imagine dianetics a vital book for our time because it sells more than my books have. l. ron hubbard is a more powerful thinker than i am because capitalism sez so through demand levels. this past superbowl was a cultural event of epic proportions, only topped in overall significance by the last episode of mash, and this because the always-rational cultural markets within capitalism have determined as much via the level of demand/viewership. if i had a tv show, i would obviously have to recognize its inferiority to the super bowl. who wouldnt?

in music, christine aguilera is Important. she sells more records than i do. were i rational in the sense that you seem to argue for, i would stop doing what i do and start emulating her.
all this because what's real is rational.
everything works out for the best in this the best of all possible worlds.
it's true.
you're right.
i will definitely mend my ways.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Last edited by roachboy; 02-07-2007 at 07:18 AM..
roachboy is offline  
Old 02-07-2007, 08:02 AM   #30 (permalink)
Walking is Still Honest
 
FoolThemAll's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
not in this thread, fta, i haven't. in what i have put up in the context of this thread, the argument should be simple enough to draw out---the claim is that conservative framing of corporate activity as involving primarily the relation of private shareholders to private corporations is dysfunctional--both as a description of corporations (because it is only one relation amongst any number of relations--like (say) that which links and opposes labor to capital)---and because, taken as a way of thinking about neoliberalism, it had lead to disastroud consequences (think the history of structural adjustment programs of the results of capitalist shock therapy)...
What, exactly, is your definition of 'public' here? It's sounding amazingly broad to me so far.

How are these disastrous consequences caused by the notion of corporations as private?

Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
i dont understand what you are saying here. the whole idea behind the stakeholder (a term that floats outward from the planet business ethics) is to empower a wider range of groups in the shaping of the factors that, say, a tnc would take into account in making bidness decisions. it was developed explicitly as a critique of the freidmanite view of bidness and its exclusive emphasis on shareholder profits. it is about the notion that corporate activity is political, is public simply because the effects of that activity run WAY beyond the question of whether shareholders make money or not--and that the public should be represented in various ways in the process of fashioning business strategy. whence stakeholder groups.

i take this claim to be self-evident, not in need of any particular defense.
I misunderstood what you meant by stakeholder. Okay.

If you're talking about external costs like pollution, sure. If you're going beyond that to matters like downsizing or, say, exorbitant CEO compensation, then no, it's not self-evident, and you do need to explain it.

You're certainly free to make odd (well, odd to me) assertions about whether corporations are private in the context of this thread and how much control non-shareholders should properly seek, but if they come without an explanation, then they're not much use to anyone except the like-minded choir.

Quote:
both elements are featured in conservative ideology (depending on what sources you have in mind when you happen to generate statements, of course)...so while i am not sure that this line represents a straw man, it is more trivial than the other (about the privateness of corporations and their actions following from the exclusive emphasis on shareholder-corporate entity relations).
Fair enough on both counts. I'd simply argue that the view I presented is the stronger of the two by far. Of course capital owners are capable of bad decisions. That pretty much goes without saying. For every 'self-made' millionaire, you'll find a person of mediocre talents who got lucky with a sizable inheritance or an unattentive board of directors or what have you.

One more thing:

Not to speak for loquitur, but the part that irked me wasn't that you disagree with a more popular person like Friedman, but that you called his notions idiotic. At best, 'idiotic' is an exaggeration. At worst, it's as vacuously dismissive as terms like 'fascist' and 'anti-American' often are.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.
FoolThemAll is offline  
Old 02-07-2007, 09:21 AM   #31 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
fta: on the last point you make: agreed. i do that too much, often without really thinking about it. so am taking this under advisement, for whatever that's worth.
=======
on the stakeholder matter: the extent to which stakeholder groups influence various aspects of corporate action (and a trade union would be a stakeholder group, for example--and therein lay some of the problems of the term and traces of its origin in bidness ethics--which is another topic) is in the main a function of the political situation and internal culture of that corporation. one way of looking at the relations between stakeholder groups and the corporation is as a conflict over borders between public (by which i mean zones of activity that can be understood as having effects on a wider public--externalities in the parlance---and so which should be matters of public and/or political concern and action) and private (zones of activity which do not generate such effects, which may not be legitimate targets of public concern/political action)....using this (admittedly general) notion of the public, or of public action (or actions for which corporate entities can and should be held politically accountable) i tend to argue for the widest extension of the notion of the public. because i do not see anything about corporate activity that should not be held up as matters of public concern/political concern/political action. call it my residual marxist because it is. i would argue that economic activity is public activity. all of it. even shareholder investments--first because the distribution of wealth within a given social order is a political question, second because the money invested is going into entities that are themselves engaged in public activity, and which can and should be held politically accountable for that activity.

that this is even a question is an index of how far things have degenerated ideologically over the past 40 years or so in the wake the shift away from nation-state oriented capitalism--which undercut trade unions--which undercutting enabled capital to jettison the political redefinitions that the trade union movement had forced it to accept--redefinitions what made very fundamental types of corporate activity into conflict areas--at stake in these conflicts were questions of power--implicit in these power conflicts were questions of who *should* shape the nature and distribution of profits (for example)--behind this were basically antithetical views of what profit comes from--for investors, then as now, it seems that wealth would be generated by investment; for trade unions, wealth is produced by labor. this is a version of the backstory behind my arguments here--probably should have explained this more (in retrospect at least), but figured i would try to keep the thread geared toward the op. so now is as good a time as any.

i dont think anything i am arguing for is "odd"--it just comes out of a view of capitalism as a collection of historical processes--and from my not forgetting about that history when i think about contemporary capitalism. that this seems odd is to me what is odd--but that's (again) another matter.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 02-07-2007, 12:05 PM   #32 (permalink)
Walking is Still Honest
 
FoolThemAll's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
call it my residual marxist because it is. i would argue that economic activity is public activity. all of it.
Was it in this thread or another that someone made a babysitter analogy?

I think it's relevant to bring it up here, to understand how far this notion of 'public' goes. Hiring a babysitter is economic activity, no?

If a babysitter and a parent contract for babysitting services, is it proper for the government to forcibly shape the contract in any way? What ways? At what point would government intervention go too far?

Quote:
even shareholder investments--first because the distribution of wealth within a given social order is a political question, second because the money invested is going into entities that are themselves engaged in public activity, and which can and should be held politically accountable for that activity.
How far does this go? Does the mere fact that I vote - a public activity if anything is - open my property up to government regulation/control above and beyond the factor of external costs?

Is it always proper for politics to concern itself with the distribution of wealth? If that's what your saying, why do you think that?

Quote:
that this is even a question is an index of how far things have degenerated ideologically over the past 40 years or so in the wake the shift away from nation-state oriented capitalism--which undercut trade unions--which undercutting enabled capital to jettison the political redefinitions that the trade union movement had forced it to accept--redefinitions what made very fundamental types of corporate activity into conflict areas--at stake in these conflicts were questions of power--implicit in these power conflicts were questions of who *should* shape the nature and distribution of profits (for example)--behind this were basically antithetical views of what profit comes from--for investors, then as now, it seems that wealth would be generated by investment; for trade unions, wealth is produced by labor. this is a version of the backstory behind my arguments here--probably should have explained this more (in retrospect at least), but figured i would try to keep the thread geared toward the op. so now is as good a time as any.
Degenerated, heh... you say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to.

To me, it's obvious that it's a combination - both investment and labor produce wealth. Either can enhance the wealth-producing capabilities of the other. A large assembly line is much less useful without multiple laborers to put it to use and multiple laborers' efforts are much less useful without labor-aiding machines.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.
FoolThemAll is offline  
Old 02-07-2007, 01:21 PM   #33 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: on the road to where I want to be...
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
the fiction of a social contract is nothing more than that: a projection backward in time of legal and institutional arrangements that obtain at a given moment. it doesnt work the other way around--there is no social contract that constititues the basis of any given legal arrangement, not in the literal sense. another way: you dont seriously believe that there were at some point "states of nature" do you?

the simple fact of the matter is that markets are legal constructs. corporations are legal entities. economic activity is hedged round with law--it presupposes law (e.g. contracts) to operate at all.
law is a public institution, like it or not.
nothing about this changes if you resort to the fiction of a social contract. so there is a sense in which everything about capitalist activity is public.
there is also a sense in which much of that activity can also be understood as private.

I would agree with you roachboy that capitalism can exist because it needs a specific kind of environment in which to work, and that this environment is made my governments, which are public institutions. However, I would not argue that because these public institutions, which are instruments of the people whose prosperity they are meant to facilitate, that corporations are inherently "public" entities themselves.

The drafters of the constitution, specifically Alexander Hamilton, placed the sovereignty of an individual's private property as being paramount importance to the sustainability of a democtatic capitalist state. While I do understand your point, it seems to me you're sweeping the concept of private property under the rug.

If you argue that corporations exist because by the design of public institutions, and therefore these institutions, and the public inherently, have a right to govern corporations, how do you maintain consistency with the principle of private property? How can it only apply to some people, and not others? Why should only the fabulously rich be unprotected by this law? And once you cross that line, where does it stop?

The logic you're using would make sense to me if we were talking about a neo-socialist state, in which some of the mechanisms from both capitalism and socialism were combined to form a new type of government and a new type of economy. That being said, how can you argue that the logic you're using assumes a capitalist state at all?
__________________
Dont be afraid to change who you are for what you could become
kangaeru is offline  
Old 02-07-2007, 05:52 PM   #34 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
fta: babysitter and corporate entities are not similar enough for an analogy leaning on the former to say much of anything about the latter. same problem the alchemists had--they thought that because a and 3 (empty variables referring to substances/objects) were both material that it should follow that one could be converted into the other.

point 2 (from your post):
property in the form of a corporation owned by shareholders is not like property in the form of your lawn held by you. so if i understand the point you are making (and i am not sure that i do), it seems to be another strange analogy. but i am not sure. so please explain more of what you mean.

point 3: at the descriptive level, you're right...but this isn't a conversation about descriptions of capitalism so much as it is a political argument about how capitalism is framed ideologically. so i am making an argument for the widest extension of the notion of public-ness in the context of captialist organization. during most of the fordist period (particularly ww2-the early 197os) the political situation was such that unions had significantly cut into what had been understood as the "private" space of profit maximizing--but they did it based on political conflict--which presupposed organization and pressure and, well, conflict. in the states, you had a screwy trade union model, so things didnt go as well for working folk as they did in europe, where the power of the trade union movement was reflected in functionally social-democratic arrangements. with the shift toward more flex-accumulation modes across the 70s, this situation began to change quickly--now the political situation is dominated by capital and their functionaries (to use a neutral term)...the relation of labor to capital is political, as is the extension of the notion of public-ness. all of this changes as the overall balance of power changes. i am making an argument about the current political situation--and it refers to the op via the linking of conservative economic ideology to the range of options bush has to actually do something about, say, ceo salaries (or the radically uneven distribution of wealth that has come about since the reagan period)--the claim is that the ideology leave bush no room to do anything but talk.

cooking something as i write this: i'll get back to the thread later and respond to your points, kangaeru.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 02-08-2007, 01:20 PM   #35 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Perhaps Bush should take on something really affecting the bottom line of average Americans.

Quote:
A Money Vacuum

To illustrate his point, Bogle writes that "while $10,000 invested in the stock market [in 1985] earned a profit of $109,800 [over 20 years], the average mutual fund investor earned a profit of just $29,700. Together, the cost penalty, the timing penalty, and the selection penalty consumed an amazing 73 percent of the profit available simply by buying and holding the stock market itself, leaving the average fund stockholder with a mere 27 percent of the total."

In other words, if investors had invested in the stock market back in 1985, they would have made $109,800 dollars over 20 years. That's including the ups and downs of the market. During the same period, investors who put the same $10,000 in mutual funds made only $29,700.

That's what prompted me to tell the radio interviewer, "That's why mutual funds suck. Not only do they suck 80 percent of the dividends, in come cases they suck another 73 percent of other gains from investors."

I believe my comment was bleeped.
I agree with what is below, but probably disagree with what many of you will say is the cause and the solution. I believe the average investor is too passive and therefore they get screwed from all directions. The answer is to stop being passive.

Quote:
Essentially, John Bogle's position in "The Battle for the Soul of Capitalism" is that investors -- what he calls the true owners of major corporations and mutual funds -- are being robbed blind by corporation and mutual fund company managers. He refers to it as the shift from owner's capitalism to manager's capitalism.
http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/arti...chricher/23654

Both quotes from the same source.

Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
fta: babysitter and corporate entities are not similar enough for an analogy leaning on the former to say much of anything about the latter. same problem the alchemists had--they thought that because a and 3 (empty variables referring to substances/objects) were both material that it should follow that one could be converted into the other.
From my point of view money is money. If I pay a babysitter for a service I want value for what I pay for. If I pay a CEO for a service I want value for what I pay for. What I pay should be nobody's business but mine and the person I pay, babysitter or CEO. If the company is owned by shareholders it is nobody's business accept for the sharholders.

I do understand that there are people in the world who don't like to make financial decisions and actually need someone to tell them what to do, hence the above article illustrating how they get screwed, but at least they didn't have to know any math.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."


Last edited by aceventura3; 02-08-2007 at 01:35 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
aceventura3 is offline  
Old 02-09-2007, 11:38 AM   #36 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
Quote:
If the company is owned by shareholders it is nobody's business accept for the sharholders.
um, not necessarily.
first, the analogy to the babysitter is false (again).
second, corporations do not operate in some econ 101 fantasyland of abstract markets impacted by abstract variables like supply and demand to the exclusion of all other social and political factors. so they manage complex relationships with stakeholders (the set of social actors whose interests are directly or indirectly affected by corporate activities) that tip into political questions once stakeholder groups mobilize, frame a debate, make that debate public, etc.. so any subset of corporate activity is potentially political. if a corporation is paying say 15 cents a piece for a shirt, selling it for 80 dollars retail and the ceo is making say 10 mil a year (what not?) then the ceo salary can obviously be made into a political matter simply by linking the variables together (e.g. it is politically, socially, ethically unacceptable that a corporation can pay its ceo x dollars/year when it pays the workers whose labor creates the objects get paid dick.) in a world where demand is to a significant extent maintained via branding, this (or any) type of political argument/action can be quite damaging--witness nike for example--and the corporation will have to respond to it--or generate a convincing appearance of having responded.

babysitters just arent in anything like that position.
my claim at bottom is that there is no a priori divide that separates private from public, private from political. there are fluid boundaries that are being continually renegociated. this is a simple statement of empirical fact (again, look at nike--they are something of a textbook example).
your position is geared around an arbitrary a priori. it leads to a simple refusal to see what is in front of you. i would imagine that were you ceo of a tnc that found itself inside the political flashpoint on a given issue, that attitude would render you dysfunctional in a hurry.

there are tncs that have tried--and try--to work the way you (implicitly) suggest: walmart is one example. they seem to figure that their scale gives them impunity. obviously, this is a risky position to occupy, and to some extent walmart is paying for it in pr at least. another exception in monsanto, but they are privately held, so the rules of the game are a bit different for them. but they too have paid a heavy price for their stonewalling. watch "the future of food".

kangerau: much of what i was going to say in response to your post is in the above. while i do not know what you mean exactly by a "neosocialist state" (maybe you could explain it more), i can tell you that i have no problem with democratic socialism. part of that follows from knowing what democratic socialism actually entails. i mention this because, too often in discussions here, folk operate without any clear idea of what the word "socialism" or its compounds mean.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 02-09-2007, 01:42 PM   #37 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
first, the analogy to the babysitter is false (again).
If you say it is wrong without giving a reason, I guess I am supposed to take your word for it?

Paying a person for a service, is paying a person for a service. You say that is wrong????

You think there is a difference based on scale, responsibility, education, what? Bill Gates might be paying his babysitter more than some CEO's get paid, should Bush comment on that? Do you have an interest in that? Perhaps if tax dollars are involved I can see your point. For example foster parents (similar to a baby sitter) getting money from the government, should be paid based on some common formula and made public. Perhaps we have a right as the public to have input in the CEO slaries of corporations receiving government contracts, but if it is a private sector company (even if it is publically traded) doing business in the private sector, the public has no interest in the CEO salary. The public has a right to buy or not buy from that company. And, the public has a right to buy or not buy the shares. If fraud is involved or criminal activity, that different, but we are not talking about that.
Quote:
second, corporations do not operate in some econ 101 fantasyland of abstract markets impacted by abstract variables like supply and demand to the exclusion of all other social and political factors.
You call variables like supply and demand "abstract"?

I agree econ 101 does not apply directly to corporations in the context of this discussion. Econ 101 covers macroeconomics. Econ 102 is more applicable to this discussion - microeconomics.

Social and political factors do impact corporate behavior. Managers get paid to manage or manipulate (pick your own word depending on how you feel about what corporations are doing) these factors. As a part of managing these factors occationally you get guys like John Chambers of Cisco who take $1 in salary (while still making millions)
but trust me when it is made public the information is going to be managed as to present the company in the most favorable way.
Quote:
so they manage complex relationships with stakeholders
When Walmart wants to build a store in your town, they will use words like "stakeholder", that is a part of "managing" social and political factors. It makes people feel good to be a "stakeholder", but try taking that to a bank, or see if they call the next day. If they are true gentlemen, they will send flowers however.

Quote:
the set of social actors whose interests are directly or indirectly affected by corporate activities) that tip into political questions once stakeholder groups mobilize, frame a debate, make that debate public, etc.. so any subset of corporate activity is potentially political. if a corporation is paying say 15 cents a piece for a shirt, selling it for 80 dollars retail and the ceo is making say 10 mil a year (what not?) then the ceo salary can obviously be made into a political matter simply by linking the variables together (e.g. it is politically, socially, ethically unacceptable that a corporation can pay its ceo x dollars/year when it pays the workers whose labor creates the objects get paid dick.) in a world where demand is to a significant extent maintained via branding, this (or any) type of political argument/action can be quite damaging--witness nike for example--and the corporation will have to respond to it--or generate a convincing appearance of having responded.
O.k. but how much did you pay for popcorn the last time you went to see a movie? How much did the farmer get? Why aren't you concerned about that?

How about class action lawsuits. Where the lawyers get millions representing the class, and each person in the class gets pennies on the dollar for the real damages incurred. Why aren't you concerned about that?

Quote:
babysitters just arent in anything like that position.
I am more interested in who cares for my son, than I am in the CEO's of the companies I invest in. I care about both, but I figure I could alway sell the stock or make more money.

Quote:
my claim at bottom is that there is no a priori divide that separates private from public, private from political.
I agree. The government is involved in everything. They even have a say in who you have sex with. As an adult if you offered to pay another adult for sex, you could go to jail. Government is out of control.

Quote:
there are fluid boundaries that are being continually renegociated. this is a simple statement of empirical fact (again, look at nike--they are something of a textbook example).
your position is geared around an arbitrary a priori. it leads to a simple refusal to see what is in front of you. i would imagine that were you ceo of a tnc that found itself inside the political flashpoint on a given issue, that attitude would render you dysfunctional in a hurry.
I beg to differ. My view of the world allows me to easily do what needs to be done, because I understand the "game". I would suggest that your views are the ones that would lead to indecisiveness, chaos, and eventual failure. It seems you would try to hard to make too many "stakeholders" happy, and we already know that desiganting someone a "stakeholder" is "managing".

Quote:
there are tncs that have tried--and try--to work the way you (implicitly) suggest: walmart is one example. they seem to figure that their scale gives them impunity.
Wrong. Walmart does what needs to be done. They bend to make "stakeholders" happy. They simply piss off the competition and the unions.

Quote:
obviously, this is a risky position to occupy, and to some extent walmart is paying for it in pr at least.
"Everyone hates Walmart", the biggest retailer in the world by a margin of 2 or 3 based on sales. I want to pay that PR price some day, don't you?

Quote:
another exception in monsanto, but they are privately held, so the rules of the game are a bit different for them. but they too have paid a heavy price for their stonewalling. watch "the future of food".
I will check it out.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."


Last edited by aceventura3; 02-09-2007 at 01:49 PM..
aceventura3 is offline  
Old 02-10-2007, 06:21 AM   #38 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
.......I beg to differ. My view of the world allows me to easily do what needs to be done, because I understand the "game". ...... They bend to make "stakeholders" happy. They simply piss off the competition and the unions.



"Everyone hates Walmart", the biggest retailer in the world by a margin of 2 or 3 based on sales. I want to pay that PR price some day, don't you?......
Do you understand, ace.....IMO, you write like someone who doesn't have even a clue.....

Do you really think anything has changed since Smedley Butler's long military career? Do you really think that Wal-Mart provides "low prices" by means of an independent, private, neutral, capitalistic business model?
Quote:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...D9415B848FF1D3
FREE PREVIEW
<b>Gen. Butler Bares 'Fascist Plot' To Seize Government by Force; Says Bond Salesman, as Representative of Wall St. Group, Asked Him to Lead Army of 500,000 in March on Capital -- Those Named Make Angry Denials -- Dickstein Gets Charge. GEN. BUTLER BARES A 'FASCIST PLOT'</b>

November 21, 1934, Wednesday
Page 1, 462 words

DISPLAYING FIRST PARAGRAPH - A plot of Wall Street interests to overthrow President Roosevelt and establish a Fascist dictatorship, backed by a private army of 500,000 ex-soldiers and others, was charged by Major Gen. Smedley D. Butler, retired Marine Corps officer, who appeared yesterday before the House of Representatives Committee on Un-American Activities, which began hearings on the charges.
Quote:
http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm
Smedley Butler on Interventionism
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

<b>I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.</b>

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

<b>I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.</b>

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
Quote:
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/02/15/Bu...crats_pr.shtml
By STEVE BOUSQUET, Times Staff Writer
Published February 15, 2006

...... The motivation, advocates say, is to force companies to spend enough on employee health benefits to keep low-wage workers off of Medicaid. Democrats complained that Wal-Mart gets state tax incentives to build more big-box stores, but then has many of its workers without health coverage.

"We should not be subsidizing businesses with your tax dollars, and then they turn around and give us Medicaid patients," said Rep. Susan Bucher, D-West Palm Beach, a sponsor of the legislation with Sen. Walter (Skip) Campbell, D-Fort Lauderdale.

"This is not antibusiness legislation. This is propeople legislation," said Campbell, a candidate for attorney general.

Bucher said more than 22,000 people who work for the state's 10 largest employers are on Medicaid. She said she got figures from the Department of Children and Families on DCF clients who listed their employers and said they received Medicaid benefits. One of those employers is Miami-Dade County, Bucher said, and the others are Walgreen's, Burger King, Target and Taco Bell.

Business groups attacked the proposal as a "payroll tax" that will do nothing to curtail rising health care costs. A Wal-Mart spokesman said the unions' true objective is not health care coverage but unionizing Wal-Mart's growing work force, which is approaching 100,000 in Florida.

Full-time Wal-Mart employees make an average of $9.85 an hour, the company says.
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052502162.html
<b>Critics Say Wal-Mart Grows Part-Timers to Cut Benefits</b>

By Amy Joyce
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 26, 2006; Page D02

.....A J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. report in January said the company is planning to "right size" its full-time versus part-time mix to improve productivity and reduce store labor costs. According to the report, about 80 percent of employees are full time. <b>The company is seeking to lower that rate to about 60 percent during the next 12 to 18 months, the report said.........</b>
Wal-Mart spokesman Eric Brewer said that by targeting the largest employers in Florida, labor is mobilizing much of the business establishment to fight the proposal.

Brewer said 70,000 Wal-Mart employees signed up for coverage last fall in a companywide expansion drive.

The "Fair Share" plan in Florida is modeled after a similar effort in Maryland that became law over the governor's veto. The Washington Post reported that in the month prior to the Maryland General Assembly's action, two large labor unions donated more than $36,000 to 48 state legislators.

Similar union-backed drives have taken hold in more than 30 other states.

"It's a terrible idea," said Mark Wilson, senior vice president of the Florida Chamber of Commerce, adding that most uninsured workers in Florida work for small businesses, not the 10 largest employers........

Last edited by host; 02-10-2007 at 06:27 AM..
host is offline  
Old 02-12-2007, 12:53 PM   #39 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
Do you understand, ace.....IMO, you write like someone who doesn't have even a clue.....
By definition I don't have a clue because I don't get your point. I don't understand your disagreement with the points I have made. Also, I am the first to admit my writing is not sophisticated, if I were any good, I would be making money doing it - I am a capitalist to the core, so was Sam Walmart.

Quote:
Do you really think anything has changed since Smedley Butler's long military career?
Fundemental truths don't change. People do what they consider to be in their best interest when they hve time and a reasonable opportunity to consider the alternatives. Gen. butler's views on war are generally correct in my opinion. I can not think of any war that did not have some form of economic issue associated with it or a nation/leader having a military and simply using it. However, I think people understaand and know why they fight and do it for their own reasons - these reasons often differ from the reasons given by "leaders". For example - during the Civil War in theis country, most people fought for reasons other than the slavery question or to "save the Union".

Quote:
Do you really think that Wal-Mart provides "low prices" by means of an independent, private, neutral, capitalistic business model?
Yes, for the most part. The retail market is regulated by governement, this regulation restricts competition. The restriction of competition has allowed Wal-Mart to make excessive profits over the years as compared to what would have happened in a more competetive market. I don't blame Wal-Mart for that, I blame excessive government regulation.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
 

Tags
aim, bush, executive, salaries, takes

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:31 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360