|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on May 7, 2010 12:27:44 GMT -8
A letter to the editor of the NCT.
This is what is wrong with the majority of both the Republican and Democratic parties. And with ALL of the Tea Partiers. They have been hoodwinked by the big-business propaganda. Why is it that the top 1% in America hold more capital than the bottom 90%? It wasn't that way 50 years ago.
We are quickly becoming a 2 class society just like Mexico. Corporate CEO's now make thousands of times what their average worker makes. Bankers and traders make mega million, if not billion, dollar bonuses. The average American needs to wake up, stop drinking the kool-aid, and see what is being done to him.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 7, 2010 12:46:21 GMT -8
So, you are in favor of the "We're from the government and we're here to help you" school of thought!  First of all, let's agree that business is amoral. Not immoral, which is something else. Business men, if left to their own devices, will often attempt to manipulate the government in ways that favor them and disadvantage their competitors. But that's the problem. The government is, and has been for about a century, for sale to the highest bidder. In fact, monopolies have a much harder time existing if not aided by friendly government officials. And that goes for any political party that manages to gain power. The dislocations that have resulted in growing imports and reduced production of goods, especially heavy goods (appliances, furniture, etc.), has been a serious problem for American workers. Of that there is no doubt. But it was a serious problem for the textile workers who lost their jobs in New England when company managers discovered that workers in the Carolinas would work for lower wages over a century ago. It was a national economy, you see. And now it's a world economy. Tell me this, though; what was the government supposed to do when American companies began relying on workers in other countries to supply the goods (and even services) they needed to survive? Well, there is one and only one thing the U.S. government could have done along those lines: tariffs. If you are unaware of the serious, let me say disastrous, results of high tariffs, then you need to do a bit of research. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 7, 2010 14:47:42 GMT -8
A letter to the editor of the NCT. This is what is wrong with the majority of both the Republican and Democratic parties. And with ALL of the Tea Partiers. They have been hoodwinked by the big-business propaganda. Why is it that the top 1% in America hold more capital than the bottom 90%? It wasn't that way 50 years ago. We are quickly becoming a 2 class society just like Mexico. Corporate CEO's now make thousands of times what their average worker makes. Bankers and traders make mega million, if not billion, dollar bonuses. The average American needs to wake up, stop drinking the kool-aid, and see what is being done to him. What is your solution? It would be too easy to pick apart this letter to the editor and your added thoughts. a good starting point would be for you to propose a course of action that would remedy your perceived ills. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on May 10, 2010 8:28:46 GMT -8
Sure. Let's start with raining in executive compensation to a more reasonable ratio vs. what their workers make. Let's set up a compensation model whereby they receive compensation and bonus based upon the success of the company and not based upon what their 'peers' make.
Corporations should be required to return profits to their shareholders, the owners, in the form of dividends. The only corporations that are returning profits currently are the REITs. Every corporation should do this. Too many companies are used for the benefit and enrichment of their executive teams only.
That is a start.
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on May 10, 2010 16:31:51 GMT -8
Sure. Let's start with raining in executive compensation to a more reasonable ratio vs. what their workers make. Let's set up a compensation model whereby they receive compensation and bonus based upon the success of the company and not based upon what their 'peers' make. Corporations should be required to return profits to their shareholders, the owners, in the form of dividends. The only corporations that are returning profits currently are the REITs. Every corporation should do this. Too many companies are used for the benefit and enrichment of their executive teams only. That is a start. I think you meant 'reining' vice 'raining'... no? What I don't get is the "let's", as in "let's set up ..." ( supra) and why any "let's" should have any damned thing to say about executive compensation, or have anything else to say about the relationship between a corporation and its shareholders. Those things ought to be between the shareholders and the corporation... ...with no chin music from the gummint peanut gallery. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 10, 2010 16:54:55 GMT -8
Sure. Let's start with raining in executive compensation to a more reasonable ratio vs. what their workers make. Let's set up a compensation model whereby they receive compensation and bonus based upon the success of the company and not based upon what their 'peers' make. Corporations should be required to return profits to their shareholders, the owners, in the form of dividends. The only corporations that are returning profits currently are the REITs. Every corporation should do this. Too many companies are used for the benefit and enrichment of their executive teams only. That is a start. Executive compensation should be reasonable, but in order to attract good leadership to run these big concerns you need to pay big bucks. A more seasonable approach, not perfect, but better than an arbitrary amount based on some ratio to workers pay would be in order. Perhaps a way to base compensation in large part on real results for the company. Make sure it is not rigged by having real full time forensic accountants on board to monitor the balance sheet and income statements along with an increased focus on the statement of "Source and Application of Funds" reports. Couple those measure with a requirement that all top level executives have large stakes in equity in the company in the form of common stock, not options or the like, but a real stake with money at risk. What you said on this matter is just too much like the rigged socialistic systems that have failed in case after case until real capitalism is given a chance to work. Get the word "ratio" out of your thinking and focus more on the results part of your idea and you are on the right track. I disagree completely with you idea of a forced structure for the company to return profits on any sort of formula. Different types of companies are set up for different reasons and the expectation of returns differ depending on if you are an income investor, a growth investor or a combination. Tax considerations and the type account where you hold your assets should determine what type investment you make and how you want to be rewarded for your investment. REIT's are set up with a structure that has a set purpose and that model or that reason for investing does not fit all people. If a company is set up and used solely for the benefit and enrichment of their executive teams, then it will not attract investment capital or will soon be exposed. I would have hoped that our recent problems with WorldCom, Bernie Madolf, and Enron would point out to you that the SEC has to have competent forensic accounting folks working there and not a bunch of porn watchers. It is just another example of a poorly run government agency with politically appointed idiots in charge of oversight. I am sure that given a starting point, you can expand on those ideas and see the weakness in what you have said. That is not to say that I have all the answers, it is just that I have better questions. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 10, 2010 16:55:49 GMT -8
I didn't even start on the letter in the NCT, as it was written by a complete idiot.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on May 17, 2010 8:37:22 GMT -8
Sure. Let's start with raining in executive compensation to a more reasonable ratio vs. what their workers make. Let's set up a compensation model whereby they receive compensation and bonus based upon the success of the company and not based upon what their 'peers' make. Corporations should be required to return profits to their shareholders, the owners, in the form of dividends. The only corporations that are returning profits currently are the REITs. Every corporation should do this. Too many companies are used for the benefit and enrichment of their executive teams only. That is a start. I think you meant 'reining' vice 'raining'... no? What I don't get is the "let's", as in "let's set up ..." ( supra) and why any "let's" should have any damned thing to say about executive compensation, or have anything else to say about the relationship between a corporation and its shareholders. Those things ought to be between the shareholders and the corporation... ...with no chin music from the gummint peanut gallery. I was asked to expand on my first comments and provide some examples and I did. I really didn't ask for an asinine review of my english. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on May 17, 2010 12:36:47 GMT -8
I think you meant 'reining' vice 'raining'... no? What I don't get is the "let's", as in "let's set up ..." ( supra) and why any "let's" should have any damned thing to say about executive compensation, or have anything else to say about the relationship between a corporation and its shareholders. Those things ought to be between the shareholders and the corporation... ...with no chin music from the gummint peanut gallery. I was asked to expand on my first comments and provide some examples and I did. I really didn't ask for an asinine review of my english. Well, you got a review of your asinine English... and you get to lump it.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 17, 2010 12:52:09 GMT -8
I was asked to expand on my first comments and provide some examples and I did. I really didn't ask for an asinine review of my english. Well, you got a review of your asinine English... and you get to lump it. I might add that even his English made more sense than his expanded thoughts. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2010 18:10:26 GMT -8
Why only CEO's? Doesn't a movie start make substantially more than an extra? Doesn't a star athlete make much more than the ball boy? This I submit is inherently "unfair" and make me sad.
I mean, sure, I live a comfortable life. I have a cell phone that does everything but cook dinner, but I'm pretty sure Brad Pitt's is nicer. I have a nice car but Al Gore probably has a nicer one. This also makes me sad cuz a' the unfairness of it all I can NEVER be happy till everyone has the same stuff as me.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 23, 2010 6:10:11 GMT -8
Why only CEO's? Doesn't a movie start make substantially more than an extra? Doesn't a star athlete make much more than the ball boy? This I submit is inherently "unfair" and make me sad. I mean, sure, I live a comfortable life. I have a cell phone that does everything but cook dinner, but I'm pretty sure Brad Pitt's is nicer. I have a nice car but Al Gore probably has a nicer one. This also makes me sad cuz a' the unfairness of it all I can NEVER be happy till everyone has the same stuff as me. Although that was "tongue in cheek", you might want to see how your thought is different from that of a liberal. You want everyone to have what you do, while a liberal wants to take what you have away and split it up with people unwilling to work to be able to get it or anything else. Big difference in thought process even when in jest. |
|
