|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
You pose some good questions, and from an outsider viewpoint which is refreshing.
While the private sector can be filled with crooks and dishonesty, typically the market will push them out over time. You can only screw over your consumer base for so long before they become the wiser and quit purchasing from you. Now where the government needs to be involved is to ensure that not one company maintains a monopoly of a necessary service thereby giving them free reign to do as they wish and the consumer just stuck having to live with it.
As long as there are other options for the consumer, then bad business practices will not stand the test of time.
Do I need the government to tell me that eating 3x a day 7 days a week at McDonalds is bad for me?
Do I need them to regulate my trans-fats, salt, caffeine, sugar intake for me?
The federal government's job is to ensure the people have the opportunity to provide for themselves and are free from tyranny of state and local governments, to provide a military for defense of the nations borders, to provide rules and regulations for fair trade both within the nations borders, and between us and other nations, to ensure my constitutional rights are not withheld or trampled on.
If the federal government is going to control everything, why do we even have states?
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
Quote:
While the private sector can be filled with crooks and dishonesty, typically the market will push them out over time. You can only screw over your consumer base for so long before they become the wiser and quit purchasing from you.
Tell that to the folks that Bernie Madoff bilked out of 50 billion...
Regulations are needed.. anyone who thinks they aren't needn't look any further than the banking industry run amock and guys like Madoff, companies like AIG and Washington Mutual as examples of what some folks will do if left to govern themselves.. Or in this case, if the regulations aren't enforced..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Was anyone forcing them to keep there money with Madoff?
Did they not do any prudent work to ensure their investments were valid and true?
Again, swindlers happen and eventually the truth comes out. I never said people don't get shafted in the process but you can't keep screwing people over without ever getting called on it.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
While the private sector can be filled with crooks and dishonesty, typically the market will push them out over time. You can only screw over your consumer base for so long before they become the wiser and quit purchasing from you.
T o a certain extent ... once you have what we have -- with the collusions between gov't and business -- favorable legislation, mandated purchases, etc. ... it gets tricky.
Your next sentence discussed monopolies .... well, what we see a lot of these days are conglomerated monopolies. You have three, four, five companies that own the whole pie. They have smaller branches and subsidiaries and what you, so there's the illusion of market or choice ... but what you essentially have is a handful of companies that, while in competition, make agreements with themselves and with the gov't to ensure that they can ... well, screw people over.
There are plenty of markets today -- banks, insurance companies, etc. that make a regular practice of dishonesty and screwing the customer ... and they can get away with it because most of their competitors are either doing the same thing, are a branched subsidiary of their competitors or themselves, or don't have to worry about viable competition, as any company offering a fair shake won't be around for very long.
Though they still have their fair share of scams and ripoffs, you can start to see even the largest banks start to come around a little bit and ease off some of their more questionable practices ... mainly because folks don't have much money these days.
Your idea works in principle ... however, I find that people are often mistaken when we talk about various economic principles and the United States. We talk often of capitalist or free market principles --- which is all well and good ... except the United States is not a free market or capitalist nation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Quote:
needs to be involved is to ensure that not one company maintains a monopoly of a necessary service thereby giving them free reign to do as they wish and the consumer just stuck having to live with it.
Like the government.... 
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,952
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,952 |
Quote:
Regulations are needed..
Agreed - to an extent.
Quote:
anyone who thinks they aren't needn't look any further than the banking industry run amock
Are you talking about the home lending deal? The housing market? If so, please realize what caused that, okay?
Basically, it started when congress came up with the grand idea to EASE the regulations (you know, little things like verifying ability to pay, income, etc).............but it was done because, after all, everyone should be able to own a house, right? Even if you can't afford it - just sign your name, right?
And yes, that came from congress - NOT from the banks.
Congress, or gov't., can try to blame the banks, but the banks were doing what congress told them to do.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
I agree with Diam on this. It's an idyllic thought that if left to it's own whims, the market will look out for itself, it's employees and consumers. Though, the same can be said for a government run system.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
I didn't say that's what we have. I was stating what should be, and would work if the government hadn't been sticking their nose in everybody's business for the longest time.
Sorry I spoke up at all, I forgot you have to explain everything in the finest of detail on here.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,017
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,017 |
There will always be a need for very modest oversight of industry for worker safety, consumer protection, labor laws, etc. However, it should be minimal.
Government supervision and inspection of the BP Deep Horizon drill didn't keep it from exploding into a gigantic mess. BP will pay for their mess, but the government overseers get off scott free. If this is the case, why bother having them at all?
Government should handle only those things that cannot be handled at a state and local level. Interstate highways, for example. Regulating interstate trade. National defense. Large, nationwide things that cannot reasonably be managed on a state by state basis only should fall under federal authority.
You bring up the banking industry ..... and part of that was caused by greed and over-extension of credit. However, a large part of that over-extension of credit was via federal programs that stretched and even violated lending guidelines in order to give more people loans and to be "fair". Instead of having creditworthiness as the primary guiding principle, numbers became the measurement.
There are literally no government programs that do not waste obscene amounts of money. None. National defense wastes money at astronomical levels. However, this is something that only the federal government can handle.
In closing, you asked why let the private sector handle some things when they can be just as crooked? Well, they can be crooked, but there is competition in the private sector, and the private sector believes in making a profit, so they cut as much waste as they can why still providing services that people want to buy.
If I gave a private company $1 million to buy a plane, and also gave the government the same amount of money, the private company could do it .... but the government probably couldn't even get past the planning stage. That's the biggest difference.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,442
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,442 |
Quote:
You bring up the banking industry ..... and part of that was caused by greed and over-extension of credit. However, a large part of that over-extension of credit was via federal programs that stretched and even violated lending guidelines in order to give more people loans and to be "fair". Instead of having creditworthiness as the primary guiding principle, numbers became the measurement.
To further this point, the source of a LOT of the pressures for this risky lending came directly from the Gov't itself. I distinctly recall a speech by Clinton urging the increase of lending to lower income families.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
Quote:
Quote:
You bring up the banking industry ..... and part of that was caused by greed and over-extension of credit. However, a large part of that over-extension of credit was via federal programs that stretched and even violated lending guidelines in order to give more people loans and to be "fair". Instead of having creditworthiness as the primary guiding principle, numbers became the measurement.
To further this point, the source of a LOT of the pressures for this risky lending came directly from the Gov't itself. I distinctly recall a speech by Clinton urging the increase of lending to lower income families.
While I can't dispute that,,, What I will say is that nobody was forced to lend to those that were clearly unable to pay..
My bank, First Merit. Didn't go into the B and C Credit market to make loans.
They had guidelines that required a downpayment, verification of income etc etc. They've had next to nothing in the way of foreclosures to deal with.
Third Federal Savings and Loan.. they have a standard, didn't move from that standard... they got hit harder because they lend to people that are mostly blue collar, work in factories and frankly, lots of those jobs have gone by the wayside..
But it's not just the lending.. it's the value of the homes they are lending money against. First Merit and Third Federal didn't do anything to try and stretch the value so they could lend more money.. they took a very conservative view of the values and thus they didn't have as many people that ended up being Upside Down in thier homes.
So while you are correct and many banks took advantage of loosened credit, some folks held thier ground and stayed thier course and are ok today..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,442
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,442 |
I'm leery of stating it as fact, but I'm fairly certain that institutions that DID bow received incentives.... much as the Federal Gov't gets states to adopt a specific drinking age by threatening to withhold federal highway funds if they don't.
I'm not wanting to state it as fact only because I cannot recall for certain, but my (weak) memory keeps telling me that this was, in fact, part of the cause. There were LOTS of pressures put out by our governmental "leadership" - from the White House to Capitol Hill.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Quote:
While the private sector can be filled with crooks and dishonesty, typically the market will push them out over time. You can only screw over your consumer base for so long before they become the wiser and quit purchasing from you.
Tell that to the folks that Bernie Madoff bilked out of 50 billion...
Regulations are needed.. anyone who thinks they aren't needn't look any further than the banking industry run amock and guys like Madoff, companies like AIG and Washington Mutual as examples of what some folks will do if left to govern themselves.. Or in this case, if the regulations aren't enforced..
So Madoff bilked people for $50 billion? Our federal government just bilked us out of trillions that our children and grandchildren will have to repay, they told us they were going to do it, they did it right before our eyes, and they are PROUD that they did it.... so who is the bigger crook? I would rather support my grandparents that lost their money to Madoff than have my grandchildren on the hook for trillions..
Quote:
Regulations are needed..
Yes they are. Giving away trillions, mandating salaries, mandating bonuses, hiring and firing CEOs... those aren't regulations.
The minute our government decided that through regulations they could keep people from getting hurt, that's when the problem started. Now people expect it.. the government will take care of my retirement if I don't have enough money, the government will take care of my medicare if I don't have insurance, the government will take care of me for 3 months... 9 months.. 2 years.. if I'm out of work, the government will pay to retrain me if my skills are no longer needed, I don't need to read my mortgage contract, banking contract, etc the government is protecting me... Some government regulations are needed but at some point you go from simple logical government protections to a nanny state that regulates everything and thinks they can protect us from everything, including ourselves... and that's where we are now.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
Quote:
I'm leery of stating it as fact, but I'm fairly certain that institutions that DID bow received incentives.... much as the Federal Gov't gets states to adopt a specific drinking age by threatening to withhold federal highway funds if they don't.
I'm not wanting to state it as fact only because I cannot recall for certain, but my (weak) memory keeps telling me that this was, in fact, part of the cause. There were LOTS of pressures put out by our governmental "leadership" - from the White House to Capitol Hill.
You are absolutly right,,, there were incentives.. there was all kinds of funds available from either Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae.. don't remember which to be honest.. that coupled with the chance for vast riches by opening up an brand new market with brand new lending products..
So yeah, there was a huge upside to lending the money to what would be called Sub Prime borrowers. People with dinged credit, no money down, No Doc loans (no document to verify income and capability to repay)..
Then there were large groups of investors that bought these loans.. man did they ever take a hit.. AIG is one of the larger corporations to invest in Sub Prime loans.. so yes,, there was an incentive.. In fact, lots of them.
BUT.. nobody twisted thier arms to take the incentives.. Banks like First Merit didn't fall for that. But Ohio Savings did and they ended up being taken over by a NY Bank. National City Bank didn't fall for that, but they had a division called First Franklin which did and they got killed off in the mess. (I'm not at all certain that didn't have something to do wtih NCB being taken over by PNC)
I was kinda incorrect about Third Federal.. they themselves didn't do sub Prime lending, but they had a division who's name escapes me that did.. they are in trouble. but as of this writing, the thought is they will survive..
Bottom line,, good business people do good business..and they not only survivied, but some are out there picking the bones of those that didn't. those that fell for the trap of a quick buck got killed..
If I tell you,, hey,, I'll give you a million dollars to kill off someone,, you can do it and collect your mill and risk getting caught and end up in Jail.. or you can say no,, and walk away a mill light,, but free..
Your call...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
While the private sector can be filled with crooks and dishonesty, typically the market will push them out over time. You can only screw over your consumer base for so long before they become the wiser and quit purchasing from you.
Tell that to the folks that Bernie Madoff bilked out of 50 billion...
Regulations are needed.. anyone who thinks they aren't needn't look any further than the banking industry run amock and guys like Madoff, companies like AIG and Washington Mutual as examples of what some folks will do if left to govern themselves.. Or in this case, if the regulations aren't enforced..
So Madoff bilked people for $50 billion? Our federal government just bilked us out of trillions that our children and grandchildren will have to repay, they told us they were going to do it, they did it right before our eyes, and they are PROUD that they did it.... so who is the bigger crook? I would rather support my grandparents that lost their money to Madoff than have my grandchildren on the hook for trillions..
I don't remember that being the topic of discussion, but now that you bring it up,, you aren't wrong..
Quote:
Regulations are needed..
Yes they are. Giving away trillions, mandating salaries, mandating bonuses, hiring and firing CEOs... those aren't regulations.
The minute our government decided that through regulations they could keep people from getting hurt, that's when the problem started. Now people expect it.. the government will take care of my retirement if I don't have enough money, the government will take care of my medicare if I don't have insurance, the government will take care of me for 3 months... 9 months.. 2 years.. if I'm out of work, the government will pay to retrain me if my skills are no longer needed, I don't need to read my mortgage contract, banking contract, etc the government is protecting me... Some government regulations are needed but at some point you go from simple logical government protections to a nanny state that regulates everything and thinks they can protect us from everything, including ourselves... and that's where we are now.
I never liked the idea of mandating salaries of top execs.. but what I saw was that many of them were incentified for basically crushing a company.. I mean, anytime a CEO can get 100 million for taking risks that are certain to backfire.. then yeah,, then they should be regulated to some degree.. maybe not so much the salaries, but the rist taking.. JMO,,,
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,442
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,442 |
Quote:
I mean, anytime a CEO can get 100 million for taking risks that are certain to backfire.. then yeah,, then they should be regulated to some degree.. maybe not so much the salaries, but the rist taking..
I understand the sentiment, but I gotta call BS. The Gov't should NEVER be involved in setting salary or pay structures for PRIVATE entities. NEVER.
When it comes to a corporation, that is what the Board of Directors is for.
If the Gov't wants to pass some kind of law stating that employees who lose their livelihood due to a company folding due to it taking massive risks can sue the former leadership for lost wages if while the company tanked, the leadership walks away with tons of cash - I'm Ok with that as that is a check & balance to questionable ethics... but the Gov't has no business whatsoever actually setting compensation. None!
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
Quote:
Quote:
I mean, anytime a CEO can get 100 million for taking risks that are certain to backfire.. then yeah,, then they should be regulated to some degree.. maybe not so much the salaries, but the rist taking..
I understand the sentiment, but I gotta call BS. The Gov't should NEVER be involved in setting salary or pay structures for PRIVATE entities. NEVER.
When it comes to a corporation, that is what the Board of Directors is for.
If the Gov't wants to pass some kind of law stating that employees who lose their livelihood due to a company folding due to it taking massive risks can sue the former leadership for lost wages if while the company tanked, the leadership walks away with tons of cash - I'm Ok with that as that is a check & balance to questionable ethics... but the Gov't has no business whatsoever actually setting compensation. None!
Look at the second half of my comment that you quoted...
"maybe not so much the salaries, but the rist taking"
Obviously I misspelled "Risk" and I maybe should have said "Excessive Risk Taking" instead.. But we are pretty much on the same page..
The problem with relying on the Board of Directors is that they are in the position for major gains.. the probelm is, it's hard for anyone to resist making the money and saying,, to hell with what happens later,, I'll take the money and run now.
If we could rely on the ethics of the those on the Board of Directors, there just wouldn't be a problem.
But I do understand the pressure the Board and all the high level folks are under. Shareholders want ROI.. and shareholders aren't always the most understand folks.. so I get the pressure to produce profits.. But somewhere along the line, people have to get sensible.. not sure that will ever happen...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
Quote:
Quote:
I mean, anytime a CEO can get 100 million for taking risks that are certain to backfire.. then yeah,, then they should be regulated to some degree.. maybe not so much the salaries, but the rist taking..
I understand the sentiment, but I gotta call BS. The Gov't should NEVER be involved in setting salary or pay structures for PRIVATE entities. NEVER.
When it comes to a corporation, that is what the Board of Directors is for.
If the Gov't wants to pass some kind of law stating that employees who lose their livelihood due to a company folding due to it taking massive risks can sue the former leadership for lost wages if while the company tanked, the leadership walks away with tons of cash - I'm Ok with that as that is a check & balance to questionable ethics... but the Gov't has no business whatsoever actually setting compensation. None!
Look at the second half of my comment which you quoted...
"maybe not so much the salaries, but the rist taking"
Obviously I mispelled "Risk" and I maybe should have said "Excessive Risk Taking" instead.. But we are pretty much on the same page..
The problem with relying on the Board of Directors is that they are in the same position for major personal gains.. and the problem with that is, it's hard for anyone to resist making that kinda money and not say to hell with what happens later,, I'll take the money and run now.
Those same directors are many times the very people that approve the Golden Parachute deals that execs get.. complete with incentive clauses that almost promote excessive risk taking..
If we could rely on the ethics of the those on the Board of Directors, there just wouldn't be a problem. But it seems that Business ethics have taken a back seat to profits..
But I do understand the pressure the Board and all the high level folks are under. Shareholders want ROI.. and shareholders aren't always the most understanding folks when they don't' get what they want.. so I get the pressure to produce profits.. But somewhere along the line, people have to get senisible.. not sure that will ever happen... not even sure if there is a way to cause it to happen outside of making the cost of doing bad business greater than the cost of doing things right...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,017
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,017 |
Risk is what makes this country go.
Risk expanded this country from being a British Colony to a fledgling country.
Risk takes a wage slave from weekly paycheck to owning his/her own business.
Risk brings computer technology advances.
Risk brings other incredible technological advances.
Risk also gets us dates .... spouses ....... and the list goes on and on .......
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Daman, a lot of good points in this thread... see, I'm with ytown in that risk is one of the big things that has made us what we are.. some would have called it, at the time, excessive risk. I also agree with prpl in that I'm not in favor of the government EVER regulating salaries of private companies... But here is where I agree with you... there is something drastically wrong at the top of corporations.... A CEO should be accountable to the BoDs, the shareholders, etc... but if I've got a contract written in such a way that... I'll give you an example... if I can take a huge risk and succeed and make.. say $50 million... but if I take the huge risk and fail and possibly get fired, but I still get to walk away with... say $20 million... where is the risk for me? I'm out of work? HAHAHA.. I was already a millionaire and now I have $20 million more AND I still have high ranking friends who will give me a job as a VP making $3 million a year... The risk is all on YOU the shareholder.. I'm making at least $20 million one way or the other.. meanwhile you could see your retirement get slashed... disclaimer.. this is all assuming that the risk I'm taking is LEGAL..  So I agree with you, there seems to be a disconnect between CEO level management of huge corporations and shareholders/customers.... that wasn't really there before, back when corporations were smaller and more "personal"... The thing I struggle with is.. what am I comfortable doing about it?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,442
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,442 |
Quote:
The thing I struggle with is.. what am I comfortable doing about it?
I believe that the answer should be: Nothing.
What is stipulated in the contract of a CEO isn't any of our business whatsoever, unless we happen to be a shareholder.
The BoD of the corporations hire these guys, they negotiate and agree to these contracts.... you want change? Invest in companies that do it right. Don't buy stock in the other ones.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
I believe that the answer should be: Nothing.
What is stipulated in the contract of a CEO isn't any of our business whatsoever, unless we happen to be a shareholder.
The BoD of the corporations hire these guys, they negotiate and agree to these contracts.... you want change? Invest in companies that do it right. Don't buy stock in the other ones.
Prpl, in theory I absolutely agree with you. Have you ever read a CEO's contract? I assume you own stock.. I want to invest in companies that do it right.. up until a few years ago I would have assumed that most banks WERE doing it right or at least attempting to. I have neither the time nor the desire to track down and read a host of CEO contracts to see who is doing it right.. I doubt they are public record anyway.. and unless I already owned a considerable amount of the stock, I doubt I could even get my hands on it... hell I'm not a contract attorney, I probably wouldn't know what I was reading anyway.
That is my point.. that is the disconnect. I'm a small time investor by big corporations standards, I want to do it right and invest in companies that accept some reasonable amount of risk, reward their executives for success instead of failure, and do what is in the best interest of the shareholders, customers, environment, etc... now how on God's green earth am I going to find these companies while still doing my own job?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,442
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,442 |
Well, I was thinking more of the Enron's of the world when I wrote that, but your point is valid, there is no way to know that type of information.
Either way, it doesn't change that it isn't anyone's business; and certainly not the Gov'ts. If the Boards of these corporations want to pay these guys those types of contracts, that's their prerogative to do so - it is THEIR company to do that with.
I can agree with the Govt' imposing a consequence for irresponsible actions as I stated above, but I could absolutely never go along with their direct interference in a compensation structure.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,860
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,860 |
Quote:
Personally, I believe that the biggest problem with government is the belief that government can and should do everything.
I think that all other problems stem from this belief.
Government doing and spending too much leads to debt.
Government giving away goodies to corporate (and other) special interests.
Government trying to manage the economy, which really results in massive spending .... and more goodies given away to special interests.
Government trying to manage something as massive as healthcare, despite them screwing the pooch on every other single social program.
Government trying to control education, (and too much influence by the education unions) and not enough by parents/local authorities.
Government using social policy to try and "equalize" for results rather than leveling the playing field.
So .... I can see your points here. Would you agree that most of your points directly lead back to the government doing (and spending) more than it was ever intended to.
In word, yes.
What I see is an institution that has become overly complex, and everyones answer to every issue of the day, while the historically important aspects of government are virtually ignored. The moment any crisis hits, someone screams at the government for an immediate answer.
We have become encumbered by our own ability to postulate plausible scenarios to move government in a direction that will allow some to make and take money that is objectionable to most rational people or unobjective scrutiny. (e.g capital gains tax and trickle down economics)
To draw on an examples, Lincoln when he was in Illinois fought long and hard to get a canal built to help commerce. It was eventually done and served its purpose. We built the great dams of the 1930's to provide work and electricity to the west, although there was no immediate use of the electricity. But WWII was won, partially because we could make more aluminium that the Germans and Japanese, because we had the electrical power to convert the ore into finished product.
I see the government a pie being nicked and carved into a many small pieces, which serve the needs of the special interests. So in order to do what it needs, it becomes three times as large to accomdate those who have taken their piece.
We have a tax code with so many rebates, exceptions, exclusions and exemptions that it has become inequitable. So rather than raise a tax or eliminate an exclusion, we add more rebates, exemption and exclusions, rather than fixing the problems that occur. Many corporations do not pay their fair share of taxes, because they have sucessfully gamed the system.
Corporations can spend money on lobbiest to get what they want, including the right of personhood, which is disgusting and will inevitably cause greater problems. Very few lawmakers understand what they are voting for as it is readily acknowledged that bills are written by corporations and special interest groups. California energy deregulation and the financial meltdown were structured by corporations to make a very few rich, and greed took over, leaving taxpayers with the bill. Cap and trade is a scenario that will make brokerage houses rich, because no one will choose the simple route of saying.. We need a tax on oil to raise money to build renewable energy. Raising the gas tax has not occured since 1994, and roads continue to need repair.
There are some things that government can do well. Social Security and Medicare are good concepts because many people won't save for retirement. But there are many who still fight the concept, and decry the existence of any social program while advocating a reduced capital gains tax because they are "the economic engine"
Regulations have gone beyond the needs of saftey, to inform, and to stop greed, and are becoming a form of social engineering. This is a turn for the worse.
I laughed hard when I heard that insurance companies could not deliver healthcare at the same price as the government because their boggled down by thier desire to maximize profit by creating a stucture to make paments, deny claims, and to pay profit. Since when has a corporation ever admitted that it is less efficient than a government?
My issue with conservatives is that they fail to recognize that they are an individual within a large complex society who would do away with many of the good things, and my issues with liberals are that they feel there is nothing that government can't do just by adding something else, than taking on the job of fixing what is already in place.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!…. That did not age well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,317
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,317 |
Quote:
If the Gov't wants to pass some kind of law stating that employees who lose their livelihood due to a company folding due to it taking massive risks can sue the former leadership for lost wages if while the company tanked, the leadership walks away with tons of cash - I'm Ok with that as that is a check & balance to questionable ethics... but the Gov't has no business whatsoever actually setting compensation. None!
I agree with what you said 100% and wouldn't mind seeing that happen.
"All I know is, as long as I led the Southeastern Conference in scoring, my grades would be fine." - Charles Barkley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,138
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,138 |
Quote:
I get talked about a lot by the hardcore RWers on this message board and that is fine too.
It's not so much talked about then it is laughed at.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
Quote:
Risk is what makes this country go.
Risk expanded this country from being a British Colony to a fledgling country.
Risk takes a wage slave from weekly paycheck to owning his/her own business.
Risk brings computer technology advances.
Risk brings other incredible technological advances.
Risk also gets us dates .... spouses ....... and the list goes on and on .......
The difference is I'm not talking about Simple Risk..I'm talking about excessive risk,, the kinda risk that says,, hey, let's stick a bunch of our investors money in a product like Sub Prime Home loans.
I understand risk more than some of you. I didn't have great wealth, but yet, I decided at 53 years old to leave a perfectly good job with a the title of VP, car allowance, paid benefits, matching 401(k), decent 6 figure salary and no back office headaches.. I left that behind to start a business.
There is both good and bad news in the result.. for the following 4 years, I earned way more money than I ever imagined I would, was able to sock away a tidy sum for retirement and was able to pay for my own benefits, car and even bought a little sports car to play with..
The bad news is, I'm eating away at that savings and working harder than I ever had to before just to survive this economic downturn.
So please Ytown,, and to a degree, you too DC,, don't assume I don't understand risk and reward. I do,, more than you realize.
Last edited by Damanshot; 06/30/10 06:05 AM.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
Quote:
Daman, a lot of good points in this thread... see, I'm with ytown in that risk is one of the big things that has made us what we are.. some would have called it, at the time, excessive risk.
I also agree with prpl in that I'm not in favor of the government EVER regulating salaries of private companies...
But here is where I agree with you... there is something drastically wrong at the top of corporations.... A CEO should be accountable to the BoDs, the shareholders, etc... but if I've got a contract written in such a way that... I'll give you an example... if I can take a huge risk and succeed and make.. say $50 million... but if I take the huge risk and fail and possibly get fired, but I still get to walk away with... say $20 million... where is the risk for me? I'm out of work? HAHAHA.. I was already a millionaire and now I have $20 million more AND I still have high ranking friends who will give me a job as a VP making $3 million a year... The risk is all on YOU the shareholder.. I'm making at least $20 million one way or the other.. meanwhile you could see your retirement get slashed...
disclaimer.. this is all assuming that the risk I'm taking is LEGAL..
So I agree with you, there seems to be a disconnect between CEO level management of huge corporations and shareholders/customers.... that wasn't really there before, back when corporations were smaller and more "personal"...
The thing I struggle with is.. what am I comfortable doing about it?
Yes, you have hit it just like I was thinking., once a BoD puts something in a contract for a CEO that allows them to earn a pot of gold with or without success, it's game over for the average investor..
the part about assuming that the risks are legal,, there is another rub.. I wonder what folks that set up our banking and investment systems would think of those that manipulate the system to such a degree that it hurts the very folks that make it possible.
I think of things like Enron and Leyman Bros as perfect examples of things gone wrong.. (enron of course were some weenies at the top actually breaking existing laws so that's somewhat different)
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Good post, I agree with most of it. Quote:
There are some things that government can do well. Social Security and Medicare are good concepts because many people won't save for retirement. But there are many who still fight the concept, and decry the existence of any social program while advocating a reduced capital gains tax because they are "the economic engine"
Here is were we differ a little, not so much in concept but in implementation. Social Security and Medicare are good concepts as you said, but like any government program they are poorly managed, controlled, easily abused and manipulated. What's the answer? I'm not sure, but so far they haven't found it. Maybe stiffening the penalties for fraud and carrying them out. I have read of many cases of SS fraud where the suspect gets off with some fines (and sadly less than what they had collected through fraud for years).
I mean if I could rob a bank, and if I got caught the only thing I would have to do is return half the money I stole, the only thing stopping me from robbing again is my morals and values, which if I robbed the bank in the first place I apparently don't have any.
I can appreciate the idea of the social programs to assist those in need, and I acknowledge there are people with legitimate need for the assistance. I just think the current programs need a lot of work and some better control measures. And once a program and budget has been set, it should be a federal crime for politicians to take from that coffer to fill others.
Until we can stop lobbyists, and special interest groups from influencing decisions, and make politicians accountable, and send a message that they can not make a career out of manipulating the public, we will never see a damn thing change.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
You hit on a lot of things... Quote:
We have a tax code with so many rebates, exceptions, exclusions and exemptions that it has become inequitable.
It is not that it has become inequitable that bothers me.. it is that it has become non-understandable that bothers me.
Quote:
Raising the gas tax has not occured since 1994, and roads continue to need repair.
How much is the gas tax? I assume you are talking about the federal gas tax. States most certainly have raised (and lowered) the gas tax and states are responsible for the majority of their own road and bridges.
Quote:
There are some things that government can do well. Social Security and Medicare are good concepts because many people won't save for retirement. But there are many who still fight the concept, and decry the existence of any social program while advocating a reduced capital gains tax because they are "the economic engine"
Nobody decrys the existence of ANY social program. I only decry the existence of the bloated, poorly managed, ineffective ones that create dependency disguised as a safety net.
Quote:
I laughed hard when I heard that insurance companies could not deliver healthcare at the same price as the government because their boggled down by thier desire to maximize profit by creating a stucture to make paments, deny claims, and to pay profit. Since when has a corporation ever admitted that it is less efficient than a government?
I think you misread it. I'm pretty sure when the insurance companies said they couldn't deliver healthcare at the same cost as the government, the bottom line was because the government will be able to do it at a loss.. and insurance companies cannot. I don't think it had anything to do with them being less efficient.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Why I use the term "dumbocrat"
|
|
