In a few examples, sure. But I could aslo dig up examples where a shitty company got an awesome CEO, and the worth of the company was multiplied 1000x in a few short years.
In those cases the CEO was drastically undercompensated. But you dont see the shareholders complaining then. Or congress stepping and making things
"fair" for all parties.
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
Do most people think that they are WAAAAAY overpaid for what they do sometimes? Yes.
That being said, this comparison to CEOs is not valid. Actors/atheletes are not critical to how our economy functions as a whole. They do not have the power, influence, etc. that the corporate guys do. It affects the rest of us much more...
yllus
-I never imagined you thought that no problem existed, you know the symptoms of the problem- what I was telling you about was the cause.....I'll save the sarcasm for 2010.
And the problems about understanding capitalism are simple- there is no capitalist manifesto!
but the communist one is quite simple and here it is for those whom care to read it-
maybe its like a jew thats reads the kuran for you?
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/m...cs/manifesto.html#c1r3
After you read it- if you read it- you will understand a real marxist communism has never ever been used anywhere in the world......ol'Yosip come and snatched it as the baby was being delivered, and thats why it can never be achieved thru violent means(get it in your head red under the bed!). It will eventually evolve, once the word equality is comprehended in its entirety.
Maybe when a Hispanic woman is the president elect??? Maybe when all creeds have lost their generic???
-I never imagined you thought that no problem existed, you know the symptoms of the problem- what I was telling you about was the cause.....I'll save the sarcasm for 2010.
And the problems about understanding capitalism are simple- there is no capitalist manifesto!
but the communist one is quite simple and here it is for those whom care to read it-
maybe its like a jew thats reads the kuran for you?
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/m...cs/manifesto.html#c1r3
After you read it- if you read it- you will understand a real marxist communism has never ever been used anywhere in the world......ol'Yosip come and snatched it as the baby was being delivered, and thats why it can never be achieved thru violent means(get it in your head red under the bed!). It will eventually evolve, once the word equality is comprehended in its entirety.
Maybe when a Hispanic woman is the president elect??? Maybe when all creeds have lost their generic???
Sigh, do you always form your world-view based on terms you read in a dictionary?
Yes, elements of Capitalism have always existed in humanity. Elements. Just like elements of Socialism have have existed. Elements. Neither Capitalism nor Socialism can be simply defined as private or public ownership. Until you actually investigate Capital and Capitalist modes of production and understand why this is impossible without some measure of capital, you can understand why Capitalism is impossible before the invention of currency (be it commodity, fiat, or intermediate). Hence, Capitalism is impossible before the invention of currency, or while humans operated in a natural economy.
I don't delve into black markets enough to describe them. I don't because I operate in a mixed economy which provides me with the goods I need without resorting to a black market (and I'm drug free).
History, of course, disagrees with you. Particularly the trade leagues of cities in medieval Europe most closely resembles the type of Capitalism you describe. Little intervention and free markets. These organizations LOST. In evolutionary terms, they were selected for annihilation at the hands of the more powerful Westphalian nation-state. The nation-state offered those things required for modern Capitalism to flourish. Learn your history. Evolution and natural selection is the pinnacle of naturalism in my opinion.
This is correct in a sense. However, this style of Laissez-faire Capitalism lost to more mixed economies. In this sense, it was a failure. The mixed economy actually provided lower trade barriers and stronger property rights. Mixed economy Capitalism proved to be the better selection, the one that arises naturally. The city states and trade leagues of Europe weren't hit by asteroids, they were overtaken in wealth and power by the mixed economies of France and England. And it was these modern states that really saw the growth of modern Capitalism starting with Mercantilism.
I can see you don't read much.
Although history has proven this false. And if we're going to use simplistic definitions:
You assume Capitalism exists in a vacuum. If Capitalism is the "natural economy," why did it always so quickly devolve into empire nearly everywhere? Nations where the King was a God and every item belonged to this person. Why did the barter economy in Europe devolve into Feudalism? Early markets and private ownership goes nowhere without a strong state to enforce and legalize these rights. Modern Capitalism only really "takes off" after the Peace of Westphalia.
Wealth today is different than the wealth I had yesterday. It has different value.
Growth of wealth usually implies inflation. If the pie grew at 3% (and inflation was around the same mark) and 90% of people only saw a 1% increase in wealth, then 90% of people are now poorer.
I'm not jealous of things people own, in fact that's rather superfluous to me. What you and other pure market Capitalists seem to forget is that money buys more than commodities. It buys power. It buys freedom. It buys influence. Why do you think those bartering economies transform into Feudalism and Empire? The accumulation of wealth in few hands inevitably leads to those hands wanting to rule. It is supposed to be the state that protects this from happening today.
So everyone who is wealthy is hard working and everyone who is poor just does enough to get by?
I suggest your start reading into class mobility. You can simply begin here before you start diving into academia.
I do not have a problem with your example, nor would I consider it a crime. Wealth inequality does not bother me. Massive wealth inequality bothers me. This is what inevitably leads to aristocracy. This is what leads to Feudalism. Money does not simply buy TVs, yachts, and vacations. It buys power.
Spoken like someone who doesn't have the knowledge of Capitalism or the history of the state and Capitalism to make a real argument. You must be right because you understand the "principles," correct? Actually, I'm not sure of any academic that shares my exact viewpoints. I'm correcting your account of history, namely the history of Capitalism. I'm basing my knowledge from the readings of people who actually defined (and refined) the word.
Wealth is not static, but wealth can still be concentrated in a non-static environment. This is not difficult to comprehend. You can start with some simple stuff here. I expect you won't read it but at least I can try to enlighten you.
What does that mean exactly? It is an economic construct invented by mankind.
I'd like to see some examples of that. We can give you countless examples of overly compensated useless CEO, but I really want to see CEOs that have been under-compensated, as you describe. Keep in mind that, CEOs do not stick with one company for rest of their career. Think about that when you're looking for these "undercompensated and awesome" CEO.
I think this thread has really been derailed to "Socialism vs Capitalism" debate instead of the CEO compensation cap. Personally, I'd like to see CEO salary (cash) to be capped at most 50x the amount of average employee. That would still give CEOs lower 7-digit figures, so they can live comfortably. I'd also like to see vested shares / options be dated longer. Tie their options for at least 5-years just so they can't cash out with idiotic short-term strategy that has been causing the disservice to shareholders and public. The idea is to create more transparency and de-incentivetize the "quick buck" mindset of current executives.
Again, I'm really looking forward to having more of THIS kind of executive.
http://www.gadling.com/2008/12...eats-at-the-cafeteria/
It's a great example of moderated compensation, and hint of personal ethics. Minds like yours should take in some of these wise lessons.
Have you ever noticed that when you garden and throw plants and weeds in a can that some snails manage to crawl to the top of the can and get out?
Capitalism depends on competition and competition is hate. Capitalism fortifies and rewards our worst instincts. It is based on a disease, self hate and the joy self haters feel in beating others. The psychopath CEO doesn't play for money, he plays to be the best paid in comparison to others. It is being better at the meaningless that rings his bells. He is worshiped by other self haters as the best they also hope to be. Millions of sick have as their aim the goal of being sicker.
There are a million paths in life and they all lead nowhere. Chose a path that leads to life, a path with heart, those of you still alive enough to have ears. Wasn't it a wise man like Bertram Russel who said at the end of his life that he wished he had loved more?
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
What do you mean by communism? How so?
read the manifesto.
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/m...cs/manifesto.html#c1r3
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
Yes the japs are nationalist socialists, even that works better then current US Capitalist system- Hell they out sold you in your own country in the auto industry, as proof!
Hell i'd take a lexus over a Chrysler made benz anyday. But i ride a pushbike!
The US of A is on the right track.... its just got to use the print, not the negative; as the current system stands.
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
Originally posted by: gingermeggs
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
What do you mean by communism? How so?
read the manifesto.
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/m...cs/manifesto.html#c1r3
I'm trying to ascertain whether you are making the direct link between communism and what the OP is discussing. How does it apply? I ask this only because many people make the mistake of calling policies that don't fall under strick laissez-faire capitalism, communist, which is incorrect.
There is, of course, only one way to police anything and it is when the police are your own developed and mature conscience, a conscience untainted by ego. Every real person, every person who has retrieved contact with his true self knows there is no joy, no reward, no pleasure greater than one's own virtue, that the true soul of man finds joy only in surrender, the doing unto others as true love provides for the self. Real justice is a product of being real. Laws and regulations only imitate it. We imitate as best we can, us ignorant fools caught up in our egos. I can judge between Joe and Bob if Joe and Bob are equally unrelated to me, but I can't judge between them if Joe is my brother or I am Bob except of course, if I have transcended being Bob.
yes it is a direct link as communism definitely puts "A cap on executive compensation for corporations"
It removes the monetary motive from CEO, which is the Op's bitch(or maybe he was trolling?)
And the republican party is good at living up to this the opening part of the manifesto- even though the dems are centralist at the moment, still their far from being leftist.
here is that opening part below, which is kind of a statement of fact in a question;
Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?
theeedude
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2006
- 35,787
- 6,197
- 126
We did not have this problem until we made taxation less progressive under Reagan. This of course encourages more payouts on top, since they are taxed less than before. Before these huge salaries didn't make much sense, because most of it went to government anyways due to high top income tax rate.
lets name the player here-
Where is the party in opposition*dems* that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power*pubs*?
Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism*pubs*, against the more advanced opposition parties*dems*, as well as against its reactionary adversaries*pubs, in house factions*?
Where is the party in opposition*dems* that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power*pubs*?
Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism*pubs*, against the more advanced opposition parties*dems*, as well as against its reactionary adversaries*pubs, in house factions*?
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
Communism will do that, but that doesn't necessarily imply that such a policy is necessarily communist. Besides, the OP proposes a cap for ceo pay that is not absolute. It does not remove the monetary incentive for the CEO. Every CEO wants to increase his/her pay. With this policy in place, it will introduce an incentive to increase the workers' pay in addition so that he can fulfill his own personal ambition of more pay. If the company can't afford to do so, then said CEO has the incentive to do a better job so that the company can do just that. It only serves to make pay more accountable to productivity/profitability.
404 Communism not found.
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
Calling an apple an orange does not make it so. The Republicans calling the Democrats *communist* is nothing more than FUD for the most part due to residual feelings from the cold war. The Dems' policies can be slightly more beneficial to the Communist cause, but that doesn't amount to much. Just ask the actual communists and socialists here in the US. They do exist.
This is how you fix it, not by setting a hard limit. I also would not mind seeing some form of escrow or something for bonuses so we can see 5-10 years later if the executive was actually helping the company or if he/she was just cooking the books or crippling it for short-term gains.
Specop 007
Diamond Member
- Jan 31, 2005
- 9,454
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
The issue would be that the most qualified executives would then leave the companies that cap the salaries and instead go to companies that choose not to cap the salaries, leaving capped companies at a disadvantage.
Or are you suggesting this be done via legislation so it applies equally to all companies? In that case qualified executives are more likely to go into consulting and speaking positions and make several times the money they would make as an exec, leaving the companies with less-competent leadership.
In theory I'd be all for letting the engineers and non-MBA project managers of the world run the companies.
Now if you want to talk about changing investment banking and requiring THEM to use real money, I'm all over it!
What disadvatnage??
The prevailing believe is that a company simply must offer top dollar to get the best, and that the best is some ultra exclusive limited pool of candidates. Thats simply not true. In fact I would venture to say you could find just as knowledgable candidates at 5 million a year as you could at 500 million a year. The difference really is your candidate pool is vastly larger so it would be more difficult to separate the chaff from the wheat so to speak.
Do I believe in compensation caps? Well.....I hate to say yes because I am a die hard capitalist but....Yes. There should be a cap. In past few years have shown theres very little correlation between the performance of a company and the compensation of the CEO however there is a very clear causation of poor CEO performance and poor company performance.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter