Obama doesn't want you to succeed

[ElFenix]

how is supporting a non-binding vote of shareholders doing more than mccain?

nevermind the fact that shareholders mostly vote by buying/selling shares.




though, i will say that CEO pay for the fortune 500 CEOs has little to do with capitalism and a whole lot to do with cronyism.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: JS80
It's a pretty crappy process right now but allowing shareholders to vote on it will make it worse and will probably be a distraction.

Any legislation will be feel good and will do nothing. I can't really think of a more efficient way to determine executive compensation though.

Rewarding good LONG TERM performance and punish bad LONG TERM performance would be a good start. You would have thought this is the way things should have been all along. But it's almost like there's an incentive to tank companies when you have these ridiculous golden parachute contracts.

I remember doing a case study on CEO compensation packages where pay was tied to performance (and less pay for bad performance). Basically the CEO was a do nothing CEO and acted conservatively and never took risks. However CEOs with packages that awarded performance but did not get penalized for bad performance, their companies ourperformed the other ones.

I don't think small shareholders should have any say anyway. Being a shareholder should be a privilege not a right. Democracy in it's raw form always turns into socialism. Democracy in corporate affairs does not work will not work and should not be forced.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
how is supporting a non-binding vote of shareholders doing more than mccain?

nevermind the fact that shareholders mostly vote by buying/selling shares.




though, i will say that CEO pay for the fortune 500 CEOs has little to do with capitalism and a whole lot to do with cronyism.

Who knows this is all part of the aura of Obama. The only thing he can do wrong is not walk on water to his supporters. Though I am sure many will make the case he can under certain situations.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ElFenix
how is supporting a non-binding vote of shareholders doing more than mccain?

nevermind the fact that shareholders mostly vote by buying/selling shares.




though, i will say that CEO pay for the fortune 500 CEOs has little to do with capitalism and a whole lot to do with cronyism.

Who knows this is all part of the aura of Obama. The only thing he can do wrong is not walk on water to his supporters. Though I am sure many will make the case he can under certain situations.

Oh FFS :roll:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: JS80
It's a pretty crappy process right now but allowing shareholders to vote on it will make it worse and will probably be a distraction.

Any legislation will be feel good and will do nothing. I can't really think of a more efficient way to determine executive compensation though.

Rewarding good LONG TERM performance and punish bad LONG TERM performance would be a good start. You would have thought this is the way things should have been all along. But it's almost like there's an incentive to tank companies when you have these ridiculous golden parachute contracts.

I remember doing a case study on CEO compensation packages where pay was tied to performance (and less pay for bad performance). Basically the CEO was a do nothing CEO and acted conservatively and never took risks. However CEOs with packages that awarded performance but did not get penalized for bad performance, their companies ourperformed the other ones.

I don't think small shareholders should have any say anyway. Being a shareholder should be a privilege not a right. Democracy in it's raw form always turns into socialism. Democracy in corporate affairs does not work will not work and should not be forced.

Democracy in its raw form is socialism just as much as our current economic system (and/or the system you support) is representative of a true capitalism. That is, not at all.

Being a shareholder establishes a right. A share is a piece of property in a corporation that brings with it certain legal rights and privileges. You basically just argued against the sanctity and rights of private property while decrying socialism in the same breath. You did the same while arguing against corporate executive accountability and thinking that that is capitalism.
How your head does not explode, the world wonders...

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: JS80
It's a pretty crappy process right now but allowing shareholders to vote on it will make it worse and will probably be a distraction.

Any legislation will be feel good and will do nothing. I can't really think of a more efficient way to determine executive compensation though.

Rewarding good LONG TERM performance and punish bad LONG TERM performance would be a good start. You would have thought this is the way things should have been all along. But it's almost like there's an incentive to tank companies when you have these ridiculous golden parachute contracts.

I remember doing a case study on CEO compensation packages where pay was tied to performance (and less pay for bad performance). Basically the CEO was a do nothing CEO and acted conservatively and never took risks. However CEOs with packages that awarded performance but did not get penalized for bad performance, their companies ourperformed the other ones.

I don't think small shareholders should have any say anyway. Being a shareholder should be a privilege not a right. Democracy in it's raw form always turns into socialism. Democracy in corporate affairs does not work will not work and should not be forced.

Democracy in its raw form is socialism just as much as our current economic system (and/or the system you support) is representative of a true capitalism. That is, not at all.

Being a shareholder establishes a right. A share is a piece of property in a corporation that brings with it certain legal rights and privileges. You basically just argued against the sanctity and rights of private property while decrying socialism in the same breath. You did the same while arguing against corporate executive accountability and thinking that that is capitalism.
How your head does not explode, the world wonders...

I understand that within the corporation it is not capitalism. A share is a right to receive the economic benefits of the corporation, it does not entitle the right to management of the company. Setting executive pay is the responsibility of the board and management NOT the shareholders. The shareholders have no right in that regard.

Being a shareholder is a privilege. Sell if you are not happy.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ElFenix
how is supporting a non-binding vote of shareholders doing more than mccain?

nevermind the fact that shareholders mostly vote by buying/selling shares.




though, i will say that CEO pay for the fortune 500 CEOs has little to do with capitalism and a whole lot to do with cronyism.

Who knows this is all part of the aura of Obama. The only thing he can do wrong is not walk on water to his supporters. Though I am sure many will make the case he can under certain situations.

Pretty much.

http://videos.newsobserver.com...hp?a=player&id=1816319

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: JS80
=snip-
I understand that within the corporation it is not capitalism. A share is a right to receive the economic benefits of the corporation, it does not entitle the right to management of the company. Setting executive pay is the responsibility of the board and management NOT the shareholders. The shareholders have no right in that regard.

Being a shareholder is a privilege. Sell if you are not happy.

There are many types of shares, each having different rights or attributes.

Regular voting common stock does entitle one to management rights. Ever heard of hostile takeovers, proxy wars etc? You get enough voting common stock and you control management.

Yeah, just sell it if you don't like it.

Fern

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: JS80
=snip-
I understand that within the corporation it is not capitalism. A share is a right to receive the economic benefits of the corporation, it does not entitle the right to management of the company. Setting executive pay is the responsibility of the board and management NOT the shareholders. The shareholders have no right in that regard.

Being a shareholder is a privilege. Sell if you are not happy.

There are many types of shares, each having different rights or attributes.

Regular voting common stock does entitle one to management rights. Ever heard of hostile takeovers, proxy wars etc? You get enough voting common stock and you control management.

Yeah, just sell it if you don't like it.

Fern

I was talking about managing the company, not the right to choosing the management team. A shareholder has no right on how management should run the company. If they are unhappy with the management team, yes you can start a proxy fight to replace the board and management.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JS80
I understand that within the corporation it is not capitalism. A share is a right to receive the economic benefits of the corporation, it does not entitle the right to management of the company. Setting executive pay is the responsibility of the board and management NOT the shareholders. The shareholders have no right in that regard.

Being a shareholder is a privilege. Sell if you are not happy.

Sure... let's all sell and see where corporate America ends up. Your platitudes sound pretty, but they have no basis in reality. If corporate management in America does not want to hold themselves accountable to their shareholders (and to a larger extent, the customers they serve) then those parties will call upon government to enforce that accountability. That is NOT socialism.
For one thing, being a government-created entity with special legal rights and privileges, a corporation is only representative of capitalism is the loosest sense of that word.
For another, it would only be the protection of the property rights which the shareholders purchased in the first place, making government action in that regard no more "socialism" than it would be "socialism" if the courts got involved in a property dispute or if the police went after a thief.

Why is this so hard for you talk radio nuts to figure out? You're so busy arguing with a few real socialists, I guess, that you can't seem to remember what real capitalism looks like. Here's a hint: government is constantly involved in real capitalism, namely in protection of your lawful property rights. Or your property can be stolen just as easily with a pen as it can with a gun. Why is it that you label as "socialism" any efforts to prevent the former?

 

[Rainsford]

Well it seems to me that in a capitalist system you are rewarded based on your added value to the market as a whole. CEO pay has risen orders of magnitude faster than pay for the average worker, and this holds true even if they do a completely terrible job and end up costing their company billions of dollars. Nothing about that situation sounds even remotely "capitalist" to me.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JS80
I understand that within the corporation it is not capitalism. A share is a right to receive the economic benefits of the corporation, it does not entitle the right to management of the company. Setting executive pay is the responsibility of the board and management NOT the shareholders. The shareholders have no right in that regard.

Being a shareholder is a privilege. Sell if you are not happy.

Sure... let's all sell and see where corporate America ends up. Your platitudes sound pretty, but they have no basis in reality. If corporate management in America does not want to hold themselves accountable to their shareholders (and to a larger extent, the customers they serve) then those parties will call upon government to enforce that accountability. That is NOT socialism.
For one thing, being a government-created entity with special legal rights and privileges, a corporation is only representative of capitalism is the loosest sense of that word.
For another, it would only be the protection of the property rights which the shareholders purchased in the first place, making government action in that regard no more "socialism" than it would be "socialism" if the courts got involved in a property dispute or if the police went after a thief.

Why is this so hard for you talk radio nuts to figure out? You're so busy arguing with a few real socialists, I guess, that you can't seem to remember what real capitalism looks like. Here's a hint: government is constantly involved in real capitalism, namely in protection of your lawful property rights. Or your property can be stolen just as easily with a pen as it can with a gun. Why is it that you label as "socialism" any efforts to prevent the former?

OK what if you end up having corporate shareholder democracy and 51% of the shareholders vote to pillage the corporation and vote themselves dividends and parties and private jet rides? Is that just?

What does eminent domain have to do with corporate governance? What do you think Obama's plan for executive pay is going to accomplish? There is already visibility in executive pay, and look what it's causing - a bunch of class envy. Corporate management has every right to pay themselves high market salaries.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Well it seems to me that in a capitalist system you are rewarded based on your added value to the market as a whole. CEO pay has risen orders of magnitude faster than pay for the average worker, and this holds true even if they do a completely terrible job and end up costing their company billions of dollars. Nothing about that situation sounds even remotely "capitalist" to me.

The fact is that CEO pay packages that penalizes for underperformance gives a huge deterrent to risk taking and corporate growth is slower.

This board has a bunch of fucking backseat CEOs who have no idea what the hell they are talking about. A bunch of envious little shits who don't have the balls to go make something out of themselves and try to keep others miserable with them.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JS80
OK what if you end up having corporate shareholder democracy and 51% of the shareholders vote to pillage the corporation and vote themselves dividends and parties and private jet rides? Is that just?

What does eminent domain have to do with corporate governance? What do you think Obama's plan for executive pay is going to accomplish? There is already visibility in executive pay, and look what it's causing - a bunch of class envy. Corporate management has every right to pay themselves high market salaries.

Uh... get back to me when you decide to address my arguments, eh? Pulling left field out of your ass might work for the talk show talking heads, but not on me. What I'm arguing is that the shareholders of a company being pillaged by management should have the right to express their outrage. Class envy got sh!t to do with some CEO flying off on a golden parachute with the shareholders left holding the bag. And don't give me that class envy shit anyway. Poor people aren't corporate shareholders.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
Other than wasting time and effort, what's the benefit of having a non-binding vote?

It draws attention to a subject and raises the level of knowledge people have about their rights and responsibilities. This thread is pretty good evidence as to the benefit of it.

That makes no sense. The subject has plenty of attention - who doesn't know about the incestual nature of boards of directors or the massive golden parachutes that craptastic CEOs and other executives have? Who has stock in companies, yet doesn't receive information about how to vote on company issues?

Sounds like grandstanding to me.

And McCain hasn't been grandstanding himself on this issue?

And read the article before you chide me on bringing McCain into the discussion, because this very question is in fact what the OP's article is actually about. McCain's been blowing hot air about CEO compensation with no walk to back his talk, and Obama called him on it.

I'm not going to chide you on bringing McCain into the discussion, but I will chide you for assuming that I think that no politicians grandstand.

That said, how is Obama "calling [McCain] on it"? By wanting to legislate a "non-binding vote"? It's be just as helpful to name a bridge "[insert crappy CEO name here] was a crappy CEO."

Has anyone in this thread actually read the fsckin article?

Have you?

Are you trying to make a point here, or are you just trying to agitate?

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama renewed his push for legislation that would require corporations to offer a nonbinding shareholder voteon executive compensation on Friday, days after Republican candidate Sen. John McCain lashed out against rising CEO pay.

Once again, what is the purpose of a "non-binding shareholder vote"? If shareholders truly want to vote, they'll either do so by voting for/against board members or, get this, by selling their stocks.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Vic
What I'm arguing is that the shareholders of a company being pillaged by management should have the right to express their outrage.

You know, if they are really outraged, they could just go to the annual shareholders' meeting and express their outrage in person. I'd bet that would do a lot more than a nonbinding vote.

For that matter, they could take out newspaper ads. Maybe we should legislate cheaper newspaper ads for people that are outraged about the pay of the CEO of a company they own stock in.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Vic
What I'm arguing is that the shareholders of a company being pillaged by management should have the right to express their outrage.

You know, if they are really outraged, they could just go to the annual shareholders' meeting and express their outrage in person. I'd bet that would do a lot more than a nonbinding vote.

For that matter, they could take out newspaper ads. Maybe we should legislate cheaper newspaper ads for people that are outraged about the pay of the CEO of a company they own stock in.

Yeah hey right I own a few shares through a mutual fund, watch me fly out to the shareholders meeting to make a stink.

What planet are you on? Really.

It's easy to rip people off when you make the theft just cheaper than the cost of being able to do something about it. That's how this works.

Capitalism depends absolutely upon the rule of law. A system of justice that is blind. You may not realize it, but you are arguing expressly against that.

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Topic Title: Obama doesn't want you to succeed
Topic Summary: Tries bill to limit capitalism/CEO pay
[/L]

Nice misleading title. CEO's are already successful by definition.

Also, to those who would agree with the premise that CEO pay should be limited :roll: The people whose pay you would like to set limits on are far smarter than you and hence why they're rich in the first place and you're not. The fact that you believe some pandering politician when he says he's going to do so is even further proof you don't have the grey matter to make your fantasy a reality. Instead of enviously looking at rich CEOs and trying to drag them down to your level, try spending some time building yourself up and becoming rich in your own right.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: spidey07
Topic Title: Obama doesn't want you to succeed
Topic Summary: Tries bill to limit capitalism/CEO pay
[/L]

Nice misleading title. CEO's are already successful by definition.

Also, to those who would agree with the premise that CEO pay should be limited :roll: The people whose pay you would like to set limits on are far smarter than you and hence why they're rich in the first place and you're not. The fact that you believe some pandering politician when he says he's going to do so is even further proof you don't have the grey matter to make your fantasy a reality. Instead of enviously looking at rich CEOs and trying to drag them down to your level, try spending some time building yourself up and becoming rich in your own right.

I don't believe that CEO pay should be limited. I believe they should be held accountable. Like I am. Worlds of difference.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Vic
What I'm arguing is that the shareholders of a company being pillaged by management should have the right to express their outrage.

You know, if they are really outraged, they could just go to the annual shareholders' meeting and express their outrage in person. I'd bet that would do a lot more than a nonbinding vote.

For that matter, they could take out newspaper ads. Maybe we should legislate cheaper newspaper ads for people that are outraged about the pay of the CEO of a company they own stock in.

Yeah hey right I own a few shares through a mutual fund, watch me fly out to the shareholders meeting to make a stink.

What planet are you on? Really.

It's easy to rip people off when you make the theft just cheaper than the cost of being able to do something about it. That's how this works.

Capitalism depends absolutely upon the rule of law. A system of justice that is blind. You may not realize it, but you are arguing expressly against that.

Oh, yeah - it's much better to show your true outrage by casting a vote that means nothing. May as well name that bridge. If you continue to own stock in a company (even through a mutual fund) that is financially suffering because of the compensation of the CEO, then that's *your* fault - not the government's.

Please state the "rule of law" that governs CEO pay, and the shareholders' say in it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Vic
What I'm arguing is that the shareholders of a company being pillaged by management should have the right to express their outrage.

You know, if they are really outraged, they could just go to the annual shareholders' meeting and express their outrage in person. I'd bet that would do a lot more than a nonbinding vote.

For that matter, they could take out newspaper ads. Maybe we should legislate cheaper newspaper ads for people that are outraged about the pay of the CEO of a company they own stock in.

Yeah hey right I own a few shares through a mutual fund, watch me fly out to the shareholders meeting to make a stink.

What planet are you on? Really.

It's easy to rip people off when you make the theft just cheaper than the cost of being able to do something about it. That's how this works.

Capitalism depends absolutely upon the rule of law. A system of justice that is blind. You may not realize it, but you are arguing expressly against that.

Oh, yeah - it's much better to show your true outrage by casting a vote that means nothing. May as well name that bridge. If you continue to own stock in a company (even through a mutual fund) that is financially suffering because of the compensation of the CEO, then that's *your* fault - not the government's.

Please state the "rule of law" that governs CEO pay, and the shareholders' say in it.

:roll:

No, really...

:roll:

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: spidey07
Topic Title: Obama doesn't want you to succeed
Topic Summary: Tries bill to limit capitalism/CEO pay
[/L]

Nice misleading title. CEO's are already successful by definition.

Also, to those who would agree with the premise that CEO pay should be limited :roll: The people whose pay you would like to set limits on are far smarter than you and hence why they're rich in the first place and you're not. The fact that you believe some pandering politician when he says he's going to do so is even further proof you don't have the grey matter to make your fantasy a reality. Instead of enviously looking at rich CEOs and trying to drag them down to your level, try spending some time building yourself up and becoming rich in your own right.

I don't believe that CEO pay should be limited. I believe they should be held accountable. Like I am. Worlds of difference.

And they are, legally, by the board of directors, who are elected by the stockholders.

Is there cronyism? Absolutely. But legislation of an "outrage" vote won't fix that.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Vic
What I'm arguing is that the shareholders of a company being pillaged by management should have the right to express their outrage.

You know, if they are really outraged, they could just go to the annual shareholders' meeting and express their outrage in person. I'd bet that would do a lot more than a nonbinding vote.

For that matter, they could take out newspaper ads. Maybe we should legislate cheaper newspaper ads for people that are outraged about the pay of the CEO of a company they own stock in.

Yeah hey right I own a few shares through a mutual fund, watch me fly out to the shareholders meeting to make a stink.

What planet are you on? Really.

It's easy to rip people off when you make the theft just cheaper than the cost of being able to do something about it. That's how this works.

Capitalism depends absolutely upon the rule of law. A system of justice that is blind. You may not realize it, but you are arguing expressly against that.

Oh, yeah - it's much better to show your true outrage by casting a vote that means nothing. May as well name that bridge. If you continue to own stock in a company (even through a mutual fund) that is financially suffering because of the compensation of the CEO, then that's *your* fault - not the government's.

Please state the "rule of law" that governs CEO pay, and the shareholders' say in it.

:roll:

No, really...

:roll:

Wow - after all of the condescending "I know more about stocks than you" frothing at the mouth, I expected more than that. Really.

Or is that you showing your "outrage" at me asking questions?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: spidey07
Topic Title: Obama doesn't want you to succeed
Topic Summary: Tries bill to limit capitalism/CEO pay
[/L]

Nice misleading title. CEO's are already successful by definition.

Also, to those who would agree with the premise that CEO pay should be limited :roll: The people whose pay you would like to set limits on are far smarter than you and hence why they're rich in the first place and you're not. The fact that you believe some pandering politician when he says he's going to do so is even further proof you don't have the grey matter to make your fantasy a reality. Instead of enviously looking at rich CEOs and trying to drag them down to your level, try spending some time building yourself up and becoming rich in your own right.

I don't believe that CEO pay should be limited. I believe they should be held accountable. Like I am. Worlds of difference.

And they are, legally, by the board of directors, who are elected by the stockholders.

Is there cronyism? Absolutely. But legislation of an "outrage" vote won't fix that.

"stockholders" have no voice. It's an insider driven crowd.

This is coming from a CFA charterholder.

Glenn1, I am a decently smart guy and drive my own success. I challenge the notion that CEOs are smarter. Nardelli ran HD into the ground and is doing the same to Chrysler.

Why is he still around? It has nothing to do with his intelligence. Sucking wang and greasing palms with cash has far more to do with it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Vic
What I'm arguing is that the shareholders of a company being pillaged by management should have the right to express their outrage.

You know, if they are really outraged, they could just go to the annual shareholders' meeting and express their outrage in person. I'd bet that would do a lot more than a nonbinding vote.

For that matter, they could take out newspaper ads. Maybe we should legislate cheaper newspaper ads for people that are outraged about the pay of the CEO of a company they own stock in.

Yeah hey right I own a few shares through a mutual fund, watch me fly out to the shareholders meeting to make a stink.

What planet are you on? Really.

It's easy to rip people off when you make the theft just cheaper than the cost of being able to do something about it. That's how this works.

Capitalism depends absolutely upon the rule of law. A system of justice that is blind. You may not realize it, but you are arguing expressly against that.

Oh, yeah - it's much better to show your true outrage by casting a vote that means nothing. May as well name that bridge. If you continue to own stock in a company (even through a mutual fund) that is financially suffering because of the compensation of the CEO, then that's *your* fault - not the government's.

Please state the "rule of law" that governs CEO pay, and the shareholders' say in it.

:roll:

No, really...

:roll:

Wow - after all of the condescending "I know more about stocks than you" frothing at the mouth, I expected more than that. Really.

Or is that you showing your "outrage" at me asking questions?

Your questions aren't relevant. You're just spouting straw men and pretty visions of how you think the world is but is not. And you have NOT answered a single question of mine (quoted here even), except to sidetrack with this BS, so in your pretty vision of personal accountability, why do you think I owe you jack sh!t? Come back to me when you want to discuss reality.