President Donald J. Trump

[Jojo]

Metro - SOMEone crashed the economy in 2008, and it wasn't people on food stamps doing it.

Fourteen food stamps left until 21 days passes

[Metron2267]

What you call economics is only one type of economic theory.

It is?

What do you believe I called "economics" and what makes you think it is "one type" of theory?

I am pro-business.  My work history is very, very long, mostly for private businesses and have been a contractor as well as self-employed.  I have worked for Democrat business owners, yay!

Oh yes those proggie Dems have done wonders with another form of "welfare" - gubmint pork for politicians!

But, here is the negative list you requested:
Jon Corzine, MF Global
Richard Fuld, Lehman Brothers
[/quote]

I love it!

You do realize Corzine was a..wait for it....politician first!

Also I am less than worried about what rich hedge fund managers do to their equally rich but clueless investors.

Sears I do bemoan the loss of.

As for Lehman - credit default swaps - systemic toxin.

Look I don't have the time to devote to this.  It is a well-known fact many CEOs exploit their positions while hurting taxpayers.  Here is an article, but it also discusses fraud and theft, not just exploitation.
https://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-vs-social-welfare/

Fourteen


Started Working At Fourteen

I know, I've seen this article before and it's a very emotionally loaded piece. Not inaccurate necessarily, but full of emotion signifying few solutions. Simply saying we should shunt corporate welfare off to individuals is a scam. That "feel good" shell game simply institutionalizes welfare where it debilitates and enslaves individuals and crushes their work ethic in favor of handouts.

Try on a more libertarían view point and see if the answers reside there.

[Metron2267]

Metro - SOMEone crashed the economy in 2008, and it wasn't people on food stamps doing it.

Fourteen food stamps left until 21 days passes

It was called a collateralized debt toxin - credit default swaps, bad home loans, the tail end of years of Barny Frank's market meddling.

[Metron2267]

Out of literally millions of incorporated businesses in this country, not to mention partnerships and very small unincorporated businesses.

It's also a well know fact that thousands of political entities across the country at all levels are corrupt, unresponsive, unaccountable, and waste a fairly significant percentage of the country's wealth.  At least businesses create and provide goods and services we want and need.  The governmental agencies produce far less, and at a much higher cost for useful output.  Corruption is rampant.

For some reason though, we have a significant percent of the population who believe government is ''public service'', and business is ''greed''.  And the fake news media supports that view, so we get very skewed ''journalism'' on the topic

And the real crying shame in al of this is that government is supposed to be a check and balance on unbridled greed, not a pusher of pork, corruption, subsidies and favors for crony capitalism.

It is government that has failed in their mission - to protect US!

Corporations are only chartered to produce profits for their investors, nothing more.

[Dr. MD MD]

I call bullshit on that.

There is a vast difference between what is called corporate "welfare" and the actual tax law and corporate classifications that allow write-downs of losses and also depreciation of assets.

So who are these specific CEOs you refer to?

The only one I can think of now is Eddie Lampert and his endless Sears fire sale/real estate sham.

List the others please.


What?!?!?!

Which CEOs do you think are rich enough to personally do that and achieve critical mass in turning business around and what makes you think a simple cash infusion can heal a market share loss or untimely acquisition of a competitor?

The fiscal scale is nowhere near addressable with personal sacrifice.

You presuppose that is generally the case, and it is not.

For example the unions bankrupted GM with their uncompetitive salary demands, job banks, and contestant strikes, and then walked away licking THEIR chops!

Ackerson didn't run their ship aground, in fact decades of competing against themselves with too many product lines became the GM culture and dated from the early days when GM literally bought out half a dozen marques to build their market monster.

I think you lack a background in basic economics and have a pre-loaded anti-business mentality.

It's been a constant refrain over the last couple decades: Historical compensation levels while taking the company through their historically worst economic performance. Still, I suppose if it's alright with everyone financially involved then so be it if they want to be the jackasses who drive it into the ground.

Also, business owners and CEOs used to regularly reinvest in their own operations. Maybe it's that common sense that's lacking today.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NOX0_FUGM6k

[Metron2267]

It's been a constant refrain over the last couple decades: Historical compensation levels while taking the company through their historically worst economic performance. Still, I suppose if it's alright with everyone financially involved then so be it if they want to be the jackasses who drive it into the ground.

No different really than professional sports, the salary leads and performance often lags.

It might be interesting to consider what a merit pay CEO salary structure would be like, but as for using government to enforce and administer it - pass...

The CEO market is simply going to have to decide to show some internal discipline.

Also, business owners and CEOs used to regularly reinvest in their own operations. Maybe it's that common sense that's lacking today.

Generally they exercise options and often buy larger positions to liquidate later. I'm not aware of a specific mechanism that allows a CEO to "donate " (if you will) salary to general operations, though I suspect it could be lawyered up if one was so inclined.

Perhaps the rub here is public vs. private corporations.

The minute you lose the private side by chasing debt, either in the sale of stock or deals with VCs, things become complicated.

There are also largely hands-off investors like Buffett who buy well run businesses and insure they stay that way.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/05/21/why-berkshire-hathaway-shareholders-have-nothing-t.aspx

Warren Buffett once said, in reference to Berkshire's investment in Coca-Cola, that one of the reasons he loves Coca-Cola's business is that "a ham sandwich" could run the company. In other words, Coca-Cola is such a smooth-running business, and requires so little effort from the person sitting at the CEO's desk, that the company would likely do just fine no matter who is in charge.

[starrmtn001]

We get a little entertainment by 'Nadler and the Dims' to open the Hearing with some comic relief.


https://youtu.be/5tnsuXSyyLE

[Dr. MD MD]

We get a little entertainment by 'Nadler and the Dims' to open the Hearing with some comic relief.


https://youtu.be/5tnsuXSyyLE

I can't believe how vigorously these clowns attempt to defend Hillary. They're hoping they appear honorable but it just makes them appear like the out of touch shitheels they are. :

[Jojo]

It's been a constant refrain over the last couple decades: Historical compensation levels while taking the company through their historically worst economic performance. Still, I suppose if it's alright with everyone financially involved then so be it if they want to be the jackasses who drive it into the ground.

Also, business owners and CEOs used to regularly reinvest in their own operations. Maybe it's that common sense that's lacking today.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NOX0_FUGM6k

Put well.

Fourteen

[Metron2267]

"Put well" if you don't mind being indoctrinated into false business premises.

1.) There is no mandate that a business pay ANY dividend to investors, just none at all!
2.) There was never a mandate that business support constantly increasing wages...
3.) Nor that they curtail working hours so the folks can enjoy their new-made leisure products.

This is the kind of (dare I say it) cartoonish thinking that so many Americans regurgitate in whole believing that there is some magical formula by which we'll all get high wages, low work hours, and accumulating material goods and toys.

It's wrong, and it was wrong to make children think that business owed them anything more than a competitive product at a market price.

[Dr. MD MD]

"Put well" if you don't mind being indoctrinated into false business premises.

1.) There is no mandate that a business pay ANY dividend to investors, just none at all!
2.) There was never a mandate that business support constantly increasing wages...
3.) Nor that they curtail working hours so the folks can enjoy their new-made leisure products.

This is the kind of (dare I say it) cartoonish thinking that so many Americans regurgitate in whole believing that there is some magical formula by which we'll all get high wages, low work hours, and accumulating material goods and toys.

It's wrong, and it was wrong to make children think that business owed them anything more than a competitive product at a market price.

The cartoon wasn't saying that though, only that those things are at least possible then.

[Metron2267]

Oh it set the chain of business cycle events as linked, which is akin to saying it outright.

How many quality equities do you know with ZERO dividend yield and VC sponsors?

And notice how they left out little regulatory expenses like OSHA?

I know, wasn't around back then (pre-1970).

No mention of unions either.

[Dr. MD MD]

Oh it set the chain of business cycle events as linked, which is akin to saying it outright.

How many quality equities do you know with ZERO dividend yield and VC sponsors?

And notice how they left out little regulatory expenses like OSHA?

I know, wasn't around back then (pre-1970).

No mention of unions either.

It was made in the 50s.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee_Dood_It

[Kidnostad3]

I didn’t see the game.  Did he throw any elbows?  His old man was in on the JFK thing you know?

I finally got a look at the game.  Ironically, Kimmel can’t go to his left. 

[Metron2267]

It was made in the 50s.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee_Dood_It

TY, good reference.

Btw, the cartooning was excellent.

As was:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LEfzup0aNs

[ItsOver]

I finally got a look at the game.  Ironically, Kimmel can’t go to his left.

LOL.

[starrmtn001]

We get a little entertainment by 'Nadler and the Dims' to open the Hearing with some comic relief.


https://youtu.be/5tnsuXSyyLE

Here is the CSPAN link which includes the transcript.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?446817-1/doj-inspector-general-michael-horowitz-testifies-clinton-email-probe-report

[Kidnostad3]

Here is the CSPAN link which includes the transcript.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?446817-1/doj-inspector-general-michael-horowitz-testifies-clinton-email-probe-report

If I have to watch one more Democrap fein tearing up while delivering a load of malicious, self serving horseshit I’m going to hurl. 

[ItsOver]

If I have to watch one more Democrap fein tearing up while delivering a load of malicious, self serving horseshit I’m going to hurl.

I stopped watching the BS a long time ago.  It really lowered my blood pressure.

[Dr. MD MD]

We get a little entertainment by 'Nadler and the Dims' to open the Hearing with some comic relief.


https://youtu.be/5tnsuXSyyLE

Apparently, this guy used to fight for the civil rights of black people. Now he fights for Hillary.

[Kidnostad3]

Absolutely not, otherwise your post would have been balanced.  It is unbalanced to debate welfare without mentioning corporate subsidies and welfare.  The amount CEOs "steal" prior to bankrupting their businesses and laying everyone off, is an amount that could probably support most of the employees as a group for a couple of years.  So, they could put that money back into the organization and stop being so greedy for their own wallet.  Then, within a couple of years, the company would be doing fine again. 

While "giving" food and medicine to the (working) poor and money to low-income parents may be considered bad by some, it is FAR more unethical to rack up profits, rake them in, and then siphon them off knowing it will result in layoffs and welfare, knowing the business will be bailed out at government expense.

Fourteen's Mother

After due observation, I am convinced that Ms. Pituitary Gland here is a Democrap troll.  She is a veritable Siri of canned leftist responses and her arrival on BG coincides suspiciously with the beginning of the Left’s  full court press to divert attention from the accelerating exposure of their crimes.  She’s just a slightly less obnoxious version of Uhura. 

[Dr. MD MD]

After due observation, I am convinced that Ms. Pituitary Gland here is a Democrap troll.  She is a veritable Siri of canned leftist responses and her arrival on BG coincides suspiciously with the beginning of the Left’s  full court press to divert attention from the accelerating exposure of their crimes.  She’s just a slightly less obnoxious version of Uhura.

She's at least a better sport than her.

[Kidnostad3]

I stopped watching the BS a long time ago.  It really lowered my blood pressure.

Yeah, I know.  Sometimes I wonder if I have a masochistic streak.  Why else would I expose myself to their ridiculous blather?  Maybe I should just stick a hot poker in my ear as a less painful alternative.

[PB the Deplorable]

It's been a constant refrain over the last couple decades: Historical compensation levels while taking the company through their historically worst economic performance. Still, I suppose if it's alright with everyone financially involved then so be it if they want to be the jackasses who drive it into the ground.

Also, business owners and CEOs used to regularly reinvest in their own operations. Maybe it's that common sense that's lacking today.

Small businesses and startups ARE funded by their owners.  As far as large, publicly traded corporations, why would a CEO fund the company he is hired to run?  Often much of his compensation is in the form of company stock, and no one should be over-weighted in one investment - which is already the case and would be more so if he bought more shares. 

And by the way, buying more shares would come from current shareholders, not newly issued company stock.  If the actual owners, the shareholders need more funding the company can borrow or issue new shares - there is no need for the CEO to provide it.


Also, the economy - and stock market, which measures the value of the companies you're talking about  - have exploded over the past 35 years.  Yes, even including two major busts, and several recessions.


And third, it's up to the company shareholders to determine CEO pay.  CEOs have a certain skillset that is difficult to find, and there aren't enough good ones to go around.  That's why pay is so high.  Don't like it, don't invest in that company's stock.  Otherwise it really isn't anyone's business.

[Dr. MD MD]

Small businesses and startups ARE funded by their owners.  As far as large, publicly traded corporations, why would a CEO fund the company he is hired to run?  Often much of his compensation is in the form of company stock, and no one should be over-weighted in one investment - which is already the case and would be more so if he bought more shares. 

And by the way, buying more shares would come from current shareholders, not newly issued company stock.  If the actual owners, the shareholders need more funding the company can borrow or issue new shares - there is no need for the CEO to provide it.


Also, the economy - and stock market, which measures the value of the companies you're talking about  - have exploded over the past 35 years.  Yes, even including two major busts, and several recessions.


And third, it's up to the company shareholders to determine CEO pay.  CEOs have a certain skillset that is difficult to find, and there aren't enough good ones to go around.  That's why pay is so high.  Don't like it, don't invest in that company's stock.  Otherwise it really isn't anyone's business.

I'm nosey.

[Dr. MD MD]

Breaking News: Earlier today pud was escorted from Bellgab.

[Kidnostad3]

Small businesses and startups ARE funded by their owners.  As far as large, publicly traded corporations, why would a CEO fund the company he is hired to run?  Often much of his compensation is in the form of company stock, and no one should be over-weighted in one investment - which is already the case and would be more so if he bought more shares. 

And by the way, buying more shares would come from current shareholders, not newly issued company stock.  If the actual owners, the shareholders need more funding the company can borrow or issue new shares - there is no need for the CEO to provide it.


Also, the economy - and stock market, which measures the value of the companies you're talking about  - have exploded over the past 35 years.  Yes, even including two major busts, and several recessions.


And third, it's up to the company shareholders to determine CEO pay.  CEOs have a certain skillset that is difficult to find, and there aren't enough good ones to go around.  That's why pay is so high.  Don't like it, don't invest in that company's stock.  Otherwise it really isn't anyone's business.

The idea that one should be rewarded in direct proportion to his contribution is an anathema to all good socialist.

[PB the Deplorable]

Metro - SOMEone crashed the economy in 2008, and it wasn't people on food stamps doing it.

That's correct.  Bill Clinton's HUD director said poor people should be able to get mortgages too, so he lowered the standards for mortgages qualified to be purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from loan originators.  It didn't matter that they wouldn't be able to pay them back in a downturn

Goldman Sachs bought subprime mortgages, chopped them up, and repackaged them as AAA rated mortgage backed securities.   Which is clearly fraud.  Then bet on housing prices collapsing

Various swaps were also oversold and flooded the market.  Think of them as insurance against losing the value of a stock, bond, or having the dividends or interest not be paid.  As with any type of insurance, people should only be allowed to buy them if they own the underlying assets.  Instead, any speculator can by swaps, and when the market tanked they all had to be paid off - bankrupting issuers and financial institutions holding the other side. 

Cuomo set the overpriced housing and bad debt bubbles into motion, and Goldman sparked the crisis.


Obama and Eric Holder made it a point to say Goldman and Goldman executives would not be prosecuted, and Cuomo and Clinton won't be for obvious reasons.  To date, very little has been done about swap derivatives in the market and available to anyone

[Kidnostad3]

Breaking News: Earlier today pud was escorted from Bellgab.

LMAO!  Fucking brilliant! 

[PB the Deplorable]

Breaking News: Earlier today pud was escorted from Bellgab.

Lol.  So he didn't cry himself to sleep over 2 years olds being torn from their parents and thrown into concentration camps?