Obama doesn't want you to succeed

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
There is a slight difference between a guy running a business (CEO) and a guy sitting behind a desk in Washington DC.

Then what about the first question?

Does a company that posts negative earnings or misses their earnings mark deserve to blame the CEO? Does that make him a "bad" CEO?

If not, why does the same person get to take all of the credit and reap all of the rewards when times are good?

I would say No, not always. You could have a good CEO that gets hit by market forces, unexpected competition/factors, etc. Just because a company is doing bad doesn't always meant the CEO is at fault.

Now, a company doing bad for 8 quarters on end...that's not good. Or a company that's in decent shape, normal market, nothing going on...gets a new CEO and he F's it up...that's not good either.

Almost in no cases though do these CEO's deserve the packages they get. No one is worth $35M a year. No one.

I don't disagree with Obama that CEO compensation is out of control (but then again, this isn't an Obama revelation, nearly everyone has this opinion), but the legislation he wants passed amount to accomplishing absolutely nothing...which means it's just more BS on the books and more time wasted by our Congress debating and voting on it, when they have hugely massive more important things to be spending their time on.

This is clearly something Obama is throwing out there to gain votes, nothing more. -1 for Obama.

Chuck

Here is one of the few places that you and I agree. I was throwing out the scenario to see if ProfJohn would actually define what he is referring to (a "bad" CEO) so that we could have an honest debate about it. I think that you did a good job of describing how a person can be of great skill but still end up in a no win situation while another incompetent idiot can fall into a position that a chimp could steer to success.

Oh, you did mess up on one key point in your answer. This isn't something that Congress would have to waste a single second on. It can simply be a guideline change instituted by the SEC freeing up Congress to address the pressing issues that effect us all, like gay marriage.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
There is a slight difference between a guy running a business (CEO) and a guy sitting behind a desk in Washington DC.

Then what about the first question?

Does a company that posts negative earnings or misses their earnings mark deserve to blame the CEO? Does that make him a "bad" CEO?

If not, why does the same person get to take all of the credit and reap all of the rewards when times are good?

I would say No, not always. You could have a good CEO that gets hit by market forces, unexpected competition/factors, etc. Just because a company is doing bad doesn't always meant the CEO is at fault.

Now, a company doing bad for 8 quarters on end...that's not good. Or a company that's in decent shape, normal market, nothing going on...gets a new CEO and he F's it up...that's not good either.

Almost in no cases though do these CEO's deserve the packages they get. No one is worth $35M a year. No one.

I don't disagree with Obama that CEO compensation is out of control (but then again, this isn't an Obama revelation, nearly everyone has this opinion), but the legislation he wants passed amount to accomplishing absolutely nothing...which means it's just more BS on the books and more time wasted by our Congress debating and voting on it, when they have hugely massive more important things to be spending their time on.

This is clearly something Obama is throwing out there to gain votes, nothing more. -1 for Obama.

Chuck

RTFA. Obama threw this out there solely in response to all-talk-no-walk comments from McCain. If McCain hadn't been throwing out rhetoric and phony outrage about CEO compensation with no record of his own to back it up, then this wouldn't have been an issue in the first place.

-1 for chucky2 for not reading the article

-1 for Vic not understanding WTF he's talking about in reality: This proposed legislation does nothing. Nothing. This is like the student government at a grade school holding a vote amoung their represented parties (the students) on whether recess should be cut down 5 minutes to get the buses off on time: No one that matters gives a F what the students think.

DO YOU NOT GET IT???? Peons that are us holding a vote of no confidence means nothing. The powers that actually decide such things don't F'g care what we think. They never will, no matter how many votes are held on the subject.

If this is Obama coming back at someone calling him out, he mine as well quit now, this is weak...

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Here is one of the few places that you and I agree. I was throwing out the scenario to see if ProfJohn would actually define what he is referring to (a "bad" CEO) so that we could have an honest debate about it. I think that you did a good job of describing how a person can be of great skill but still end up in a no win situation while another incompetent idiot can fall into a position that a chimp could steer to success.

Given our past debates, I'll have to mark this one on the calendar...

Oh, you did mess up on one key point in your answer. This isn't something that Congress would have to waste a single second on. It can simply be a guideline change instituted by the SEC freeing up Congress to address the pressing issues that effect us all, like gay marriage.

Uh oh, we're back to disagreeing...

IMHO, Congress will always get involved, especially if they can grandstand being 'for the people' as Obama is trying to do here. The SEC could most likely do exactly what you say...but as soon the COngressional underlings get word to their Masters on the golden opportunity to get face time supporting something that 'sticks up for the little people', then you know for a fact Congress will run to embrace 'reviewing this to ensure proper implementation'...

We have a bunch of suck @sses in DC...my faith is -99.999% in them ever doing anything efficient...

Chuck

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: 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.

That's counter-intuitive. I'm all in favor of giving people incentive to "go make something out of themselves", which is the entire point of capitalism. So if your pay package isn't based on performance, what incentive do you have to do a good job?

Despite what you might think, being a CEO doesn't turn you into a benevolent member of some better class, they're capitalists just like everyone else. Pay that's not tied to performance wouldn't provide much incentive in any other position, so it makes no sense that it would work for CEOs.

I present to you fact and you present to me rhetoric. All I am saying is that ultimately shareholders approve CEO pay packages by re-electing board members, and the executive compensation committee design CEO pay packages so that he is not heavily penalized for stock underperformance but at the same time heavily awards stock performance which in effect serves as an incentive for CEOs to take risks.

That is a fact of life. And yes, CEOs are 470x more productive OR bring that much more value than the average worker bee.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
There is a slight difference between a guy running a business (CEO) and a guy sitting behind a desk in Washington DC.

Then what about the first question?

Does a company that posts negative earnings or misses their earnings mark deserve to blame the CEO? Does that make him a "bad" CEO?

If not, why does the same person get to take all of the credit and reap all of the rewards when times are good?

I would say No, not always. You could have a good CEO that gets hit by market forces, unexpected competition/factors, etc. Just because a company is doing bad doesn't always meant the CEO is at fault.

Now, a company doing bad for 8 quarters on end...that's not good. Or a company that's in decent shape, normal market, nothing going on...gets a new CEO and he F's it up...that's not good either.

Almost in no cases though do these CEO's deserve the packages they get. No one is worth $35M a year. No one.

I don't disagree with Obama that CEO compensation is out of control (but then again, this isn't an Obama revelation, nearly everyone has this opinion), but the legislation he wants passed amount to accomplishing absolutely nothing...which means it's just more BS on the books and more time wasted by our Congress debating and voting on it, when they have hugely massive more important things to be spending their time on.

This is clearly something Obama is throwing out there to gain votes, nothing more. -1 for Obama.

Chuck

RTFA. Obama threw this out there solely in response to all-talk-no-walk comments from McCain. If McCain hadn't been throwing out rhetoric and phony outrage about CEO compensation with no record of his own to back it up, then this wouldn't have been an issue in the first place.

-1 for chucky2 for not reading the article

-1 for Vic not understanding WTF he's talking about in reality: This proposed legislation does nothing. Nothing. This is like the student government at a grade school holding a vote amoung their represented parties (the students) on whether recess should be cut down 5 minutes to get the buses off on time: No one that matters gives a F what the students think.

DO YOU NOT GET IT???? Peons that are us holding a vote of no confidence means nothing. The powers that actually decide such things don't F'g care what we think. They never will, no matter how many votes are held on the subject.

If this is Obama coming back at someone calling him out, he mine as well quit now, this is weak...

Chuck

The only thing I don't get is why you even bother to get out in the morning, if this is your logic.

And anyway, you're just making yourself look stupid here. If this didn't mean anything, there wouldn't be such opposition to it. The irony here (and I can't believe it hasn't been mentioned) is that the best argument against this proposed legislation is the stockholders themselves not wanting to bring down their own value.
And I know you won't believe it, but the powers-that-be really do care about what we think (just not about what you or I think, individually). Because without us (plural), they wouldn't be the powers-that-be. It's not magic, they're human beings just like the rest of us.

Keep spouting negative and grasping at straws though... like the OP, you're only fooling yourself. And like the OP, RTFA next time before spouting off.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: 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.

That's counter-intuitive. I'm all in favor of giving people incentive to "go make something out of themselves", which is the entire point of capitalism. So if your pay package isn't based on performance, what incentive do you have to do a good job?

Despite what you might think, being a CEO doesn't turn you into a benevolent member of some better class, they're capitalists just like everyone else. Pay that's not tied to performance wouldn't provide much incentive in any other position, so it makes no sense that it would work for CEOs.

I present to you fact and you present to me rhetoric. All I am saying is that ultimately shareholders approve CEO pay packages by re-electing board members, and the executive compensation committee design CEO pay packages so that he is not heavily penalized for stock underperformance but at the same time heavily awards stock performance which in effect serves as an incentive for CEOs to take risks.

That is a fact of life. And yes, CEOs are 470x more productive OR bring that much more value than the average worker bee.

Or just happen to be networked right. Otherwise, why else would you be so concerned about paying them on performance?

 

[MadRat]

Let's face it, Corporate Officers are making a complete mockery out of the public trust. If CEO's want $5 million to $100 million a year then let them work for private companies, you know the ones that are liable for their mistakes. Public companies need a pay cap on these executives. After all, the whole reason for indemnifying the executives from liability tied to the corporation was to make these lower paying jobs of their day more attractive to the most qualified individuals amongst society. Now these people have become predators over the American society.

Ever look at the web cache of a typical executive? Some of these people are real sick puppies. Its no wonder with their lack of moral compass they have no problem bending the American public over the table.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Vic

The only thing I don't get is why you even bother to get out in the morning, if this is your logic.

Sometimes, I wonder that myself...

And anyway, you're just making yourself look stupid here.

It is very ironic you would say that...very...

If this didn't mean anything, there wouldn't be such opposition to it.

??? So if I was a junior Senator I could push for legislation that calls for all Corp.'s to acknowledge that water is wet? I mean, in reality, it doesn't mean anything...which means there should be no push back on it's complete and utter uselessness...Right?

The irony here (and I can't believe it hasn't been mentioned) is that the best argument against this proposed legislation is the stockholders themselves not wanting to bring down their own value.

The only value you have as a stockholder is your shares x the current share price. That's it. So those of us that only have a few thousand $$$ max in each company voting that we think the CEO is horrifically overpaid, and it's non-binding at that....while the mutual fund managers who rub elbows with these CEO's at some big shot club in NY vote with 10's or 100's of $M's in votes, means that they don't give a F Vic. How many times does this have to be explained to you??? You little Vic are not important, no matter how much you or any of the saps that eat this dumb@ss idea Obama threw out there think they are. I know it's hard, but that's reality.

And I know you won't believe it, but the powers-that-be really do care about what we think (just not about what you or I think, individually). Because without us (plural), they wouldn't be the powers-that-be. It's not magic, they're human beings just like the rest of us.

No Vic, they really don't care. If they did care, then these CEO's wouldn't get these grossly inflated packages, because 99% of us Peons don't believe they should get them...and all these BoD's know that. They just - do - not - care. They are going to do whatever they want, regardless if us Peons like it or not. Period. The sooner you grasp this well known fact the faster you'll stop posting this rediculous BS you keep posting.

Keep spouting negative and grasping at straws though... like the OP, you're only fooling yourself. And like the OP, RTFA next time before spouting off.

Stay delusional fellow Peon...I know it's too painful to consider Obama says sh1t and/or meaningleess as stupid as Bush, but <gasp> it's true...

:roll:

Chuck

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Vic

The only thing I don't get is why you even bother to get out in the morning, if this is your logic.

Sometimes, I wonder that myself...

And anyway, you're just making yourself look stupid here.

It is very ironic you would say that...very...

If this didn't mean anything, there wouldn't be such opposition to it.

??? So if I was a junior Senator I could push for legislation that calls for all Corp.'s to acknowledge that water is wet? I mean, in reality, it doesn't mean anything...which means there should be no push back on it's complete and utter uselessness...Right?

The irony here (and I can't believe it hasn't been mentioned) is that the best argument against this proposed legislation is the stockholders themselves not wanting to bring down their own value.

The only value you have as a stockholder is your shares x the current share price. That's it. So those of us that only have a few thousand $$$ max in each company voting that we think the CEO is horrifically overpaid, and it's non-binding at that....while the mutual fund managers who rub elbows with these CEO's at some big shot club in NY vote with 10's or 100's of $M's in votes, means that they don't give a F Vic. How many times does this have to be explained to you??? You little Vic are not important, no matter how much you or any of the saps that eat this dumb@ss idea Obama threw out there think they are. I know it's hard, but that's reality.

And I know you won't believe it, but the powers-that-be really do care about what we think (just not about what you or I think, individually). Because without us (plural), they wouldn't be the powers-that-be. It's not magic, they're human beings just like the rest of us.

No Vic, the really don't care. If they did care, then these CEO's wouldn't get these grossly inflated packages, because 99% of us Peons don't believe they should get them...and all these BoD's know that. They just - do - not - care. They are going to do whatever they want, regardless if the us Peons like it or not. Period. The sooner you grasp this well known fact the faster you'll stop posting this rediculous BS you keep posting.

Keep spouting negative and grasping at straws though... like the OP, you're only fooling yourself. And like the OP, RTFA next time before spouting off.

Stay delusional fellow Peon...I know it's too painful to consider Obama says sh1t and/or meaningleess as stupid as Bush, but <gasp> it's true...

:roll:

Chuck

Did you intend to put anything relevant to what I said in this steaming pile of invective and whining emo? Or are just going to get even more emotionally unhinged with this peons-should-stay-peons-and-shouldn't-do-anything-or-they're-delusional line of "reasoning?"
Let us know when you plan to slit your wrists or something, eh?

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Vic

The only thing I don't get is why you even bother to get out in the morning, if this is your logic.

Sometimes, I wonder that myself...

And anyway, you're just making yourself look stupid here.

It is very ironic you would say that...very...

If this didn't mean anything, there wouldn't be such opposition to it.

??? So if I was a junior Senator I could push for legislation that calls for all Corp.'s to acknowledge that water is wet? I mean, in reality, it doesn't mean anything...which means there should be no push back on it's complete and utter uselessness...Right?

The irony here (and I can't believe it hasn't been mentioned) is that the best argument against this proposed legislation is the stockholders themselves not wanting to bring down their own value.

The only value you have as a stockholder is your shares x the current share price. That's it. So those of us that only have a few thousand $$$ max in each company voting that we think the CEO is horrifically overpaid, and it's non-binding at that....while the mutual fund managers who rub elbows with these CEO's at some big shot club in NY vote with 10's or 100's of $M's in votes, means that they don't give a F Vic. How many times does this have to be explained to you??? You little Vic are not important, no matter how much you or any of the saps that eat this dumb@ss idea Obama threw out there think they are. I know it's hard, but that's reality.

And I know you won't believe it, but the powers-that-be really do care about what we think (just not about what you or I think, individually). Because without us (plural), they wouldn't be the powers-that-be. It's not magic, they're human beings just like the rest of us.

No Vic, the really don't care. If they did care, then these CEO's wouldn't get these grossly inflated packages, because 99% of us Peons don't believe they should get them...and all these BoD's know that. They just - do - not - care. They are going to do whatever they want, regardless if the us Peons like it or not. Period. The sooner you grasp this well known fact the faster you'll stop posting this rediculous BS you keep posting.

Keep spouting negative and grasping at straws though... like the OP, you're only fooling yourself. And like the OP, RTFA next time before spouting off.

Stay delusional fellow Peon...I know it's too painful to consider Obama says sh1t and/or meaningleess as stupid as Bush, but <gasp> it's true...

:roll:

Chuck

Did you intend to put anything relevant to what I said in this steaming pile of invective and whining emo? Or are just going to get even more emotionally unhinged with this peons-should-stay-peons-and-shouldn't-do-anything-or-they're-delusional line of "reasoning?"
Let us know when you plan to slit your wrists or something, eh?

Realize that what you just said, like Obama, means nothing.

You, I, and I'm sure pretty much everyone else on this board are Peons in the grand scheme of things (and for those $$$ enough to know you're truly not a Peon, I congratulate you!). This is not a put down, it's not keeping oneself down, it's reality

The reality Vic is that I think these overpaid CEO's are an abomination just like 99% of the rest of our fellow peon's out there, but, since we do not control things, then it doesn't matter.

If you don't like how the CEO's of the companies you've invested are (over)compensated, then, the current system allows you to already vote your displeasure. If you don't like the outcome of the vote, then you can always sell your stocks in protest if you believe that strongly.

What - and at this point I just cannot imagine how this is possible - you are refusing to get is that what Obama wants already exists. You, I, and everyone else can already show their displeasure...so WTF is Obama proposing this for???

Because suckers like you want to hear so you can cream your political shorts is Obama eloquently whispering sweet nothings in your ear...how that he will try and make you - the peon - heard/important/significant.

Guess what?

You aren't. Nor will you even be. Deal with it.

Chuck

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Realize that what you just said, like Obama, means nothing.

You, I, and I'm sure pretty much everyone else on this board are Peons in the grand scheme of things (and for those $$$ enough to know you're truly not a Peon, I congratulate you!). This is not a put down, it's not keeping oneself down, it's reality

The reality Vic is that I think these overpaid CEO's are an abomination just like 99% of the rest of our fellow peon's out there, but, since we do not control things, then it doesn't matter.

If you don't like how the CEO's of the companies you've invested are (over)compensated, then, the current system allows you to already vote your displeasure. If you don't like the outcome of the vote, then you can always sell your stocks in protest if you believe that strongly.

What - and at this point I just cannot imagine how this is possible - you are refusing to get is that what Obama wants already exists. You, I, and everyone else can already show their displeasure...so WTF is Obama proposing this for???

Because suckers like you want to hear so you can cream your political shorts is Obama eloquently whispering sweet nothings in your ear...how that he will try and make you - the peon - heard/important/significant.

Guess what?

You aren't. Nor will you even be. Deal with it.

Chuck

Shareholder's rights, in their current form, are entirely indirect. This at least gives a pooling of smaller investors a chance to voice their opinion and to let management know of their approval or disapproval. It's highly unlikely for anyone to legislate binding shareholder votes for corporations, so this is the only option left to give as much power as possible back to the smaller investors. Instead of hoping that the Directors that were previously elected look out for the small shareholder's interests, they now can have a direct say. It also garners more attention to the issue by smaller shareholders and makes it overall a worthwhile effort.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: chucky2
Realize that what you just said, like Obama, means nothing.

You, I, and I'm sure pretty much everyone else on this board are Peons in the grand scheme of things (and for those $$$ enough to know you're truly not a Peon, I congratulate you!). This is not a put down, it's not keeping oneself down, it's reality

The reality Vic is that I think these overpaid CEO's are an abomination just like 99% of the rest of our fellow peon's out there, but, since we do not control things, then it doesn't matter.

If you don't like how the CEO's of the companies you've invested are (over)compensated, then, the current system allows you to already vote your displeasure. If you don't like the outcome of the vote, then you can always sell your stocks in protest if you believe that strongly.

What - and at this point I just cannot imagine how this is possible - you are refusing to get is that what Obama wants already exists. You, I, and everyone else can already show their displeasure...so WTF is Obama proposing this for???

Because suckers like you want to hear so you can cream your political shorts is Obama eloquently whispering sweet nothings in your ear...how that he will try and make you - the peon - heard/important/significant.

Guess what?

You aren't. Nor will you even be. Deal with it.

Chuck

Deal with what? You're just ranting as though I should give a fsck about your rants. And seriously, if we all such peons, why should I give a flying fsck what you think? Especially when you obviously haven't read the article (still), when you're just repeating over and over again the same old defeatist emo logic (oh wah, we can't do anything therefore we should NEVER even try), and you're trying to reinforce it with patently wrong personal insults at me.
If you should ever in this thread care to address my arguments in a logical and intelligent manner (adult might be nice too), then I will reply to you. Until then, deal with it that I will think you're a whiny emo.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: chucky2

Realize that what you just said, like Obama, means nothing.

You, I, and I'm sure pretty much everyone else on this board are Peons in the grand scheme of things (and for those $$$ enough to know you're truly not a Peon, I congratulate you!). This is not a put down, it's not keeping oneself down, it's reality

The reality Vic is that I think these overpaid CEO's are an abomination just like 99% of the rest of our fellow peon's out there, but, since we do not control things, then it doesn't matter.

If you don't like how the CEO's of the companies you've invested are (over)compensated, then, the current system allows you to already vote your displeasure. If you don't like the outcome of the vote, then you can always sell your stocks in protest if you believe that strongly.

What - and at this point I just cannot imagine how this is possible - you are refusing to get is that what Obama wants already exists. You, I, and everyone else can already show their displeasure...so WTF is Obama proposing this for???

Because suckers like you want to hear so you can cream your political shorts is Obama eloquently whispering sweet nothings in your ear...how that he will try and make you - the peon - heard/important/significant.

Guess what?

You aren't. Nor will you even be. Deal with it.

Chuck

Shareholder's rights, in their current form, are entirely indirect. This at least gives a pooling of smaller investors a chance to voice their opinion and to let management know of their approval or disapproval. It's highly unlikely for anyone to legislate binding shareholder votes for corporations, so this is the only option left to give as much power as possible back to the smaller investors. Instead of hoping that the Directors that were previously elected look out for the small shareholder's interests, they now can have a direct say. It also garners more attention to the issue by smaller shareholders and makes it overall a worthwhile effort.

Why even bother to reply to his ravings? What he's crying about has already been discussed 100 times over in this thread. He's already ignored every logical and informed argument brought up thus far in this thread about shareholder rights, why else do you think he's now resorting to emo and personal attacks?

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Vic

Deal with what? You're just ranting and I could give a fuck about your rants. And seriously, if we all such peons, why should I give a flying fuck what you think? Especially when you obviously haven't read the article (still), when you're just repeating over and over again the same old defeatist emo logic (oh wah, we can't do anything therefore we should NEVER even try), and you're trying to reinforce it with patently wrong personal insults at me.
If you should ever in this thread care to address my arguments in a logical and intelligent manner (adult might be nice too), then I will reply to you. Until then, deal with it that I will think you're a whiny emo shit.

I give up...seriously. You have 'won'...

Here's your dream:

Obama gets elected (not a bad thing).
This gets passed.
CEO compensation comes up for your stocks.
80% of the votes are owned by the high rollers...they vote to give their shoulder rubbing buddy another $35M a year for doing nothing.
The remaining 20% of individual small time (that's us peons in case you're wondering) break down like this:
1.) 70% of those peons don't even send in their ballot.
2.) 30% send in their ballot as a 'F no, no one deserves $35M in compensation! Reject!'

So what ends up happening is the BoD - who are all shoulder rubbers and stinking rich themselves - looks at the 6% of the vote, laughs amounst themselves, and the CEO gets another $35M like he was always going to.

Obama is happy...he got elected because he gave you that 'power'...
The CEO is happy...he just got another $35M.
The BoD is happy....that CEO and his buddies will scratch their backs down the road you can be sure...

And the Peons.....well...they're still Peons....still inconsequential....and still many in denial.

But Hey, Vic, I'm just an 'whiny emo sh1t'....I'm sure I'm the delusional one here... :roll:

Chuck

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: chucky2
I give up...seriously. You have 'won'...

Here's your dream:

Obama gets elected (not a bad thing).
This gets passed.
CEO compensation comes up for your stocks.
80% of the votes are owned by the high rollers...they vote to give their shoulder rubbing buddy another $35M a year for doing nothing.
The remaining 20% of individual small time (that's us peons in case you're wondering) break down like this:
1.) 70% of those peons don't even send in their ballot.
2.) 30% send in their ballot as a 'F no, no one deserves $35M in compensation! Reject!'

So what ends up happening is the BoD - who are all shoulder rubbers and stinking rich themselves - looks at the 6% of the vote, laughs amounst themselves, and the CEO gets another $35M like he was always going to.

Obama is happy...he got elected because he gave you that 'power'...
The CEO is happy...he just got another $35M.
The BoD is happy....that CEO and his buddies will scratch their backs down the road you can be sure...

And the Peons.....well...they're still Peons....still inconsequential....and still many in denial.

But Hey, Vic, I'm just an 'whiny emo sh1t'....I'm sure I'm the delusional one here... :roll:

Chuck

Well then, it's good for me that this isn't any kind of hinge issue for me then, isn't it? And that the only reason I clicked on and followed up in this thread is because of the OP's ridiculous smear of the situation, eh?

But while you're dreaming up fantasy hypotheticals, why don't you apply that same logic to political voting? We're all peons, after all... slime in the proverbial much while the stinking rich look down up like Gods as it were... how dare we mere mortals pretend to go against the divine right, eh?

:roll:

Plus, you just said you don't know anything about business. As I said earlier, if this bill does nothing, then why the staunch opposition? Hint: it's not your defeatist "logic." It's because they do care about what we plural think. Because they're not gods. Because it's not even remotely like you describe. Why do they pay for all those polls for literally everything?
But I have noticed that the idea of a monolithic "all rich club" that is always uncaring, united, and agreed on how to screw the little guy is a common theme of conspiracy nutjobs. When the reality is that the rich fight and compete amongst each other even more than us lowly peons do. Hell, at least they get involved and don't listen to defeatist tools whose only argument is that no effort is worth any effort. Huh... fancy that..

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Something or someone has awoken the beast in vic, this is fucking awesome reading because while he might punch his arguments through, he's a smart motherfucker and knows more than the lot of you gits put together.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: chucky2
I give up...seriously. You have 'won'...

Here's your dream:

Obama gets elected (not a bad thing).
This gets passed.
CEO compensation comes up for your stocks.
80% of the votes are owned by the high rollers...they vote to give their shoulder rubbing buddy another $35M a year for doing nothing.
The remaining 20% of individual small time (that's us peons in case you're wondering) break down like this:
1.) 70% of those peons don't even send in their ballot.
2.) 30% send in their ballot as a 'F no, no one deserves $35M in compensation! Reject!'

So what ends up happening is the BoD - who are all shoulder rubbers and stinking rich themselves - looks at the 6% of the vote, laughs amounst themselves, and the CEO gets another $35M like he was always going to.

Obama is happy...he got elected because he gave you that 'power'...
The CEO is happy...he just got another $35M.
The BoD is happy....that CEO and his buddies will scratch their backs down the road you can be sure...

And the Peons.....well...they're still Peons....still inconsequential....and still many in denial.

But Hey, Vic, I'm just an 'whiny emo sh1t'....I'm sure I'm the delusional one here... :roll:

Chuck

Well then, it's good for me that this isn't any kind of hinge issue for me then, isn't it? And that the only reason I clicked on and followed up in this thread is because of the OP's ridiculous smear of the situation, eh?

But while you're dreaming up fantasy hypotheticals, why don't you apply that same logic to political voting? We're all peons, after all... slime in the proverbial much while the stinking rich look down up like Gods as it were... how dare we mere mortals pretend to go against the divine right, eh?

:roll:

Plus, you just said you don't know anything about business. As I said earlier, if this bill does nothing, then why the staunch opposition? Hint: it's not your defeatist "logic." It's because they do care about what we plural think. Because they're not gods. Because it's not even remotely like you describe. Why do they pay for all those polls for literally everything?
But I have noticed that the idea of a monolithic "all rich club" that is always uncaring, united, and agreed on how to screw the little guy is a common theme of conspiracy nutjobs. When the reality is that the rich fight and compete amongst each other even more than us lowly peons do. Hell, at least they get involved and don't listen to defeatist tools whose only argument is that no effort is worth any effort. Huh... fancy that..

No No No.

You do not understand perhaps why I'm calling BS on Obama. It's not that Obama is taking on the rediculous CEO compensation that's going on - I have no problem with that and I wish him the best of luck.

The problem is that what he wants here does nothing. People aren't fighting this becaues they're rich and scared...people are taking issue with it because it's a do nothing policy. It has no F'ing teeth.

If Obama wants - and could have had my respect on this (which is important because I am undecided between him or McCain) - then he could have actually come out with some good idea to actually do something about runaway CEO compensation packages.

Obama should come back out, acting slightly agitated, and 'clarify' and add onto his idea. Until each person's vote is equal and they only vote once (which is why your voting analogy sucked btw), what he's got now is useless....come out with an idea that has some teeth - real teeth now, not delude the people about something useless so they vote for me teeth - and he'll start win'ing over some real votes.

Chuck

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: chucky2


The problem is that what he wants here does nothing. People aren't fighting this becaues they're rich and scared...people are taking issue with it because it's a do nothing policy. It has no F'ing teeth.

But it makes people feel good! Let's legislate it!

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

How many companies have posted losses or reduced their expected earnings over the last quarter?

and this is why the better measure is looking at the industry the company is in. there is systemic risk of loss that cannot be controlled for by even the best executive. but the better executives will be able to reduce or minimize losses when that time comes, or shorten the period that losses continue, etc.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: chucky2
The problem is that what he wants here does nothing. People aren't fighting this becaues they're rich and scared...people are taking issue with it because it's a do nothing policy. It has no F'ing teeth.

But it makes people feel good! Let's legislate it!

The idea that it does nothing is stupid (doing nothing is what McCain is doing). About as stupid as you believing that a CEO receiving massive compensation for losing shareholders' value (and thus unrelated to performance) is representative of capitalism.

But nah, just troll some more senseless platitudes...

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: chucky2
The problem is that what he wants here does nothing. People aren't fighting this becaues they're rich and scared...people are taking issue with it because it's a do nothing policy. It has no F'ing teeth.

But it makes people feel good! Let's legislate it!

The idea that it does nothing is stupid (doing nothing is what McCain is doing). About as stupid as you believing that a CEO receiving massive compensation for losing shareholders' value (and thus unrelated to performance) is representative of capitalism.

But nah, just troll some more senseless platitudes...

I hope your intent wasn't to quote me, because if it was, you're putting words in my mouth. At least you didn't mistakenly accuse me of not answering your questions and chunking out strawmen this time :roll:

It is feel-good legislation.

 

[spidey07]

MONSTER BUMP! A year later and you see Obama and his administration for what they really are.

If only people had paid attention to all his speeches and notions.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: spidey07

MONSTER BUMP! A year later and you see Obama and his administration for what they really are.

If only people had paid attention to all his speeches and notions.

MONSTER REPLY! A year later, and you've shown us how full of shit YOU really are. :laugh:

If only YOU and the rest of the right wingnut tinfoil beany crowd would pay attention to what has happened and what is happening, you'd know your reality check bounced long ago. :roll:

 

[spidey07]

C'mon Harvey. I pointed out a position that I really had a problem with, met with replies of "you're a fool, that's not what he really means!".

And now look at what is happening in regards to Gubment trying to control compensation. We don't need another discussion on this crap, just thought I'd bring a blast from the not so distant past. Now that Obama is kicking out the board how relevant is my OP?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Now that Obama is kicking out the board how relevant is my OP?

Your OP starts:

More signs of the communist Mr. Obama really is.

I doubt that you have a clue what "communist" OR a "Communist" is, let alone the difference between the two. Any post that starts that way is automatically and completely full of shit.

Now, if you want to drop the ooga booga scare words and define something in realistic terms, I may consider going further than that into your keen analysis.