Why do British/Europeans hate businessmen/capitalism?

[OverVolt]

I think they actually tried to reign in CEO pay by forcing them to take more stock options which would be more performance based, so they thought.

Didn't really work out like that yeaa...

 

[AViking]

CEO salaries are not market driven. I'm not sure they ever have been. They're not even performance based. They sign a contract that gives them the moon and there are zero consequences for their actions. They can be replaced but they still get paid.

You want a good CEO though. Giant company with huge profits CEO should be getting a nice 7 digit salary. I don't think anyone really is complaining about that. The problem is that in America they get 8-9 digit salaries while telling their employees to collect welfare. They take 16% raises but don't even give their employees enough to cover inflation.

You can look up CEO salaries. Guys are taking $60M or $100M per year salaries. Meanwhile the middle class is going to shit.

 

[dastral]

A few years ago i was working for ATOS (a french IT company)..... On my last year there in 2011 :
Company Gross : +0.8% (compared to 2010)
Company Net Benefit : +31.6% (compared to 2010)

We had really worse working conditions, increased workload, harsher SLA's due to the hardcore application of "Lean Management" than the years before....

So when you have "the CEO's state of the union" giving us props for an incredible year, having better results with less people and harsher deadlines and reduced costs in a cut-throat market...

You see his +18% Raise, the +32% Net Profit, and HR tells you "We are on a tight budget 1% take it or leave it".

You kinda say "fuck you" to the market.

 

[SMOGZINN]

There is no such thing as 'The Market'. The Market is economics version of the 'perfectly round frictionless balls' of physics. It is a way to test theory, but is not even close to reality. The reality is that ‘The Market’ includes people, governments, laws, and practically everything else. The whole thing is tied up together in one giant messy ball, and any theory that works if you discount government, or powerful people, do not work in reality.

Saying ‘Government should not interfere with The Market’ is not applicable in the real world because government is part of the market, and the market influences government.

 

[norseamd]

throwing adam smith and liberal classical economics into the fire of 21st century business economics. 21st century businessmen will say they have no problem with them. honestly.

 

[JMapleton]

CEO salaries are not market driven. I'm not sure they ever have been. They're not even performance based. They sign a contract that gives them the moon and there are zero consequences for their actions. They can be replaced but they still get paid.

They are absolutely market driven. If they're not market driven, what are they?

Just because they are overpaid, in your eyes, that does not mean they are not market driven.

Same thing happens with athletes, does it not? Are there not overpaid NBA or NFL players? Maybe they didn't perform up to their expectations, but they're market driven.

 

[JMapleton]

You see his +18% Raise, the +32% Net Profit, and HR tells you "We are on a tight budget 1% take it or leave it".

You kinda say "fuck you" to the market.

That's the market. You may be a great employee, but the reality is that if you quit, they can find 10 more of you. I'm in the same boat. I'm not pretending I'm something special. My company could fire me tomorrow and another one just like me.

If you do not agree with the market, there is only one other side to take. A planned economy. Socialism. Communism. Do you want that?

If you don't like what you're being paid, become a CEO. Or start a business. Do something.

 

[JMapleton]

Saying ‘Government should not interfere with The Market’ is not applicable in the real world because government is part of the market, and the market influences government.

That's the very problem. Government needs to be small enough so that it's place in society doesn't matter. Government is a vehicle for coerced theft and corruption. Keyword "coerced." When you understand that keyword, you'll understand.

 

[JMapleton]

CEO salaries are not market driven. I'm not sure they ever have been. They're not even performance based. They sign a contract that gives them the moon and there are zero consequences for their actions. They can be replaced but they still get paid.

I don't think you quite understand the meaning of "market based." If they're not market driven, what are they?

You want a good CEO though. Giant company with huge profits CEO should be getting a nice 7 digit salary. I don't think anyone really is complaining about that. The problem is that in America they get 8-9 digit salaries while telling their employees to collect welfare. They take 16% raises but don't even give their employees enough to cover inflation.

I'm in that same boat. I get paid crap to bust my butt. I'm not complaining because that's what I'm worth as an employee. My job is difficult but it's replaceable.

If I want something better I have to go get it, not sit on my hands and whine about it like modern liberals do.

You can look up CEO salaries. Guys are taking $60M or $100M per year salaries. Meanwhile the middle class is going to shit.

Most lists for CEO salary are a bit misleading. Some are taking huge salaries, but often times these CEOs save up large amounts of stock options and cash them all in during one good year and it inflates their total salary to look gigantic. Or they're cashing in signing bonuses they got when stock prices go up. Most CEOs of major companies make around $1m cash salary or less. Large companies and tech companies will pay more, but not every CEO is bringing in a $50m paycheck every year, year after year.

Can a company like Microsoft really hire a qualified CEO if they only pay a few million a year? I know of programmers that bring in seven figure salaries (as just regular employees). They have a to offer 8 figure salaries with 9 figure pay packages to attract the right person or other companies will hire them instead. That's the market.

Few people on this forum understand what "market driven" really means. Not surprising for people advocating a planned economy.

 

[BertolomeoDiaz]

free enterprise isn´t for everyone
not everybody is strong
then you let people fail and they don´t even have health insurance?
i wouldn´t want to trade the system of social security in germany with the us style system
the peace among people is also much better this way, there is no need for gated communities or carrying guns

then again, if you park your ferrari in the wrong neighborhood in berlin over night, it will likely be burned
excessive showing off of success is not very popular (in the eyes of the non millionaires)
big, powerful german cars are a pretty normal sight of course (but i wouldn´t park that in all of berlin either)

 

[JMapleton]

free enterprise isn´t for everyone
not everybody is strong
then you let people fail and they don´t even have health insurance?

Charity. I'm not a ruthless, cut throat money grubber. Neither are most CEOs or rich people. The vast majority of billionaires in the US will donate their wealth to charity when they die.

But the point is that a capitalism system works by consent. A socialism system works by force.

In capitalism a person willingly donates to a charity to benefit the lesser.

In socialism, the collective forcefully takes from one person to give to another, without consent or recourse.

And government systems morph into something they originally were not intended. In Europe you have the socialist state out of control. In the UNited States, we have the opposite. Our military state is out of control. Look how much harm our military adventurism as done to the world? Look how much money we have wasted meddling in other people's affairs? Then when we meddle, we become the enemy of both. And their affairs become our affairs. We cannot fight the entire world. All this from a government out of control. You have a starve the monster and keep it small to keep it in check.

"Government, even in its best state, is a necessary evil."
--Thomas Paine

 

[PingviN]

If you do not agree with the market, there is only one other side to take. A planned economy. Socialism. Communism. Do you want that?

Social democracy ain't bad, you should try it.

You can have a market in which government plays a role. In which unions play a role. But you will probably never understand that because you're hard-wired to believe in the "free market".

 

[amyklai]

I think this is too much of a black / white discussion. In both the US and Europe, companies and individuals have to pay taxes and part of that money is redistributed to other people. It's just a higher percentage of wealth that is redistributed in Europe.

The difference of how capitalism is perceived probably stems from the USA's myths of being a melting pot where everyone can make it big and all those dish washer to millionaire stories. The result is that even poor people believe that the system has to be very economy- and 1%er-friendly so their chance to make it big someday is not hampered - in spite of the fact that 99% of the population will never be able to belong to the 1%ers.

The European view is more or less along the lines that if you're not born rich, chances are you will never be one of the 1%ers (which actually is a somewhat sensible view, given the fact that the 1%ers are just 1% of the population) so they figure the best way to participate in the wealth is by demanding that some of that 1%er-wealth gets redistributed.

So, Americans' attitudes are based on the American dream while Europeans' views are based on world wide reality.

 

[AViking]

The American Dreams is long dead. It was one generation long and that generation still is trying to convince everyone else that things are just like they were in 1950. LOL

As far as CEO's not being free market then why do they have contracts with golden parachutes? It's a guild and one you can't lose in. Tell me how I get in there? I have owned a few companies and have the titles to make the next step. How do I get my golden parachute? Get me on the board of directors of a big ass company or 10, since they're part time, so I can prove how awesome I am, rake in a few million, and then get a nice $100M CEO position where my results don't matter.

Better yet get me in with the banks so that I can literally make millions upon millions despite destroying a trillion dollars in wealth. That is one hell of a gig. American Dream yo!

 

[ralfy]

Capitalism itself is based on coercion that is eventually legitimized. Also, governments eventually work for a financial elite. Finally, the system is not sustainable because of a resource crunch coupled with environmental damage.

 

[AViking]

What really worries me is that we are approaching an oligarchy. Maybe we're already there. Considering that those who fuck up our economy do not have to take responsibility for it I get the impression that we're already there.

 

[JMapleton]

As far as CEO's not being free market then why do they have contracts with golden parachutes? It's a guild and one you can't lose in. Tell me how I get in there? I have owned a few companies and have the titles to make the next step. How do I get my golden parachute? Get me on the board of directors of a big ass company or 10, since they're part time, so I can prove how awesome I am, rake in a few million, and then get a nice $100M CEO position where my results don't matter.

Better yet get me in with the banks so that I can literally make millions upon millions despite destroying a trillion dollars in wealth. That is one hell of a gig. American Dream yo!

If you don't know how to become a CEO, you're not qualified.

"Golden parachutes" as you say, do not disprove a free market. How so?

That's what the market says they're worth as employees. It may seem unfair to you but companies are willingly paying people like this. Are you just jealous because you're not one of them?

You or anyone else here have given no logical evidence to back up anything you've said. You guys just keep saying, "look! he made millions! that's proof!" How is that proof?

 

[JMapleton]

Considering that those who fuck up our economy do not have to take responsibility for it I get the impression that we're already there.

Very general statement. To a socialist, anyone with more than them is "messing up the economy."

Give an example.

 

[v-600]

Very general statement. To a socialist, anyone with more than them is "messing up the economy."

Give an example.

I disagree. Anyone with more than them, who does not act responsibly towards others, is messing up the economy.

I'll try avoid the recent banking collapse and give a different example.

I have one house for my family. Another person has a higher paying job and has 3 houses, living in one and renting out the others, and intends to pass on these to 3 children when they die. I really have no issue with this. Good for him, working to support his family both now, and in the future.

A third person has an even higher paying job and manages to buy 30 houses. He intentionally keeps these off the market to decrease supply, raising the value of his, which he uses as security to make buy more, intentionally pricing out 20% of the people in his community. He would have been comfortable with 1 house, well off with 3 but followed the "working for me is more important than helping others" mantra and is just as comfortable with 50 houses as he was with 5. When he dies he gives all the profit to charity, which doesn't really help the families living and struggling to pay the overly inflated rental rates.

[sarcasm]This guy deserves a nice socialist government to come and redistribute his wealth (to those who can't afford to buy a house because he as enough to raise the prices out of their reach)[/sarcasm]

 

[_Rick_]

But the point is that a capitalism system works by consent. A socialism system works by force.

You could easily inverse that statement.

A capitalist system works by force: keeping the poor from taking from the rich.
A socialist system works by the consent of the people, where everyone agrees, that it is better to assure a certain minimum standard of living for the sake of security and stability, and this is enforced by a government of the people.


Revolutions aren't sparked because people are oppressed or have no rights. Not because they don't see how they can get rich.
Revolutions start because people are poor and hungry. And that's the reason a purely capitalist system will fail. It will create so many poor, that the governments force to stop them from taking directly from the rich will be insufficient, or the fate of siding with the rich will not be bearable.


Now, I'm not claiming that what I just said is right, but it's just as right as what you are claiming. Because it looks at actions without considering the larger context.

 

[dastral]

My company could fire me tomorrow and another one just like me.

Indeed, however my case is the perfect example of how perverted capitalism has become.
The "workforce" accepts to be even more efficient, to help "their company" and "save their job".
We see our results : +32% Benefits and would be happy with that.

However seeing the CEO with +18% and hearing +1% makes me cringe.

If you do not agree with the market, there is only one other side to take. A planned economy. Socialism. Communism. Do you want that?

Honestly i'd prefer socialism over Modern Capitalism.
But it has become "Greedalism" which is a disaster for society.

If you don't like what you're being paid, become a CEO. Or start a business. Do something.

Yes, what this world needs is a 7 billion CeO. I did quit because it was bullshit.
Just as i'm quitting my actual job because i was "graciously" offered a +100$ raise, while a new employer offered +400$.


Capitalism is by far the best system, there is no doubt about that.
However its modern version is light years away from Ford's vision...
Which was to give his employees good wages so they could buy his cars...

Again, this comes back to American Individualism / Greed : Where ultimate success of the invidual (making a billion dollars) is more desirable than global sucess (making 100 million and having the rest distributed/invested to improve society).

 

[AViking]

Very general statement. To a socialist, anyone with more than them is "messing up the economy."

Give an example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_and_the_Financial_Crisis:_Anatomy_of_a_Financial_Collapse

Now I don't need you to read the whole thing but banks bet against products they were selling to their own clients. They dumped toxic assets on clients, doomed to fail, and then bet against them to further increase their profits. This was a massive conflict of interest.

They gave loans to people who were not qualified.

Ultimately the entire banking sector collapsed because these people had bad loans and then the banks got bailed out. Such a beautiful thing to get bailed out, consolidate power, and make a profit on destroying about $50,000,000,000,000 in wealth and sending the middle class back to where it was 30 years ago while increasing the wealth of the top percent significantly.

The CEO of Goldman Sachs until 2006 was Henry Paulson who was the Secretary of the Treasury during the banking crisis until 2009. No charges were filled against the company in 2012. It might have something to do with Goldman Sachs donating millions of dollars to senators and Obama.