Capitalism Hits the Fan

[Imran Siddiqui]

The "some" indicates that the shareholders aren't as all powerful. The CEOs go after extra money & profits, not because the shareholders are pushing them on it, but because they want to.

[Kidlicious]

The "some" indicates that the shareholders aren't as all powerful. The CEOs go after extra money & profits, not because the shareholders are pushing them on it, but because they want to.

The capitalist class is all powerfull. The capitalist system has failed due to their actions. What are you on about?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Basically showing you that your objections to Blaupanzers:

So "people own both GM and Citibank" don't actually run those companies or decide on worker's pay versus lending decisions.

is wrong.


Oh, and I hadn't noticed were in a planned communist economy. I'll make a wager. When you die, we'll still be in a capitalist system.

[Kidlicious]

Basically showing you that your objections to Blaupanzers:



is wrong.

So some off topic issue? Well you haven't proven anything. The CEO of Google's pay is based on the profit the company makes, is it not? And if the CEO doesn't make profit, he'll be fired by the board, no?

Oh, and I hadn't noticed were in a planned communist economy. I'll make a wager. When you die, we'll still be in a capitalist system.

I'll probably die young, but anyway the capitalist system is already failing. I'd bet it's done within 30 years though.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So some off topic issue?

You mean responding to your off topic discussion? That's the only way it'd be off topic.

The CEO of Google's pay is based on the profit the company makes, is it not? And if the CEO doesn't make profit, he'll be fired by the board, no?

Is it the CEO the one that actually runs the company or decides on workers pay vs. lending? Let us actually deal with the question for once, shall we?

As a shareholder (if you are one), do you actually get to run the company or decide on worker pay? One of the main critiques of modern corporate governance lately is exactly that fact: that the owners don't really run the company. They aren't intimately involved in the day to day operations. Unless, of course, the CEO or CFO is the owner. A lot of reforms deal with allowing shareholders to have more power over their officers.

anyway the capitalist system is already failing. I'd bet it's done within 30 years though.

Keep dreaming... or taking your hallucinogins. I'm sure your ilk were talking this way back in the 70s too.

[Asher]

You're always so intellectual

An intellectual can recognize how anyone who wants to be taken seriously doesn't look like that.

[Kidlicious]

You mean responding to your off topic discussion? That's the only way it'd be off topic.

My participation in this is response only. Blaupanzer is trying to differentiate between bankers and manufactures and you're trying to differentiate between CEOs and shareholders. They're all capitalists. I've repeated that several times and you haven't responded to that at all. This is your little game.

Is it the CEO the one that actually runs the company or decides on workers pay vs. lending? Let us actually deal with the question for once, shall we?

Of course the CEO is chosen to lead a corporation. He's expected to make a profit. That's what he's hired to do. The shareholders decide to make profit. The CEO decides how that will be done. But they are all capitalists. They are the decision makers in the capitalist system.

As a shareholder (if you are one), do you actually get to run the company or decide on worker pay? One of the main critiques of modern corporate governance lately is exactly that fact: that the owners don't really run the company. They aren't intimately involved in the day to day operations. Unless, of course, the CEO or CFO is the owner. A lot of reforms deal with allowing shareholders to have more power over their officers.

Bull****. The shareholders have plenty of power, and they get plenty of profit, which is exactly what they want. Sure, there is corruption, but that in no way means that shareholders do not have power in the system. The shareholders have the money, and with that money comes great power. Sure the CEOs have power to, but they are also shareholders.

Keep dreaming... or taking your hallucinogins. I'm sure your ilk were talking this way back in the 70s too.

And they were right.

[Kidlicious]

An intellectual can recognize how anyone who wants to be taken seriously doesn't look like that.

I'm sure you're confusing such a person with an idiot.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Blaupanzer is trying to differentiate between bankers and manufactures and you're trying to differentiate between CEOs and shareholders. They're all capitalists.

According to communists, everyone who isn't one of them are capitalists. I'm sure most people would think that 401(k) Plans are "capitalists".

Blaupanzer's point is that the original speaker is incorrect when he tries to insinuate the the people who are deciding on wages are also the ones who decide to loan money to the wage earners, as if keeping real wages stagnant is a ploy by them to sell loans.

the CEO is chosen to lead a corporation. He's expected to make a profit. That's what he's hired to do. The shareholders decide to make profit. The CEO decides how that will be done.

And the CEO is the one that has the final say. Most of the shareholders out there really don't.

A lot of shareholders get really frustrated with CEO actions, but by the time they engage in shareholder derivative suits, it is waaay too late. The CEOs, and CFOs, along with Executive Vice Presidents have more power than the shareholders. Or do you think when officers of a company loot it and then leave, driving the shares to record lows that the shareholders were in on making their investments worthless?

And they were right.

Once again, I didn't realize we were living in a Communist economy. I wonder how 30 years from now we won't be capitalist economy turned into we aren't a capitalist economy now. Well, unless you live in the Kidiverse, I guess.

[Kidlicious]

According to communists, everyone who isn't one of them are capitalists. I'm sure most people would think that 401(k) Plans are "capitalists".

Blaupanzer's point is that the original speaker is incorrect when he tries to insinuate the the people who are deciding on wages are also the ones who decide to loan money to the wage earners, as if keeping real wages stagnant is a ploy by them to sell loans.

Again, for the 5th time at least. The speaker never claims that the same specific people who decided wages in a manufacturing plant, for example, lent teh profit from that to consumers. They made that money available and the bankers handled that. That is to say that the capitalists did it both, not some specific people.

Those are the capitalists. The capitalists are the ones with power in the system. I could care less if you have a 401k. That doesn't make you a capitalist.

And the CEO is the one that has the final say. Most of the shareholders out there really don't.

You just repeated what I said already. So?

A lot of shareholders get really frustrated with CEO actions, but by the time they engage in shareholder derivative suits, it is waaay too late. The CEOs, and CFOs, along with Executive Vice Presidents have more power than the shareholders. Or do you think when officers of a company loot it and then leave, driving the shares to record lows that the shareholders were in on making their investments worthless?

And shareholders are often very happy with uppermanagement. So what? The shareholders make that whole system possible. The system is for their benefit. They have the power to change the whole system. If they wanted to they could sell all their stock and start up a new company without a CEO. But they don't because of the profit that they make.

Once again, I didn't realize we were living in a Communist economy. I wonder how 30 years from now we won't be capitalist economy turned into we aren't a capitalist economy now. Well, unless you live in the Kidiverse, I guess.

What Marxist said capitalism would collapse in 30 years in 1970? I merely made a bet with you that it would collapse in 30 years. It may be 40 years or more. You asked for a wager and I gave it to you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The speaker never claims that the same specific people who decided wages in a manufacturing plant, for example, lent teh profit from that to consumers.

He implies it quite heavily, or that it was some deal that was struck to screw over people.

I could care less if you have a 401k. That doesn't make you a capitalist.

Exactly, and who do you think owns a lot of these companies? If you said retirement plans, you may be right.

What Marxist said capitalism would collapse in 30 years in 1970?

Stick to what I said, k. "I'm sure your ilk were talking this way back in the 70s too." - ie, people in the 70s. in the midst of stagflation, saying in 30 years capitalism would be dead.

[Kidlicious]

He implies it quite heavily, or that it was some deal that was struck to screw over people.

Wow, you just read whatever you want into what he's saying. Exactly how is he implying that he's talking about specific individuals and not capitalists as an collective group? And what's this deal that you talk about? He doesn't mention a deal, or a secret meeting or anything. Please, tell me how the hell you read all that into what he says.

Exactly, and who do you think owns a lot of these companies? If you said retirement plans, you may be right.

I said if you own a 401k you aren't a capitalist. If you own a retirement plan that's a different story.

Stick to what I said, k. "I'm sure your ilk were talking this way back in the 70s too." - ie, people in the 70s. in the midst of stagflation, saying in 30 years capitalism would be dead.

And then came the credit bubble. That's a once in a life time occurance. They can't create another credit bubble.

[Aeson]

There will be more bubbles... it's human nature.

[Kidlicious]

There will be more bubbles... it's human nature.

No doubt. By credit bubble, I mean the entire transition to the credit economy from the Bretton Woods system.

[Aeson]

A credit bubble can surely happen again. All that's really required for one is that lending rates are kept artificially low, and that there are borrowers willing to take money they can't really afford (always will be a given).