FallingOsh 0 #101 February 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou guys are getting bogged down on labeling things "socialism", "communism", etc. as a means of being reactive rather than reflective - and, thereby, dogmatically rejectionist. This isn't religious doctrine, where heresy must be cast off, lest ye be damned. This is the cafeteria, where we get to pick and choose bits and parts. A little from Plan A; a smidgen of Plan B; hold the onions, please. So instead of spitting on the floor and throwing salt over your shoulder, belly up to the bar and let's cherry-pick what we need. Who the fuck cares what it's "called"? I care what it's called because that's not what the country was founded on. No one needs to belly up to the bar. They need to go the fuck home and quit trying to micro manage the economy with salary caps and a trillion dollars worth of pork spread out over three years. That country died in the 1930's.. the Depression caused unbridaled capitalism to be squashed because they showed all too well just how bad they could screw the country. Anti trust laws.... and Regulations resulted...... and now that the regulations were removed.... they again showed just how greedy and stupid they can be to again... screw the country. A few people have achieved fabulous wealth.. in what amounts to a giant Ponzi Scheme. You might want to check on how the bottom of the pyramids do in those schemes... if you cant figure it out... just look around at our economy. And what is your alternative to capitalism? -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,173 #102 February 6, 2009 >No, those are the parts of government spending you support. Uh, yes, actually. By definition anything in the bailout bill is government spending. >The bailout is being sold to us as the only way to rescue the economy. >Healthcare research wouldn't save the economy any more than repaving >every road in the country would. All of that will rescue the economy. Not because they are essential to its recovery, but because government spending speeds an economic recovery that's going to happen anyway. The argument that "spending all this money will do absolutely nothing" is like the argument against condoms that "they do nothing to prevent STD's." If you don't like government spending or condoms, nothing wrong with that. Come out and say it. But the stance that massive spending will do nothing for the economy makes your position trivially easy to disprove. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #103 February 6, 2009 Quotesounds like you are not so well read Reading right wing blogs will addle your brain. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mpuettman 0 #104 February 6, 2009 QuoteSome of these companies are most definitely failing because of the mechanism that drives the excessive pay. I agree that in many cases excessive pay is a driver to failure at some degree…The fatter the compensation package is, the more likely that CEOs and other senior executives will get further and further away from the real world and become more and more consumed with themselves and their luxury world. How can a company that exists by virtue of the average wage-earners, be expected (realistically) to understand what it takes to live in the real world when they have become so removed from it? Although I have never held a position at the executive level, I have had positions in the past in which I worked with executives on a daily basis and where I have witnessed senior execs tell the CEO only what he wants to hear – not what is really happening – everything is always falsely reported as “operating smoothly”, not only to the CEO but also to the board of directors (i.e., put a good spin on everything regardless of whether it is misleading or not). In other words, problems and issues are acknowledged DOWN the ladder only – never UP because everyone is afraid that they are going to get blamed, not be considered a team player, and possibly get less of a bonus and lose a promotion if they acknowledge that any problems exist. By operating this way, the CEOs can claim that they were never advised that problems existed and thereby did nothing wrong and were not negligent in their responsibilities. How long can a company be successful using this approach? If CEOs and senior execs were more in touch with their general workforce, they could address issues BEFORE they became problems. But, by virtue of the overly generous compensation packages, a clear division of association between execs and the workers is created and the 2 worlds rarely meet before a crisis erupts. Just my opinion…I'll now get off my soapbox. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #105 February 6, 2009 Quote In other words, problems and issues are acknowledged DOWN the ladder only – never UP because everyone is afraid that they are going to get blamed, not be considered a team player, and possibly get less of a bonus and lose a promotion if they acknowledge that any problems exist. By operating this way, the CEOs can claim that they were never advised that problems existed and thereby did nothing wrong and were not negligent in their responsibilities. How long can a company be successful using this approach? It worked for the Bush Administration for 8 years. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mpuettman 0 #106 February 6, 2009 Quote Quote In other words, problems and issues are acknowledged DOWN the ladder only – never UP because everyone is afraid that they are going to get blamed, not be considered a team player, and possibly get less of a bonus and lose a promotion if they acknowledge that any problems exist. By operating this way, the CEOs can claim that they were never advised that problems existed and thereby did nothing wrong and were not negligent in their responsibilities. How long can a company be successful using this approach? It worked for the Bush Administration for 8 years. ...and the economy collapsed at the end of the 8 years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #107 February 6, 2009 QuoteBut the stance that massive spending will do nothing for the economy makes your position trivially easy to disprove. I guess if you ignore history and support the country going another trillion in debt, then yeah... it makes my position trivial. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,173 #108 February 6, 2009 >I guess if you ignore history and support the country going another > trillion in debt, then yeah... it makes my position trivial. Your position isn't trivial. It's trivially easy to disprove. Again, you're going about this the wrong way. The bailout will work. Just because it will work doesn't mean it's a good idea. It's like hating lawyers and telling your kid he can't be a lawyer because they don't make any money, Being a lawyer may not be the best option for your kid - but if you use the "they don't make any money" angle your kid may eventually realize that you don't know what you're talking about, and any advice you hoped to give him will be lost. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #109 February 7, 2009 Quote>I guess if you ignore history and support the country going another > trillion in debt, then yeah... it makes my position trivial. Your position isn't trivial. It's trivially easy to disprove. Again, you're going about this the wrong way. The bailout will work. Just because it will work doesn't mean it's a good idea. It's like hating lawyers and telling your kid he can't be a lawyer because they don't make any money, Being a lawyer may not be the best option for your kid - but if you use the "they don't make any money" angle your kid may eventually realize that you don't know what you're talking about, and any advice you hoped to give him will be lost. If no lawyer in history had made money then telling your kid they don't make money would be a pretty good idea. New Deal-esque spending doesn't work. It didn't work then, it didn't work last year, it won't work this time. At least we can agree the bailout isn't a good plan. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,173 #110 February 7, 2009 >If no lawyer in history had made money then telling your kid they don't >make money would be a pretty good idea. Right. But if a lot of them make money (which they do) then telling him that would make him trust you a lot less. Which recession never ended after spending a lot of money on it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
