[Kosh]

If all CEO's really did that, and they were running successful companies that were making a profit, I wouldn't be complaining. The problem is, simply, that they don't. AIG being the prime example here. I mean, seriously, I gotta wonder what the guys over at Blizzard are making, but I don't really care how much those guys get paid, because they obviously deserve it. The oil executives? Not so much.

Ok, now that one gave me a laugh. People making computer games can make all the money they want because they deserve it, but you don't care, but big business CEO's don't deserve it.

To be fair the oil companies are still doing fairly well, it's the financial institutions that are rotten.

[SpardaSon21]

Banks are a business, just like all the rest.  And they do have a valuable role in the economy.  Loans.  Loans exist as a means of providing capital.  Capital is used for funding things such as business expansions and home ownership.  Take away banks, and who will give people loans?  Banks don't take away wealth, they create it by expanding the amount of capital in the market.  Stock is the same way.  When a business sells stock, it uses those funds to expand and provide more jobs.

[High Max]

.

[SpardaSon21]

Insurance is voluntary.  Universal health-care has no opt-out option.  That's why I don't like it.  Government tells me what to do since "its for my own good".

And as for the CIA, that is completely different.  That is national defense, one of the legitimate functions of government.  To get an idea of what I think the legitimate functions of a government are, I think that all a government is supposed to do is protect us from outside attack such as terrorists or foreign invasion, protect us from internal attack (this includes robberies, rapes, murders, etc., basically anything that violates my rights to life, liberty, and property and only acts that violate those rights, acts such as prostitution and drug use are not acts that violate those rights), and build infrastructure.  Anything more an government is overstepping its bounds.

[Herra Tohtori]

Anything more an government is overstepping its bounds.

Wow. That feels so totally alien to me that I don't even know what to say.

So I think I'll just agree to disagree.

[blackhole]

If all CEO's really did that, and they were running successful companies that were making a profit, I wouldn't be complaining. The problem is, simply, that they don't. AIG being the prime example here. I mean, seriously, I gotta wonder what the guys over at Blizzard are making, but I don't really care how much those guys get paid, because they obviously deserve it. The oil executives? Not so much.

Ok, now that one gave me a laugh. People making computer games can make all the money they want because they deserve it, but you don't care, but big business CEO's don't deserve it.

Yes. Although I would revise that to "make large amounts of money" because if Blizzard execs were making as much as oil companies the situation would be somewhat different.

The simple reason is that the Oil executives had to go on trial to justify their $16 million paycheck and how they can possibly complain about prices when they continually break records for profit margins and have what can only be considered a goddamn monopoly on the oil industry. I used blizzard because it was 5 f*cking AM in the morning and it was the first thing that came to mind, for obvious reasons. Microsoft is interesting in that most of its department leaders were programmers at one point, thus justifying at least a part of the large paycheck they now receive. For that matter the point I'm trying to make is that I am willing to tolerate large paychecks if the CEOs aren't simply being paid millions of dollars for sitting around in meetings and telling people what to do without ever having done anything different. Yes, CEOs deserve a lot of money. JUST NOT THAT MUCH.

[Scotty]

So make it ILLEGAL. That's what our legislative branch is for.

 

Our legislative branch exists to make laws that protect the welfare of the people, pertaining to ONLY that which is in the constitution of these United States.  It most certainly does NOT exist to make illegal anything that pertains to the economy.  The legislative branch is specifically limited to what is enumerated in the constitution by the 10th Amendment.

Sorry about the rant, that issue is a button of mine.

Earth has a finite volume of resources.

But the value of the resources can and frequently does increase.  Value can be construed as relative, and that value can increase, leading to a higher amount of wealth in the world.

There are homeless people. There are scandals. There are lots of things.

As there are when everything is completely fine, even booming.

Saying that increasing income taxes reduce the inventive to make money is like saying increasing food prices reduce hunger.

No, it's like saying that increasing food prices reduces the willingness to buy food because of the higher prices.

The oil executives? Not so much.

What's wrong with the oil guys?   

Capitalism or not, I think the people's money will go to what they don't approve of.

Approving of it isn't the problem.  The problem is that it goes to support people who haven't/won't really earn/deserve it.

*snip*
Anything more an government is overstepping its bounds

Sure thing, but have fun printing your own money, delivering your own mail, actually being safe, since the government can't raise taxes under your ideal world, suing someone for malpractic/negligence, or any one of a myriad of other things.

what can only be considered a goddamn monopoly on the oil industry.

Courtesy of Wikipedia:  A monopoly occurs when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.

Can you tell me which specific individual or enterprise controls the whole market?  Hmmm, probably not, since there are at least a dozen:  Chevron, Cheif Oil and Gas, ConocoPhillips, Crown Central Oil, Devon Energy, Koch, Kerr-McGee, Marathon, Sunoco, United Refining, Vaalco, XTO energy, etc.

Side note:  Those are ALL in the U.S. only.

Microsoft is interesting in that most of its department leaders were programmers at one point, thus justifying at least a part of the large paycheck they now receive.

*facepalm*  Hold on a sec.  You are saying that gigantic salaries are immoral and should be illegal, but then spin around and say that "game progammers are okay."  Reasoning?  What makes them better?

I am willing to tolerate large paychecks if the CEOs aren't simply being paid millions of dollars for sitting around in meetings and telling people what to do without ever having done anything different.

My, so many things that can be made to fit under a phrase so small.  Such as:  ordering supplies (neccessarily from different suppliers, especially if company produces something ) approving raises, appointing executives/higher ups, okaying expenses, determining expansions, all the s*** that entails with that, and a myriad of other things.

Okay, you need to stop posting on this thread now. You clearly do not know anything about the areasubject and can't be bothered to look things up.

[Liberator]

The government's powers and prerogatives are clearly laid out in the Constitution.  There are several people in this thread that are all but suggesting that said document be tossed out in favor of a mob rule by polling and who the mob happens to be angry at at that particular moment.

That's called anarchy, by the way, the complete lack of any civilized order in a society.

You don't wanna live in a world like that.  You wanna see a world like that?  South Central LA in the days following Rodney King.  You throw out the Constitution, it'll be like that every day.  Everywhere.  At least until the jackboots show up and it's Nazi Germany all over again people who speak against the government disappearing in the night, secret police, concentration camps and all that.

Then again, some might welcome a world run by people who have forgotten that humanity is as much a part of the ecology of Earth as a lion or a gazelle.

[karajorma]

And Liberator Godwin's himself thus losing the argument.

And no, having a government without a constitution != Nazi Germany. The UK gets by just fine without one thank you so very much.

[Blue Lion]

People talk about the Constitution like it was handed down from on high by god himself and can do no wrong.

[Liberator]

The UK gets by just fine without one thank you so very much.

The UK is still ostensibly a monarchy too, except true political power is installed in the PM and the Houses.  The Queen and the rest of the royal family are figureheads.  Beloved, generally honorable and respected, but figureheads nonetheless.

The USA is a Constitutional Representative Republic.  Unfortunately unique in this world.  Our founding documents enumerate the express powers of our government and it's branches.  Any power not expressly present in those documents remains endowed with the States and they're citizens.  These days, just the citizens.  Put simply, the constitution exists to limit the power of goverment and protect the God given rights that are present in all people at birth.   A government cannot grant or take away any rights that her citizens do not voluntarily give up.

And no, having a government without a constitution != Nazi Germany.

Not by itself no, but a few weeks of chaos, and you'd be surprised what people would agree with.  Hitler didn't grab control over night, he massaged it over the course of a decade.

People talk about the Constitution like it was handed down from on high by god himself and can do no wrong.

No, but I believe it was divinely inspired.  Seriously people read the thing.  Sad to say I haven't read the whole thing recently myself.  Anything from outside the original document and the amendments is supposed to be out of bounds and handled by the states on an individual basis

[karajorma]

The UK gets by just fine without one thank you so very much.

The UK is still ostensibly a monarchy too, except true political power is installed in the PM and the Houses.  The Queen and the rest of the royal family are figureheads.  Beloved, generally honorable and respected, but figureheads nonetheless.

The USA is a Constitutional Representative Republic.  Unfortunately unique in this world.  Our founding documents enumerate the express powers of our government and it's branches.  Any power not expressly present in those documents remains endowed with the States and they're citizens.  These days, just the citizens.  Put simply, the constitution exists to limit the power of goverment and protect the God given rights that are present in all people at birth.   A government cannot grant or take away any rights that her citizens do not voluntarily give up.

So by your logic we can kick out the constitution and make someone monarch and America would work too.

I vote for David Hasselhoff.

[Blue Lion]

No, but I believe it was divinely inspired.  Seriously people read the thing.  Sad to say I haven't read the whole thing recently myself.  Anything from outside the original document and the amendments is supposed to be out of bounds and handled by the states on an individual basis

I've absolutely read the entire thing.

And divinely inspired reminds me of when someone says a movie was "inspired by true events" which means it is absolutely false.

[peterv]

And no, having a government without a constitution != Nazi Germany. The UK gets by just fine without one thank you so very much.

UK though does have Magna Carta instead, which is the "mother" of all constitutions worldwide.

[karajorma]

Virtually everything in he Magna Carta has been repealed by later laws. Habeas corpus is about the only one that hasn't.

And that's really my point. Magna Carta isn't an unchangeable document. If parts of it no longer are valid then it can simply be changed.

[maje]

Businesses exist to make a profit.

For they're CEOs, Owners, Partners, ect.  Take a course is General Business and you'll understand.

Shockingly enough, people don't really enjoy watching CEOs and owners walk away with all the money while the economy tanks.

"I'm only in it to make money, screw you" isn't really helping win hearts and minds of the people who get to decide the rules in times like this.

Then maybe the American people should be more pissed off at (as Babylon 5's Londo Mollari so eloquently put it) that "convention of genetic defectives" called Congress for having even allowed language into the AIG bailout to allow for the CEOs to have been paid the bonuses.  True capitalism would've allowed AIG to fail and allow other entities to fill the void.

On some level I don't fault the CEOs entirely, since that is simply the nature of that particular animal.  The failure in this respect is in our elected officials who are more incompetent in doing their duty (like reading the f***ing bills that they pass) than the CEOs at running their businesses.

IF people really want to impose "Robin Hood" economics by stealing from the rich, then let's start with the federal government because if we remember the story, the government are the rich, and vice versa when considering influences each has on the other.

[Blue Lion]

Then maybe the American people should be more pissed off at (as Babylon 5's Londo Mollari so eloquently put it) that "convention of genetic defectives" called Congress for having even allowed language into the AIG bailout to allow for the CEOs to have been paid the bonuses.  True capitalism would've allowed AIG to fail and allow other entities to fill the void.

Does this positively affect regular citizens while they wait to see if things turn out ok? How many years does a market correction take and what do you offer the people who have to sit and watch and hope their livelihoods don't go up in smoke in the meantime?

On some level I don't fault the CEOs entirely, since that is simply the nature of that particular animal.  The failure in this respect is in our elected officials who are more incompetent in doing their duty (like reading the f***ing bills that they pass) than the CEOs at running their businesses.

Except this wasn't a case of CEOs simply "running a business".

If you can't see how their actions resonate through the very country itself then there is no use continuing the talk.

IF people really want to impose "Robin Hood" economics by stealing from the rich, then let's start with the federal government because if we remember the story, the government are the rich, and vice versa when considering influences each has on the other.

Why is it when CEOs get rich by quasi legal or ethical means it's all a part of capitalism, but if the people do it, it's theft.

[Scotty]

Why is it when CEOs get rich by quasi legal or ethical means it's all a part of capitalism, but if the people do it, it's theft.

There's nothing quasi-legal about it.  It is entirely legal.  If the government didn't want bonuses/severance packages, then they damn well should have specified.  They didn't.  Boo hoo.

Does this positively affect regular citizens while they wait to see if things turn out ok?

And this is so much better, we get to wait 20 years for the problem to fix itself instead of two.  Honestly, how much f*cking worse could it get if we just let the dead things go? 

Lemme put it this way:  Do you keep the rotting corpse of your pet fish around, just because the kids would be sad and mopey if they didn't have a fish?
Not a perfect analogy, by a long shot, but it's all I have right now.

EDIT:  fixed the wording a little.

[peterv]

True capitalism would've allowed AIG to fail and allow other entities to fill the void.

And as said before there's no true capitalism, never were and never will be. The same for socialism, communism etc.

Here is a stupid conspiracy theory which has nothing to do whith justice, ethics and political systems:

  1.For the last 15 years, China collects enormous amounts of US government bonds (i hope the term is right).

  2.For the last 15 years, US and EU major banks allow absurdly surplus values to be created in many fields of economy and especially in real estate within US.

  3.Reccurrent warnings about the phenomenon are being ignored by people who are supposed to know basic economics for the last 10 years (the danger of creating such kind of surplus values is a basic economics knowledge after the '29 market collapse).

  4.The crisis begins, having as a corner stone guess what. Greenspan admits ‘mistake’ that helped crisis  
(So far, no conspiracy theory, just facts)

  5. US prints dollars to overcome the crisis. Those dollars are diverted mostly to the banks. The absolute value of each dolar falls and so does the debt of US to China.

  End off story, start flaming.

Karajorma i have a question (just hopping that you can save me from the research): The majority of changes in reference with Magna Carta took place before or after the palace stoped being a political power in UK?

[Blue Lion]

Why is it when CEOs get rich by quasi legal or ethical means it's all a part of capitalism, but if the people do it, it's theft.

There's nothing quasi-legal about it.  It is entirely legal.  If the government didn't want bonuses/severance packages, then they damn well should have specified.  They didn't.  Boo hoo.

I sort of  meant the process that caused the companies to go down the crapper and force them to take federal funds. Remember that part?

And this is so much better, we get to wait 20 years for the problem to fix itself instead of two.  Honestly, how much f*cking worse could it get if we just let the dead things go? 

You mean besides the jobs lost, money lost, credit lost, the economy grinding to a halt while financial institutions work on ways to keep running? Not that bad at all. Rainbows and sunshine.

Lemme put it this way:  Do you keep the rotting corpse of your pet fish around, just because the kids would be sad and mopey if they didn't have a fish?
Not a perfect analogy, by a long shot, but it's all I have right now.

EDIT:  fixed the wording a little.

If those corpses are main parts of the economy and can't just be replaced effortlessly? Until they can be replaced effortlessly.