Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Obama to CEOs "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" CEOs to Obama: "We will let you give us tax breaks"   (news.yahoo.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, President Obama, protection agency, gasoline taxes, Business Roundtable, tax breaks, shareholder value, trade agreement, bondholders  
•       •       •

4819 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Feb 2011 at 4:40 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



220 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-02-08 06:23:36 PM  

140toesandfingers: WhyteRaven74: 140toesandfingers: Once money is taxed it is destroyed

LOL wut?

Where do you think a dollar bill comes from? Money has to be borrowed into existance.


That paycheck that the DoT roadworker cashes in to pay for his living and discretionary expenses paid to entities other than the government says otherwise.

Like Whyteraven said... LOL WUT?
 
2011-02-08 06:25:07 PM  
MadCat221
Like Whyteraven said... LOL WUT?

This one talks like someone who's been on an Austrian economics forum for way too long.
 
2011-02-08 06:28:13 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Weaver95: Speaking to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the president urged the business community to help accelerate the slow economic recovery by increasing hiring and unleashing some of the $2 trillion piling up on their balance sheets.

look...dude...I'm about as big a capitalist as you can get and still be sane. so lemme see if I can explain something to ya: corporations do not recognize the concept of 'the greater good'. they care about one thing: maximum profits. that's it. they don't care about jobs, they don't care about approval ratings, they don't care about morality or ethics. they care about money. they care about how much money they've got, how much they have to spend and how to make more money.

grind it into your skull - corporations do. not. care. they are a necessary evil, and they can do some really great things for you and your economy...but the moment the economic situation changes, they will abandon you to your fate. Use corporations to accomplish your goals. NEVER trust them. Always assume that a corporation will f*ck you over first chance they get. If they behave, hey - that's great! But you'll want a big stick handy just in case they turn against you.

so don't try appealing to the better side of a corporation - they don't have one. instead - focus your efforts on finding ways to get corporations to accomplish your goals. if you have to lie, manipulate and/or resort to outright thuggery in order to bring a corporation to heel then do so...because if situations were reversed, a corporation can and will do so to you and your country.

welcome to the machine.

And yet there are millions of Americans who have a strong faith that if we just stop regulating corporations, and we eliminate checks on their power like unions, their lives will improve and the kind, benevolent corporations really will take care of them.


this
 
2011-02-08 06:28:25 PM  

RanDomino: MadCat221
Like Whyteraven said... LOL WUT?

This one talks like someone who's been on an Austrian economics forum for way too long.


This one likes to pretend he's high and mighty by referring to those he disparages in the third person despite his post having nothing of substance to the argument.
 
2011-02-08 06:28:53 PM  
That bumbling Kenyan Muslim should know the Constitution *restricts* his power, not gives him anything special.

I wonder if Obama will attack those rich college presidents and professors, or those rich Hollywood producers and directors, or how about those rich labor union leaders...

Somehow I don't count on it...
 
2011-02-08 06:30:07 PM  

fark80: That bumbling Kenyan Muslim should know the Constitution *restricts* his power, not gives him anything special.

I wonder if Obama will attack those rich college presidents and professors, or those rich Hollywood producers and directors, or how about those rich labor union leaders...

Somehow I don't count on it...


2/10
 
2011-02-08 06:32:36 PM  

paygun: I think these days long range planning means next quarter.


Which is kinda the problem.

140toesandfingers: Where do you think a dollar bill comes from? Money has to be borrowed into existance.


That doesn't even make any sense.

Name a country that has done this and was successful.

Done what? Gotten corporations to behave?
 
2011-02-08 06:41:03 PM  

MadCat221: 140toesandfingers: WhyteRaven74: 140toesandfingers: Once money is taxed it is destroyed

LOL wut?

Where do you think a dollar bill comes from? Money has to be borrowed into existance.

That paycheck that the DoT roadworker cashes in to pay for his living and discretionary expenses paid to entities other than the government says otherwise.

Like Whyteraven said... LOL WUT?


I don't know where you get your dollars but mine say it is a Federal Reserve Note aka an IOU.
 
2011-02-08 06:43:40 PM  
edlmco you got served
 
2011-02-08 06:46:32 PM  

140toesandfingers: MadCat221: 140toesandfingers: WhyteRaven74: 140toesandfingers: Once money is taxed it is destroyed

LOL wut?

Where do you think a dollar bill comes from? Money has to be borrowed into existance.

That paycheck that the DoT roadworker cashes in to pay for his living and discretionary expenses paid to entities other than the government says otherwise.

Like Whyteraven said... LOL WUT?

I don't know where you get your dollars but mine say it is a Federal Reserve Note aka an IOU.


Jesus Christ crapping on a cracker.
 
2011-02-08 06:47:09 PM  

edlmco: stolen from
http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/index.html
Now ... let's do a quick Cliff Notes review of this man as it relates to commerce and the private markets.

Barack Obama is a man who has:

never derped a derp
never derped a derpy derp
never double derped a derpy derp derp
never derped a double derp.


Jimmy Carter ran a successful business. Maybe you wish Jimmy Carter was the President?
 
2011-02-08 06:50:06 PM  

MadCat221: 140toesandfingers: WhyteRaven74: 140toesandfingers: Once money is taxed it is destroyed

LOL wut?

Where do you think a dollar bill comes from? Money has to be borrowed into existance.

That paycheck that the DoT roadworker cashes in to pay for his living and discretionary expenses paid to entities other than the government says otherwise.

Like Whyteraven said... LOL WUT?


Good story... although you missed my point. You show the dollar can be traded. I am talking about created.
 
2011-02-08 06:50:33 PM  

blahpers: 140toesandfingers: MadCat221: 140toesandfingers: WhyteRaven74: 140toesandfingers:

Jesus Christ crapping on a cracker.


mmmmmm Crappy Christ Crackers.
 
2011-02-08 06:51:39 PM  
Money can buy many peanuts.

EXPLAIN HOW!

Money can be exchanged for goods and services.
 
2011-02-08 06:58:30 PM  
Companies don't care what they pay you. They care about what it costs to employ you. There is a huge difference between those two numbers. Taxes, benefits, and regulatory compliance all cost companies money whether or not the employee ever sees it. Over the years, the cost to employ workers in the U.S. has increased dramatically while other countries have not imposed those expenses. Whether that is fair or not is irrelevant. Companies must make money in order to survive. They must compete with other companies that have the same global options. If Obama or the Congress wants to bring jobs into this country, they need to make the cost of employment competitive.
 
2011-02-08 07:02:53 PM  

Mr. Right: If Obama or the Congress wants to bring jobs into this country, they need to make the cost of employment competitive.


And how exactly do you propose they do that?

And what about making it more expensive for companies to move production out of the country in the first place?
 
2011-02-08 07:04:42 PM  

140toesandfingers: I don't know where you get your dollars but mine say it is a Federal Reserve Note aka an IOU.


A Treasury Bill or Treasury Note is borrowed money. A savings bond is borrowed money.

I am talking about created.

If you have the legal authority to print and circulate money it's a matter of it being accepted as valid currency. If party A agrees with party B that a quantity of this money is acceptable for a good or service, then the money has that value. In the days of the gold standard dollars were worth some fraction of an ounce of silver or gold, depending on denomination. All the same, it still depended on people accepting it as tender.

Mr. Right: . Over the years, the cost to employ workers in the U.S. has increased dramatically while other countries have not imposed those expenses.


And yet you don't see French or German companies running overseas to cut costs like you do American companies, all the while it's not notably cheaper in France or Germany to employ someone. Plus you have to deal with things like mandatory paid days off and the like.
 
2011-02-08 07:07:45 PM  
MadCat221
This one likes to pretend he's high and mighty by referring to those he disparages in the third person despite his post having nothing of substance to the argument.

...I was referring to 140toesandfingers
 
2011-02-08 07:10:51 PM  

Mr. Right: Companies don't care what they pay you. They care about what it costs to employ you. There is a huge difference between those two numbers. Taxes, benefits, and regulatory compliance all cost companies money whether or not the employee ever sees it. Over the years, the cost to employ workers in the U.S. has increased dramatically while other countries have not imposed those expenses. Whether that is fair or not is irrelevant. Companies must make money in order to survive. They must compete with other companies that have the same global options. If Obama or the Congress wants to bring jobs into this country, they need to make the cost of employment competitive.


With China, for example? Good farkin' luck! I see that you have a big vision for our country's future. Mass poverty. Disaster. The new "American Dream".
 
2011-02-08 07:11:30 PM  
Mr. Right
they need to make the cost of employment competitive.

Only a race to the bottom can save us!

The problems are that 1) not everyone can be an export-oriented economy and 2) the difference between what we were being paid and what we're not being paid is going to the rich.

Instead of racing to the bottom, we should be raising other countries' standards of living to our level. Rather than go on a crazy "free trade" binge, Congress should have put tariffs on countries that have lower labor rights and environmental protections than the US.
 
2011-02-08 07:15:49 PM  

Pincy: Mr. Right: If Obama or the Congress wants to bring jobs into this country, they need to make the cost of employment competitive.

And how exactly do you propose they do that?

And what about making it more expensive for companies to move production out of the country in the first place?


There are literally thousands of regulations coming at companies from almost every branch of government and they all cost money to keep track and comply. The amount of paperwork - electronic or otherwise - that must be generated, filed, and maintained is the biggest single task of any HR department. A lot of it could be eliminated, nearly all of it could be streamlined. Large companies have whole departments just to insure diversity. Whether or not that fits in with your social goals, it is an enormous expense which adds no value to the customer. Mandates like ADA and FMLA sounded like a good idea at the time but they add costs that companies in other countries do not bear. Those are just a couple with which you are probably familiar. You may think they are fine ideas - that's OK. You just need to understand that they drive up the cost of employment and make moving jobs overseas more attractive.

How do you propose to make it more expensive to move production out of the country? Bear in mind that we are involved in a global economy. We can have a company based in this country with some jobs here and a lot overseas or we can have no company in this country and import those goods from a company based overseas. Until the U.S. government runs the entire world and impose their idea of fairness globally, they will have to let U.S. companies compete.
 
2011-02-08 07:19:53 PM  
Private profit, socialized risk. It's the new American way.
 
2011-02-08 07:21:32 PM  

Lando Lincoln: edlmco: In short ... this is a man who has no idea in the universe what it means to own and operate a business

George W. Bush ran a number of businesses into the ground. He really helped our country out of prosperity.


FTFY
 
2011-02-08 07:22:28 PM  
Isn't it nice knowing how much of a stranglehold big business has on American politics...

And yet so many of you will vehemently defend this dysfunctional system where the most goes to the very few.

Lovely.
 
2011-02-08 07:28:00 PM  
It's that poor old guy quoting Boortz that I feel sorry for.

"Obama has never written a business plan bla bla bla."

I mean, for fark's sake. If you can write you can write a farking business plan, but no Boortz thinks it is relevant so it must be.
 
2011-02-08 07:33:05 PM  

Mr. Right: that must be generated, filed, and maintained is the biggest single task of any HR department.


HR departments are fairly new. How did stuff get handled before HR departments? And HR only deals with employee stuff, there are other regulations that have nothing to do with employees.

21-7-b: "Obama has never written a business plan bla bla bla."


Of my friends who run successful businesses, none has ever written a business plan either.
 
2011-02-08 07:35:14 PM  
blah
blah
FREEDOM
blah
blah
SOCIALISM
blahblah
COMMUNIST
blahblah
HIPPIE
blah blah
LAZY

did I cover it all?
 
2011-02-08 07:40:07 PM  
BRICK HOUSE

Obama to Bill O'Riley -- I do not believe in wealth redistribution>

Obama to Corp CEOs -- Company profits need to be shared with the employees.


I don't get your point? maybe just maybe the employees helped make the profits.

No I get it the CEO's did all the work....Just like where i work..
they run the machines sweep the floors make the sales calls while the employees just jerk off in the corner....Your parents should be proud of you. Did you eat lead paint growing up?
 
2011-02-08 07:46:25 PM  

140toesandfingers: WhyteRaven74: Someone tell these CEO's that hiring people is its own tax break. Since corporations pay taxes on what's left after expenses have been paid, if you spend more on employees, you end up with a lower tax bill.

Corporations do not pay taxes. It is a cost of doing business and is passed on to the consumer.


Pretty much. Which is why as a lefty I would favor a compromise eliminating the corporate income tax, so long as we added a few extra income tax brackets. Say, 500k through 1M is taxed at 40%, 1M-5M is taxed at 50%, and everything over 5M is taxed at something nice and high like 60+%. Right now I believe it stops at ~370k and 35%? That way you have a structural arrangement that puts pressure on a more equitable distribution of a company's profits without directly affecting the consumer. Pretty much the way things were before Reagan castrated federal revenue by lowering the % taxed on the most high brackets.

/not holding my breath
//bad for the plutocracy
 
2011-02-08 07:54:12 PM  
At some point, don't the rich stop and ask themselves, "How much is enough? How much of a greedy shiat can I be to my fellow man to fark him over so my profits can receive a .0001% increase? How much shiat do I REALLY need? How souless and inhumane can I REALLY get?"
 
2011-02-08 07:57:50 PM  
TofuTheAlmighty - That CEOs during the post-war era considered themselves beneficent overlords is an historical aberration. That time is not coming back - shareholders no longer look at long-term profitability, only the quarterly balance sheet. The social contract was torn up by trickle-down economics and elevation of greed as good.


This.

Noblesse oblige died when businessmen were no longer constrained by geography and were free to live many states or even entire continents away from the people working for them.

Sure, when your daughter has to go to high school with the plant foreman's son, and everyone in town including all your employees knows exactly where your house is... you might consider how far you really want to go for a few extra bucks. Hell, if you have even the tiniest trace of a soul, you might even be moored to decency by having to see the ramifications of your decisions up close and personal... but when you can truly consign all those underlings to mere numeric abstractions far removed from you and your family... it's very easy indeed to strip your core operating philosophy to a bare and unrestrained cry of "mo' money, mo' money, mo' money!"
 
2011-02-08 07:58:56 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Mr. Right: that must be generated, filed, and maintained is the biggest single task of any HR department.

HR departments are fairly new. How did stuff get handled before HR departments? And HR only deals with employee stuff, there are other regulations that have nothing to do with employees.

21-7-b: "Obama has never written a business plan bla bla bla."

Of my friends who run successful businesses, none has ever written a business plan either.


They have their uses :)

What I don't get is what "mr right" is on about. In China, say, you've got a huge workforce, where the factoryworkers are motivated to an extent that is entirely foreign to their 21st Century American counterparts. If the boss doesn't want you looking up while you work, you don't look up or you don't have a job. That's the reality, quite apart from far cheaper wages. So how is trimming an hr department and relaxing a bit of paper-shuffling regulation going to even come within a million miles of balancing the equation? We can't compete with the Chinese wages, or the lack of regulation - because, tbh, we don't want to.
 
2011-02-08 08:01:01 PM  
Rikyfree - At some point, don't the rich stop and ask themselves, "How much is enough? How much of a greedy shiat can I be to my fellow man to fark him over so my profits can receive a .0001% increase? How much shiat do I REALLY need? How souless and inhumane can I REALLY get?"


Yes, yes they do... and it is at those times that they get TWO chicks to pee on them and do blow off their cocks.
 
2011-02-08 08:02:39 PM  
Rikyfree Quote 2011-02-08 07:54:12 PM
At some point, don't the rich stop and ask themselves, "How much is enough? How much of a greedy shiat can I be to my fellow man to fark him over so my profits can receive a .0001% increase? How much shiat do I REALLY need? How souless and inhumane can I REALLY get?"


>>>

Greed is an addiction, it's too bad they see this as a normal American. And it's dangerous to America.
 
2011-02-08 08:07:48 PM  

21-7-b: We can't compete with the Chinese wages, or the lack of regulation - because, tbh, we don't want to.


Plus there's always the other side to the situation in China. You can only pollute your water and air so much before people start getting sick and can't work. Then what? Sure they have over a billion people, that doesn't mean they can just endlessly swap people around. When you have millions of people who don't have drinkable water that can't be fixed by boiling it, you're running headlong into a big problem. Plus as that water starts to seep into farm fields and such, you get whole new problems. At some point they're going to have to deal with the consequences of their actions. And then what?

Also labor doesn't stay cheap forever. Japan, Taiwan and South Korea used to be sources of cheap labor. Didn't stay that way for long. Granted the situation in China is different, but still, at some point labor stops being so cheap.
 
2011-02-08 08:08:38 PM  

Rikyfree: At some point, don't the rich stop and ask themselves, "How much is enough? How much of a greedy shiat can I be to my fellow man to fark him over so my profits can receive a .0001% increase? How much shiat do I REALLY need? How souless and inhumane can I REALLY get?"


History would suggest that the rich are far more likely to end up in a guillotine than accepting some sort of benevolent obligation to society as a whole.
 
2011-02-08 08:12:33 PM  
The only solution to the evils of globalization and crony capitalism

a global minimum wage
 
2011-02-08 08:16:49 PM  
21-7-b - WhyteRaven74: Mr. Right: that must be generated, filed, and maintained is the biggest single task of any HR department.

HR departments are fairly new. How did stuff get handled before HR departments? And HR only deals with employee stuff, there are other regulations that have nothing to do with employees.

21-7-b: "Obama has never written a business plan bla bla bla."

Of my friends who run successful businesses, none has ever written a business plan either.



They have their uses :)

What I don't get is what "mr right" is on about. In China, say, you've got a huge workforce, where the factoryworkers are motivated to an extent that is entirely foreign to their 21st Century American counterparts. If the boss doesn't want you looking up while you work, you don't look up or you don't have a job. That's the reality, quite apart from far cheaper wages. So how is trimming an hr department and relaxing a bit of paper-shuffling regulation going to even come within a million miles of balancing the equation? We can't compete with the Chinese wages, or the lack of regulation - because, tbh, we don't want to.



And damn straight we shouldn't... As much as conservatives and Randroids might like to view this country like a board game, "I win. You lose. Suck it!" it's not. It's a society, and needs buy-in from everyone involved to function properly, and thus it should serve everyone who works at it. Rich guys are rich because the rest of us agree to recognize all of that abstract representation of wealth.

I would douse as many rich people as I could with gasoline and set them ablaze laughing on my way to jail before I'd live like a farking Chinese serf in this goddamn country. Men, women, children... you name it. I would spread the farking pain, and distribute the farking cost. "You gonna make kids live in shiat? Fine, misery loves company." I would make it my life's mission to ensure that they could not rest easy with their ill-gotten gain.

/ITG
 
2011-02-08 08:25:08 PM  
WhyteRaven74

all important factors - also add in things like non-party unionisation, etc. on the other side, though, quality control is improving and that could act to create a further drain in the near future.

I suppose one thing all this talk of "them" taking our jobs does is to hide that "them" includes machines. Those farkers never even think about looking up and their cost just keeps coming down.
 
2011-02-08 08:26:44 PM  

btfoom: Weaver95

look...dude...I'm about as big a capitalist as you can get and still be sane.

Wrong. You may want to think you are a capitalist, but when I read the rest of your drivel, you are spouting nothing more that the standard leftist/borderline conspiracy theorist explanations for 'corporations'


It never gets old to see Weaver called/likened to leftist-liberal-commies. Never.
 
2011-02-08 08:43:04 PM  
technicolor-misfit

That sounds a little extreme! You really only need one rich person ablaze at any one time, so that they can light their cigars for you
 
2011-02-08 08:50:25 PM  

vrax: Mr. Right: Companies don't care what they pay you. They care about what it costs to employ you. There is a huge difference between those two numbers. Taxes, benefits, and regulatory compliance all cost companies money whether or not the employee ever sees it. Over the years, the cost to employ workers in the U.S. has increased dramatically while other countries have not imposed those expenses. Whether that is fair or not is irrelevant. Companies must make money in order to survive. They must compete with other companies that have the same global options. If Obama or the Congress wants to bring jobs into this country, they need to make the cost of employment competitive.

With China, for example? Good farkin' luck! I see that you have a big vision for our country's future. Mass poverty. Disaster. The new "American Dream".


yeah the south has been trying that for years...i don't recall mississippi exactly being in an economic boom anytime recently.

you can't compete with the low wages of the third world by lower wages in america. to think so is foolish. instead something else must be done.

and considering the increase the CEO to average worker income, i think there's a little money left in the tank for joe six-pack. if the pols weren't completely bought and sold by the plutocracy.
 
2011-02-08 09:21:48 PM  

Philip J. Fry: I think Obama is doing it Wrong when it comes to dealing with business. On the other hand, there is a lot of simplified thought going into making decisions about business. Yes capitalism functions efficiently and it might be the right decision for a business to lay off workers, or stop hiring Americans and hire third world labor at near slave wages.

But there's only so far we as a nation can push that ideal. Sure, Bob down the street got laid off, but I'm a small business owner happily paying my bills! Go capitalism!

Then Jane gets laid off next door, then Tom across the street, then Steve a block over, then Joe on the corner. Suddenly my company manufacturing emergency raincoats is running nice and efficiently, but I have no business in America because no one can afford it, and I can't live in my own neighborhood anymore because everyone is poor and I don't feel safe.


What you're leaving out of that equation is that Jane, Tom, and Steve were all real estate brokers who were trying to sell $500K houses to Joe who worked in retail and only had $5,000 to put down.


Believe it or not, recessions do actually have a corrective purpose. Its purpose is to divert scarce resources from unproductive uses and reroute them to their highest and best use. It's painful, and it sucks to go through with it, but so is a hangover after a weekend bender of whiskey and strippers. There's no way to get around from having it, so we've got to put the bottle down at some point before we kill ourselves.


Capitalism's fark The Neighbors attitude works fine as long as the nation is growing as a whole, but free markets mean we're going to end up with a serious underclass here at home.

No, it doesn't. Free markets mean that those in the "underclass" have the best chance at ascending to a higher standard of living.

Free market being the operative word here because so many people fire right back at that by saying something like, "But the evil rich people are going to do everything they can to keep them down! They're going to pass laws that keep them from ascending higher!"

That is not a free market. That's a bastardization of the market using the force of the government to achieve it. The free market fails once the government steps in to subsidize, tax, promote, discourage, give tax breaks, make mandates, and a whole host of other ways of distorting the market.

If Ben Bernanke said he wanted to raise the fed funds rate by 100 basis points tomorrow, the market would be sent into a frenzy. A system in which a single man has power like that is not a free market.


ANd suddenly we're blaming poor people again for ruining the economy.

Don't know who you've been listening to, but I and people like me have been blaming central planning for ruining the economy for a while now.

It's not entirely Jane's, Tom's, Steve's, and Joe's faults that they got laid off. They weren't the ones keeping interest rates artificially low; they weren't the ones who tried to stimulate the economy in the aftermath of the tech bubble bust and 9/11; they weren't the ones mandating lower lending standards at loan originators; they weren't the ones requiring FNMA and FHLMC to buy huge amounts of subprime MBSs; they weren't the ones who protected the ratings agencies' oligopoly.

And finally, they weren't the ones who decided to bail out everyone and his brother when the shiat hit the fan.


TheJoeY: I have a hard time finding folks credible on capitalist economies while they completely ignore-if-not-dismiss the demand side of the market.


I have a hard time finding folks credible on capitalist economies while they completely ignore-if-not-dismiss unintended consequences, cause and effect, and long term effects.

People who think that aggregate demand of the economy can be "stimulated" by either taxing and spending or printing and spending without any consequences are ignoring history and empirical evidence.

Those taxes come from somewhere - under an income tax, they come from production. Production is the engine of an economy (can't employ people unless they actually produce something for the company they work for), so in a time when production is reduced, further reducing that production by increasing taxes will exacerbate our problems.

That printing causes inflation - sure, it's not directly taxing people's wallets, but they feel the effect when they have to pay higher prices for everything. That unemployment check will be able to buy less and less as inflation pushes prices higher. It's an invisible tax on the poorest among us.

Recessions happen when there is a distortion in the price system. Prices correct; markets correct. They can't do their job when the government starts getting in the way to prop up certain prices (such as housing prices) and keep others down (such as interest rates). THAT'S when a recession starts to turn into a depression.
 
2011-02-08 09:30:25 PM  
Did RTFA. After a point, it simply began to sound like "Mwah mwah mwah Obama mwah mwah mwah mwah," as far as sybstantive content would go.

/The Peanuts' semi-mute schoolteacher is more intellectually stimulating than that article
//Sorry, subby, passing on this one
 
2011-02-08 09:42:50 PM  

Shakin_Haitian: Obama wasn't elected to be a god damn CEO.


Well, in a way, that's exactly what he was elected.

Commander in Chief.

Head of the Executive branch.

Occupant of the Oval Office.

He's the CEO of the entire country. What the problem is is that the government has been co-opted by special interests and big business. Country's in a downward spiral, but what's the big issue? Whether gays can get marriage redefined to include them.
 
2011-02-08 09:45:49 PM  

RembrandtQEinstein: solution:

remove limited liability from corporate owners and stockholders

the problem will fix itself

(also remove immunity from police, judges and prosecutors)


THIS!!!


/so much this


When the owners and shareholders are actually held personally responsible for their choices and actions, I can guarantee they will think twice before shiatting where they sleep.

CEOs need to start going to jail for their crimes (or they can drop dead like Ken Lay).
 
2011-02-08 09:48:53 PM  

Weaver95: Speaking to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the president urged the business community to help accelerate the slow economic recovery by increasing hiring and unleashing some of the $2 trillion piling up on their balance sheets.

look...dude...I'm about as big a capitalist as you can get and still be sane. so lemme see if I can explain something to ya: corporations do not recognize the concept of 'the greater good'. they care about one thing: maximum profits. that's it. they don't care about jobs, they don't care about approval ratings, they don't care about morality or ethics. they care about money. they care about how much money they've got, how much they have to spend and how to make more money.

grind it into your skull - corporations do. not. care. they are a necessary evil, and they can do some really great things for you and your economy...but the moment the economic situation changes, they will abandon you to your fate. Use corporations to accomplish your goals. NEVER trust them. Always assume that a corporation will f*ck you over first chance they get. If they behave, hey - that's great! But you'll want a big stick handy just in case they turn against you.

so don't try appealing to the better side of a corporation - they don't have one. instead - focus your efforts on finding ways to get corporations to accomplish your goals. if you have to lie, manipulate and/or resort to outright thuggery in order to bring a corporation to heel then do so...because if situations were reversed, a corporation can and will do so to you and your country.

welcome to the machine.


You just made my favorites list.
 
2011-02-08 09:51:53 PM  
Hydra
That is not a free market. That's a bastardization of the market using the force of the government to achieve it.

If there wasn't the government, then the rich would just hire gangs of armed thugs to intimidate competition. That's how government was invented in the first place! There is no such thing as the "free market".
 
2011-02-08 10:20:02 PM  
RanDomino - Hydra - That is not a free market. That's a bastardization of the market using the force of the government to achieve it.

If there wasn't the government, then the rich would just hire gangs of armed thugs to intimidate competition. That's how government was invented in the first place! There is no such thing as the "free market".



This.

Even short of that extreme, the minute regulation was lifted collusion and price-fixing would explode. It is not in the best interest of businesses to engage in a race to the bottom with one another. Sure, if one business has an overwhelming advantage to exploit to eviscerate and rid himself of an opponent... He'll take it. But it does not serve his interests to nickel and dime a close competitor, because they're both just going to drive each other to the basement.

It makes far more sense for them to ring each other up and say "obviously, we're stuck splitting this market... I won't go lower than _____ if you won't."


We cannot DE-regulate, so it's far more important that we regulate intelligently and scrutinize the regulators relentlessly. Everybody always talks about regulatory capture, but no one ever talks about DE-regulatory capture... wherein we weaken the regulatory framework so much that it's a trivial matter for industry to come in and take it over completely and tailor make the regulations to their heart's content.


Look at Enron and their de-regulatory racket. "Oooh, we're opening energy up to competitive markets!" No they didn't... They seized the de-regulatory process and wrote the rules so that the new laws basically said "we gets all the moneys, no matter what happens!"

It's like inviting John Dillinger in to a bank to consult on the best ways to minimize security... Not only does he NOT fire everyone and make it a free-for-all and return the savings to the bank, He draws up a security plan that protects the money from everyone but him and then sells the security hardware and pockets the cash.
 
2011-02-08 10:27:40 PM  
While capitalism has done a fair share of improving the human condition to this point, I do not believe it will be the best vehicle for that in perpetuity. At some point, we're either going to have to eradicate the existence of assholes who want power over others, or I believe our whole species will cave in on itself.

The idea that one must do almost nothing but work from the age of around 18 until the deterioration of the body is unacceptable to me. In my opinion, as technology increases, so should the work day decrease. We should be at 6 hours, 4 days and 40 weeks by now. But it will never happen so long as someone is greedier than you and willing to work more of their life away and hoard that extra opportunity.

Also, the idea that economic growth has no end is just silly. There aren't enough atoms in the solar system for Pepsi-Cola and Monsanto to grow infinitely.

There is such a word as "enough." And other than finding cures for diseases, I think we're there.
 
Displayed 50 of 220 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report