Jump to content

Politics


Christmas Tree
 Share

Recommended Posts

Some executive wages are obscene and bear no resemblance to performance or reality. This discussion has been going on since the 80's. Share holders in some companies have kicked up a stink about it iirc.

 

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/16/the-highest-paid-ceos-are-the-worst-performers-new-study-says/#3f0beaa6293a

 

 

''Another counter-intuitive conclusion: The negative effect was most pronounced in the 150 firms with the highest-paid CEOs. The finding is especially surprising given the widespread notion that it’s worth it to pay a premium to superstar CEOs like Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase (who earned $20 million in 2013) or Lloyd Blankfein ($28 million) of Goldman Sachs. (The study doesn’t reveal individual results for them.) Though Cooper concedes that there could be exceptions at specific companies (the study didn’t measure individual firms), the study shows that as a group, the companies run by the CEOS who were paid at the top 10% of the scale, had the worst performance. How much worse? The firms returned 10% less to their shareholders than did their industry peers. The study also clearly shows that at the high end, the more CEOs were paid, the worse their companies did; it looked at the very top, the 5% of CEOs who were the highest paid, and found that their companies did 15% worse, on average, than their peers.''

 

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/21/investing/executive-pay-reward-for-failure/

 

http://fortune.com/2016/07/25/ceo-pay-total-shareholder-return/

Edited by Park Life
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would actually welcome your thoughts on the last post on executive pay. I don't think we can push any further on Corbyn - you don't like him and think he's utterly hopeless, but his positions in my view do make a certain amount of sense.

 

I'd love to offer my thoughts but I have workers to keep in their place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, no offence meant, I just prefer not to take a single source.

 

No that's totally understandable. I checked Corbyn's statement on the matter and he hasn't actually said how it would benefit anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it does not stand, it's balderdash and piffle. If you want to lose our best business leaders to other countries then that's how you do it. We'd inevitably see the fall of capitalism in the UK but that's exact what you wanted all along, isn't it?

The fall of capitalism is inevitable if you read the book I've just finished. The only question that remains is whether it ends through orderly planning and cooperation or violence.

 

So what's it to be, business leader? Are you looking for a bunch of fives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fall of capitalism is inevitable if you read the book I've just finished. The only question that remains is whether it ends through orderly planning and cooperation or violence.

 

So what's it to be, business leader? Are you looking for a bunch of fives?

 

Which book?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: "What should we get for Uncle Weirdo?"

 

"Get him that book about how the financial system is in terminal decline. He'll love that."

 

:lol: It was my dad who got me it but the sentiment was likely the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Outrageous that you haven't finished that other one yet btw. I bet you trace the words with your finger as you read.

 

I'm close to finished :D I'm just not a fast book reader. Plus I keep reading things then going off to research around them further and so on. I'm not well versed on finance so it requires a bit of effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Postcapitalism by Paul Mason.

They're already preparing for it ie police state, surveillance, new laws etc...They actually thought it was all over in the 70's (Argentina/Mexico defaults, massive slow down in the West)... :lol:  Hence the mass introduction and promotion of credit cards in the early 80's. ;)

 

The core of the problem is that the wealthy/establishment write the laws.

 

We have to start taxing income over a certain amount heavily...50% up to a million and then 75% at anything over that.

Edited by Park Life
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're already preparing for it ie police state, surveillance, new laws etc...They actually thought it was all over in the 70's (Argentina/Mexico defaults, massive slow down in the West)... :lol:  Hence the mass introduction and promotion of credit cards in the early 80's. ;)

 

The core of the problem is that the wealthy/establishment write the laws.

 

We have to start taxing income over a certain amount heavily...50% up to a million and then 75% at anything over that.

 

Isn't the post capitalist problem less what the government can earn to pay for services (your tax solution) and more what the economy needs us to spend in order to support itself and maintain the facade of a *GROWTH* economy?

 

Q. How do we grow?

A. Get people to spend as much of their money as possible

 

Q. How do we grow if people already spend all they earn?

A. Give them credit

 

Q. How do we grow the economy when people already spend all they can borrow?

A. Allow them to borrow more, but insure against them defaulting en masse

 

Q. How do we grow the economy after everyone has defaulted on their credit

A. Fucked if I know.  *Runs off with Billions *

 

Taxing the people that have earned most from this economy and spending that on social care, but not changing the model from one that rewards growth to one that rewards sustainability will only lead us back to the same problems of boom and bust. We're giving Robots the jobs of people and allowing people to borrow to survive with job loss and using whatever taxes we can gather to pay for their deteriorating physical and mental health.

 

I've not read the Mason book yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's what this 'sustainable growth' lingo is all about inc greening and 'climate change'. Post democracy, post Capitalism etc...People spending isn't so necessary anymore (only for Govt. tax base). Now that they own most of the planet and the future it will be about decelerating everything down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's what this 'sustainable growth' lingo is all about inc greening and 'climate change'. Post democracy, post Capitalism etc...People spending isn't so necessary anymore (only for Govt. tax base). Now that they own most of the planet and the future it will be about decelerating everything down.

 

Agree but disagree. People need something to aspire to, you can't just aim to move around a finite amount of capital.

 

We should be looking beyond wealth of a material sort though - possibly developing science and tech and reaching out beyond the planet we're on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree but disagree. People need something to aspire to, you can't just aim to move around a finite amount of capital.

 

We should be looking beyond wealth of a material sort though - possibly developing science and tech and reaching out beyond the planet we're on.

People aren't in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect they would become a factor if we lived in some kind of entirely unmotivated future civilisation though...

It's never been about the people and I imagine it will be even less so in the future if our masters have anything to do with it. Habitat areas is the best we can hope for. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah ok I'm with you now. So you're in effect suggesting that less social movement, as we're seeing, is part of the plan. Sort of like how FIFA implemented financial fair play in football, having the effect of entrenching the wealth, success and power of those at the top already and making it more difficult for anyone else to ascend to the same level.

 

That's a grim overview. Feasible though...

 

It would only work in a society where economics has wholly overtaken politics as the keeper of power though. I'm not sure we're quite (Brexit) there yet.

Edited by Rayvin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah ok I'm with you now. So you're in effect suggesting that less social movement, as we're seeing, is part of the plan. Sort of like how FIFA implemented financial fair play in football, having the effect of entrenching the wealth, success and power of those at the top already and making it more difficult for anyone else to ascend to the same level.

 

That's a grim overview. Feasible though...

 

It would only work in a society where economics has wholly overtaken politics as the keeper of power though. I'm not sure we're quite (Brexit) there yet.

They're running everything down now. New buzzwords are in place. 'Greening', climate change, sustainable growth etc....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.