Mr. CEO, Tear Down That Pile of Loot!
January 18th, 2007 | by Omnipotent Poobah |
People give Saint Reagan so much credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union you’d think he was personally atop the Berlin Wall swinging a sledge and drunkenly toasting mit bier. But, his doe-eyed admirers sometimes forget the story is a little more complex.
They prefer to believe that by hurling a single one-liner to “tear down that wall” he single-handedly chopped the Evil Empire down in a single swoop. If it were that easy, the Axis of Evil would already be keester-deep in purple mountains, fruited planes, and HD plasma-screens.
St. Ron’s chosen weapon in the Commie gang hit was capitalism - the ability to shovel money into an arms race that finally bankrupted the beet-eating, vodka-swilling brutes. He proclaimed the might of righteous capitalism over corrupt communism and the adoring throngs flung themselves at his cowboy boots in an orgy of capitalistic love and public edifice renaming.
A “Pinch” for Luck
In the heady times that followed, Reaganites tossed Eisenhower’s advice about the capitalistic military-industrial complex over their shoulders like a pinch of salt for good luck. Their mantra became, “Greed is good and unrestricted greed is best.” They believed in the power of free markets and unregulated corporatism. Republicans, sadly aided by lobbyist-besotted democrats, began dismantling the “bad” side of capitalism - read anything that doesn’t turn a 200% ROI.
Today, we find a country where the top one percent of people control 90% of the wealth. For the one percenters, the decision to outsource production, leaving only themselves back in the US of A to endorse the dividend checks is a marvel of strategic business acumen. For the poor shlubs left behind at the empty textile mill in Mayberry, it ain’t so great.
Capitalism is essentially an economic system based on greed. The more toys you die with, the bigger a winner you are - well, maybe your progeny are. Just ask the Twins.
Greed is Not Good
Like any system, it has two poles. At one end is the idea that everything should be freed of regulation and mega-bucks for the one-percenters should flow like honey. This is obviously a pretty easy sell at the Turf Club, but I’m not sure why the rubes back in Mayberry continued to vote for this even as they were saying aloha to their livelihoods.
At the other pole is a recognition that capitalism is a pretty good system, but left to its own devices will run away like a freight train with Donald Trump - cheesy toupee a’flyin’- at the controls. Companies should be deregulated to the greatest extent possible. If they can play fair and be good, rational citizens I’m all for letting them have a free reign. However, if they conduct themselves by a code of ethics first developed by the Visigoths, I’m all for nationalizing the bastards.
When a CEO or board of directors slams a company into the ground with enough force to dig a hole to Malaysia, it’s not ethical to reward them with bonuses to stay and “manage” the company as it transitions to some other incompetent Harvard Business School boob. It’s not ethical to move corporate headquarters to the Caymans to avoid paying taxes, even if you do have a nice summer home there. It’s not ethical for huge conglomerates to drive every Mom and Pop in the nation out of business, economies of scale be damned. And it is certainly not ethical to move jobs to nation-state sweatshops so you can jack up the prices of the sneakers sold to the jobless bastards you abandoned back home.
A Stock Option in Every Pot
Don’t get me wrong, I believe a person should be paid handsomely for the work they do. I have no aversion to people making large sums, but there should be limits if the loot-crazed greedheads can’t stifle the impulse to buy that private island in the Bahamas. (People’s lives are at stake you selfish bastard!)
I’d like to believe that a faint glimmer of hope sputters to corral this outrageous behavior. There have been some attempts, but they’ve been uniformly limp-wristed. It would be nice if all those well-upholstered moneychangers woke up one morning and God told them to stop being such asshats and start treating people fairly. But, I see a slim chance when Pat Robertson and his ilk are their spiritual advisors.
A Shrubophone Moment
Maybe it’s time for a speech, something rousing that would make an excellent sound bite on the World’s Most Important News Network (we’ll be right back after this good word from the fine folks at ActiveOn.) I personally like that Shrubophone moment on the rubble at the World Trade Center. Maybe I could find some poor unemployed mill worker to climb up next to me on a huge pile of stock options and cash and shout to the crowd…
“Mr. CEO, tear down that pile of loot!”
Nah, you’re right. It’ll never work.
Cross Posted at The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!
[tag]business, politics, crapweasels, omnipotent+poobah, bring+it+on[/tag]
31 Responses to “Mr. CEO, Tear Down That Pile of Loot!”
By sandyb on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
Why do you hate rich people unless they are liberals? Why is it ok for useless Hollyweird “stars” to make millions? Why is it ok for useless sports figures to make millions?
CEOs, big business, and drug companies are evil to you. Yet without these you would miss many of your necessities.
Why do the poor-by-choice, pathetic losers envy the rich so much? This is America. No reason to be a loser unless you choose to be. Hell, even the illegal aliens cleaning houses in CA are making up to $50/hr cash.
By tos on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
“illegal aliens cleaning houses in CA are making up to $50/hr cash. ‘
Tax free!
By Omnipotent Poobah on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
Sandy,
I think it’s just as immoral for liberals to make obscene amounts of money too. And as I said, I’m not against companies making a profit and they aren’t inherently evil either. I am just against runaway greed of any stripe, especially when it comes at the cost of those hard-working folks who chose to work and make a living and had their chance taken away so someone could buy a bigger yacht.
No envy there, just an opinion.
And if illegal immigrants are make $50 per hour cleaning houses, I suggest you run down and get a piece of the action. You could be a millionaire too. As you say, it’s all about the choices YOU make.
By LesserFool on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
Liberals don’t hate rich people (actually, some do, unfortunately). Liberals dislike rich people who ignore the wisdom of “to whom much is given, much is expected.” Rich people who focus on short-term gains for themselves rather than consider any long-term impact of their decisions on people and things around them - are greedy, myopic bastards. On the other hand, Warren Buffet is an example of someone who appreciates wealth but also takes his responsibility towards humanity seriously.
By sandyb on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
The rich give more to charity and in EVERY way than pathetic losers who can’t afford to give anything to anybody. Success is a choice.
By Jersey McJones on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
Riiiiiight… We choose who we are born to, and when and where.
Sandy, you’re livin’ joke.
JMJ
By tos on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
“Riiiiiight… We choose who we are born to, and when and where.”
JMJ-Excuses,excuses. When you say “where” are you talking about Venezuela or Cuba where you have no options?
The problem is the excuses all the time and the mentality that “this is my destinity”. Poor people from other countries come here to succeed because they know they have the opportunities here that they don’t have in their own countries.
By Jersey McJones on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
Tos, people, like all living things, are a product of their environment. The dynamics of the interrelationships of the environment and the mind, and the results of those relationships, are complex and vary widely. But, you can make some observational generalizations. For example, if you are born to a family that is anti-intellectual, you will probably grow up to be anti-intellectual, unless you are some sort of prodigal child who breaks from the family tradition - but even if you are, you will probably lack the skills requisite to be intellectual. Now, you bring up the example of “Poor people from other countries come here to succeed.” Well, some do and some don’t… succeed, that is. Regardless of whether or not you are poor, if you come from an environment that endows you with the will to succeed, and you are in a place that makes that possible (as you said, “come here”), then you will be better able to succeed. That is why Indians who come here, from a very poor place, do well, while some other people who come here from very places do not.
To look at this as conscious excuse-making is comic-bookishly simplistic. And to dismiss this reality, Tos, would be stupid. It’s a fact as plain as the racism that pours out of Sandy’s keypad every day.
JMJ
By tos on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
Well JMJ although not true in all instances we cannot always make everyone successful, but I will not condemn those that have made a good life for themselves be it a CEO,a sportsplayer or a Hollywood actor.
“To look at this as conscious excuse-making is comic-bookishly simplistic.”
Maybe not totally “excuse-making” but there is alot of it around.
By Paul Merda on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
I’m with ya OP! I think it is rampant greed that will eventually be our undoing. No one will ever be able to convince me that people DESERVE to make millions a year. That kind of moeny could be paid to the employees of these well-to-do companies so that the middle-class and lower classes can get a better peice of the pie. To me it is simply immoral to rake in that kind of cash when these same Execs at every company are trying to find ways to pay their people as little as possible.
Besides, no one can own millions of dollars because that money owns them. The aquiring of money itself becomes the only goal…
By Paul Merda on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
Hear, Hear JMJ!! To blame all poor people for their situation makes absolutely no sense to me because:
“Why have the reformers failed? I will tell them why.
Ignorance, poverty and vice are populating the world. The gutter is a nursery. People unable even to support themselves fill the tenements, the huts and hovels with children. They depend on the Lord, on luck and charity. They are not intelligent enough to think about consequences or to feel responsibility. At the same time they do not want children, because a child is a curse, a curse to them and to itself. The babe is not welcome, because it is a burden. These unwelcome children fill the jails and prisons, the asylums and hospitals, and they crowd the scaffolds. A few are rescued by chance or charity, but the great majority are failures. They become vicious, ferocious. They live by fraud and violence, and bequeath their vices to their children.” – Col. Robert Ingersoll
Genetics and environment are the only factors to consider when discussing how people develop. It is the luck of the draw that places people in their social strata. Hell, I think genetics is truly secondary too. After all, if one is born into wealth and influence one will have a much easier time of being successful (whatever that really means) because one gets to go to the best schools where they meet the others who will be at the top and then wash each others backs. So, if one is born into poverty, the chances are much greater you’ll stay there due to the negative environment one is raised in.
Let’s quit blaming poor people for being poor and let’s quit saying that rich people are rich because they deserve it. George W Bush is a prime example of a guy who had he born to a middle-class or lower class family, he be just like you or me working some mediocre paying job trying to raise a family, but because of his wealth and influence he is leader of the most powerful Nation on earth (sadly I might add).
By liberal vet on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
We are all products of genetics and environment. Like the Colonel said the uneducated, impoverished and unwelcome fill our most abominable edifices. To blame a person for his standing in life is pure folly. I live in the place that was featured in US News recently, if anyone saw the photo it was of ALCO in Schenectady NY. Greedy corporations {like GE} left our fair city to increase their profit. This has been repeated across our entire country, populations drop, taxes increase and “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer”.
Schenectady was once an area with a very high percentage of PHD’s, mostly engineers. Charles Steimetz lived here and Edison opened a factory here. We once had a huge pool of skilled workers such a machinests including my father. Now, some refer to Schenectady as little NY due to crime rates. Our schools are overwhelmed by poor people many who can not speak English. This phenomena has repeated itself across our land. Unions are being eliminated so that even more profit can be made. CEO’s receive millions in severance pay. More CEO’s should be like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, not like Nardello of Home Depot previously with you guessed it Generous Electric. Just my thoughts , lV
By Lazy Iguana on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
Sandyb - I would suggest you read Karl Marx. But you will not. Too bad, because what the man says holds some truth. You just have to be able to ignore what other people have done with his ideas, and only consider what HE wrote. Soviet style communism and Marxism is NOT the same thing. Communism is a government - Marxism is economic theory. Just like Democracy is a form of government and capitalism is economic theory.
Marx simply said that capitalism is not sustainable. And other stuff. But is he wrong?
Lets look at what is happening now. Do companies have ANY national loyalty? Do those running those companies have any loyalty to anything except money? Is greed really that good?
Show me a “major American Company”. Ford? Is that an American company? Not really. Just look at the “parts content” in ANY door jam. Think you will ever see 100% American? Hell no. It is going to be more like 40% Mexico, 40% China, 10% Canada, 10% Korea, assembled in the USA. Hardly what I would consider an American company.
So what does this mean? 40% of Ford jobs that USED TO be in America are now in Mexico, 40% are in China, and so on. Why? Because workers are cheaper. This means the companies can make a higher profit margin. This of course means the executive management - who do not assemble a SINGLE CAR - can get huge bonuses.
What I am getting at is that capitalism is good and stuff - I like my air conditioning! But it is also our worst enemy. It will overwhelm us one day. it will turn against us. The ultra rich are helping this happen. It is the rules of the game. You go after the cheapest resource to exploit. If that means shipping thousands of jobs to China or India - you do it.
Sandyb - China knows this. They say what happened to the Soviets. They took careful notes. Then they got some kids who are good at math to come up with their plan to sink us. Use our system against us. So far, they are doing well. Can you find 10 things in your house NOT made in China, or made from parts that came from China? Go on, try.
And before you go on about how that is “good” because you can buy stuff cheaper because no lazy union workers are involved - remember this. Money is power. China has a LOT of money. And they own our production. Without them there is no Wal-Mart. There is no Target. Soon they WILL be more powerful than the USA. We will not be able to stop them. Going to war with China means our entire economy collapses because THEY OWN THE BASE OF IT.
All so some already rich people here can get even richer. As opposed to keeping production and jobs here, and executives making less money and lower bonuses.
But that is communist. Make less??!?! HA! They need those multi million dollar bonuses. They deserve it. Right?
By Jersey McJones on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
And Tos, no one is blanketly condemning the wealthy, just those who do bad things and do not contribute back to the country that gave them the opportunity to become wealthy in the first place.
JMJ
By sandyb on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
Success is a choice. No exemptions. No excuses. It doesn’t matter where you were born or any circumstances. Success/ambition are a burning passion. Get it.
Despising evil muslims and illegal aliens is not racism. It is common freakin sense. Get some.
There is nothing in my home from China. Mostly Italy and USA. I will not buy Chinese crap.
By Paul Merda on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
bullshit sandy! on everything you said
By tos on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
“And Tos, no one is blanketly condemning the wealthy, just those who do bad things and do not contribute back to the country that gave them the opportunity to become wealthy in the first place.’
What should they be giving back JMJ? They live here,I live here and you live here.
Ways they give back:
The top 50 wage earners pay 96% of all income tax
The top 1% pay 34%
The property taxes on a 4 million dollar home I don’t even want to know. They buy a 60,000 Mercedes how much tax does the government get out of that. They have a successful company,more jobs.
You want them to put your kids through college too?
By Jersey McJones on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
Tos, the top 50 earners do NOT pay 96% of the taxes. That’s just stupid. The top1% controll far more than 34% of the wealth, so they are underpaying, if anything. They short pay on payroll taxes as well. And there are very few very wealthy people, so the tax revenues on their spending is low. And jobs are created to fill demand, not the wshes of rich people.
Get your facts straight, Tos.
JMJ
By sandyb on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
Gas prices are down to $1.90 in some areas of the country today. Yay.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070118/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_prices
Thank you big oil.
By tos on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
JMJ-This is from the IRS
This is the latest Internal Revenue Service data on distribution of the tax burden . The data show that the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes in 2003, although they earned just 16.8 percent of the adjusted gross income. The top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than half of all federal income taxes, the top 10 percent paid two-thirds, and the top half of taxpayers paid 96.5 percent — meaning that the bottom half paid just 3.5 percent.
Another IRS report deconstructed the top 1 percent and found that the top 10 percent of the top 1 percent (the top 0.1 percent) increased their share of all federal income taxes from 7 percent in 1980 to 15.3 percent in 2003. These 129,000 tax filers earned 7.6 percent of the income and paid an average tax rate of 23.6 percent. This came to $114.6 billion — four times more than all the taxes paid by the 64 million taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent, who paid an average tax rate of 2.9 percent.
I would be curious to know just how much you think the wealthy ought to be paying. Back in the good old days when Jimmy Carter was president and the top statutory tax rate was 70 percent (versus 35 percent today), the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid only 19.7 percent of all federal income taxes. In other words, although the marginal tax rate of the top 1 percent has fallen by 50 percent, their tax share has almost doubled.
I assume you would be happier with the British tax system, where the top income tax rate is 40 percent. But according to British tax data, the top 1 percent of taxpayers pay just 21 percent of income taxes, the top 5 percent pay 40 percent, and the top 10 percent pay 52 percent. The bottom 50 percent, meanwhile, pay 11 percent of all income taxes. In other words, wealthy British pay higher rates but pay less of the overall tax burden.
By sandyb on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
I found a new airline:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/traveloutdoors/2003529317_webmuslimflight17.html
By Jersey McJones on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
Sandy, it’s been unseasonably warm. That’s why gas prices are down.
Tos, read this. All the links are there to see.
JMJ
By Lazy Iguana on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
Nothing you own is made in China? This is impossible. So many things are made in China now that it is impossible to live without anything from there. Cheap crap? Yea. A lot of it is. But more and more things from China are actually quality products. I have stuff that used to belong to my grandmother. Some of this stuff is stamped “Made In Occupied Japan”. It was the cheap junk of the 1940s. Is stuff made in Japan today cheap crap?
Well - same for China. As more factories are exported the quality of the junk gets better and better. if you really think you own nothing made in China you are either terribly uninformed or ignoring reality. Do you have a cell phone? Where do you think the plastic case was made? And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Success to some degree is a choice. You have to make choices that, for example, keep you out of jail. Unless you are a rap star.
To some degree. What success choice did Paris Hilton make, other than being born rich. She will never have to lift a finger to do anything in her life. And what has she contributed to society? Anything at all of use? Did she work? No. But she will live off inheritance and trust funds, producing nothing and contributing nothing. And she will have more in her life than people who CHOOSE to go to college, obtain masters degrees, and become professionals. There is such a thing as the rich and privileged class who did nothing for what they have. Making your first million dollars is the hard part. After that, it is increasingly easier to make the next million through the magic of investment. At some point, you do not have to do anything to get money. This is the way it has always been really. in the days of old, what did the Dukes and Earls do, other than choosing to be born rich and exploiting the labor of the serfs living on “their” land?
Another reason why the so-called “death tax” is anything but unfair. But that is another issue all together.
Sandyb - this may be a shock to you, but no system is perfect. INCLUDING but not limited to our system. Capitalism has its weakness. Once the wealth gap gets to a critical point - it is going to happen again. A system where the top 5% gets increasingly larger slices of the pie while the majority gets less and less is not sustainable.
By tos on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
I am far from rich but I’ll take America with its good and bad. It’s better than being a socialist or big welfare state. When I have to depend on the government for my mere existance I may as well move to Cuba or Venezuela with the rest of the opressed people.
By Lazy Iguana on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
We live in the system we live in. All I am saying is that it has good points as well as weakness.
I do think that at some point our system will collapse. Part of the Adam Smith model died in the industrial revolution (farmers being the base of the economy) and the rest died with the last of the robber barons and the great depression (the market can regulate itself - the best government policy is no policy at all).
What we have now is pretty much the GDP=C+I+G model. The government has tools to guide the market. We call this “fiscal policy”. So far, it has worked well. Even with all this “government regulation” and “fair workplace laws” and “unions” and stuff. Would you not agree with this?
Can it last forever? Probably not. There are not enough resources for one nation to continue to consume much more per capita than other nations. China will be a super power. India has the bomb. They are our friends, but you know what happens when money comes between friends. At some point, we will have to learn to share with others. Otherwise the only option we have is full out war for population control purposes (genocide).
Will the next step be socialism? Maybe. There is no way to tell. I think that whatever it is, it will be much different from what we have now. There will still be rich people - there always has been and always will be. The question is how much more will they
have than the middle class? 10% more? 50% more? 10,000% more?
The time frame is also unknown. There is simply no way to predict this stuff. Economic issues have a tendency to grow larger than the masters.
Remember, in the 1920s everyone thought everything was fine!
By tammara on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
why are you people even talking to sandy? if we all collectively ignore the shit she smears on the page, she will go away. it also works for tos.
most of this crap they drivel is not an arguement, or a point.
over extension of resources will kill the united states, as it has killed many of the bully nations that proceeded it. simple economics.
and yes, marx was brilliant. too bad most people can not figure out the theory.
By sandyb on Jan 19, 2007 | Reply
Many of your points are very good. Marx was interesting. But I stand by my original post: success is a choice. When you control your thinking and get passionate about your goal, you reach it.
You can call me all the names you want. I don’t care. And I’d never take the paycut of an illegal maid or follow Marx. I follow Jesus Christ.
By Ken Larson on Jan 19, 2007 | Reply
USA Today reported on 16 January 2007 in its Washington Section that the CIA plans to utilize more open sources and blogs in its intelligence work and outsource more of its intelligence software development to commercial contractors in an attempt to re-establish itself as the premiere world intelligence agency.
The “Strategic Intent” is posted on the CIA public web site. Defense Industry Daily further reports that General Electric is gobbling up Smith’s Industries for $4.8B.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/01/ge-buys-smiths-aerospace-for-48b/index.php
I am a 2 tour Vietnam Veteran who recently retired after 36 years of working in the Defense Industrial Complex on many of the weapons systems being used by our forces as we speak. Let’s look at this for a moment and do our patriotic duty by reading along with the CIA (after all, they have announced they are reading this blog)
1. The new CIA approach comes exactly at the formation of the agency’s new “External Advisory Board”, which consists of the following:
* A former Pentagon Chairman of the Joints Chief who is now a Northrop Grumman Corporation Board Member
* A deposed Chairman of the Board of Hewlett Packard Corporation (HP)
* A Former Deputy Secretary of Defense who now heads up a Washington think tank with Henry Kissinger
2. Northrop Grumman Corporation and Hewlett Packard are two huge government contractors in the Pentagon and CIA custom software development arena. Their combined contracts with the government just for IT are in the multiples of millions. I wonder what the advisory board is filling the CIA’s ear with?
3. Washington “Think Tanks” are fronts for big time lobbies, sophisticated in their operations, claiming non-partisanship, but tremendously influential on K Street. If a lobby cannot buy its way in, why not sit on the advisory board?
4. GE already has the military aircraft jet engine market. In buying Smith’s, it takes one more major defense corporation out of the opposition and further reduces the government’s leverage through competition. GE now joins the other monoliths such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon with tremendous leverage in the $500B +++ per year defense market.
5. Note the synergy that now exists between the Pentagon and the CIA. Note the influence by the major corporations.
6. Also note the balance in your bank account and your aspirations for the generations of the future. Both are going down.
7. The huge Military Industrial Complex (MIC) continues to march. Taxes and national debt will be forced to march straight up the wall to support it. Do you have any “Intelligence” to offer the Pentagon, the CIA and the MIC? For further inspiration please see:
http://www.rosecoveredglasses.blogspot.com
By Jersey McJones on Jan 19, 2007 | Reply
What the heck does Jesus Christ have to do with Marx? I don’t recall Jesus and Marx addressing anything of the same subjects…
JMJ