Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (133901)	5/29/2012 11:31:37 PM
From: Follies	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224705

>>Pay freezes for teachers and not for CEO's Exactly , if you are connecting the two it is pure socialism.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (133901)	5/30/2012 10:37:18 AM
From: sm1th	5 Recommendations Respond to of 224705

Pay freezes for teachers and not for CEO's? Is that what you are saying? Teachers are public employees, the taxpayers have a right to set wages. CEO's are private, it is up to the shareholders to decide what compensation is appropriate. They don't do the same work, and are not competing for the same resources. Freezing CEO salaries would not increase teacher salaries, and it might have the opposite effect if it reduced tax revenues.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (133901)	5/30/2012 11:13:39 AM
From: locogringo	9 Recommendations Respond to of 224705

The stock market is not stupid or smoked up like Obama, the Food Stamp President. It does not like what it sees in this FAILED PRESIDENCY. Maybe President Romney will save us....................if it's not too late.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (133901)	5/30/2012 8:01:45 PM
From: CF Rebel	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224705

Pay freezes for teachers and not for CEO's? Is that what you are saying? The subject which you were spewing about in your last two posts was teachers, not CEOs. I’m not going to fall for comparing apples to oranges - private salaries vs. public employee salaries - the differences ought to be obvious to all but the oblivious. But now that you want to change the subject to CEOs, let me humor you. As a public shareholder and capitalist (in the purest sense - not in the sense of the perversion of “capitalism” that we have today and which ignorant liberals think is capitalism), I have been disgusted with what was has happened in many corporate boardrooms over the past two decades. As a taxpayer I have been disgusted with politicians and public employees and lobbyists of all sorts taking advantage of the rest of us with their endless feedback loop of payoffs for election funding. As a moral human being I am disgusted with Marxists and their union brethren for all the obvious reasons. All of the aforementioned perpetrators are birds of a feather; they all use the system to implement laws and rules to aggregate power. They’re all, in essence, legalized gangs. First, with regard to CEOs, upper executives and boards of directors, let me speak as a shareholder. I have no problem with good compensation for good performance. However, over the past quarter century, most companies in which I have held shares have compensated the management beyond what the performance would suggest they were worth on a historical and absolute basis. This has been done using the same strategies that politicians, public employees and unions use - they throw up as many obstructions as possible to fend off challenges to anything they want to do in their own personal interests, mainly regarding compensation. Over time, they put in place with “shareholder approval,” proxy rules which have made it a hugely onerous task to rein in out-of-control compensation, propose shareholder resolutions or just contact other shareholders. Because most shares are owned by insiders and institutions it has been next to impossible for shareholders to have a real say in how their corporations are run. The incestuous relationships between boards of directors and executives, both intra-corporate and inter-corporate has made accountability next to impossible. It really is a good-ol’-boys club. Many people are mystified at how the growing gap between corporate executives and the middle class has occurred. The transfer of wealth to corporate executives and other inside shareholders has come mainly at the expense of individual and institutional shareholders, the very people who do most of the transferring of their wealth into the general economy. With the transfer, legal theft, of common shareholders' wealth to executives and insiders, shareholders have had less to transfer back into the economy. This has been done mainly through company share awards, stock options and bonuses with stock options being the most egregious. Stock options, originally, were an invention of small, fast-growing companies that were cash-strapped. To keep talent on-board without paying an amount that could threaten the financial viability of the company, stock options were a way of rewarding, in the future, the hard work of vital employees. But, sometime in the past couple of decades, even large companies with no financial need to do so, started awarding stock options in huge amounts, even for poor executive performance. The laughable excuse for such awards is always, “to align executives’ interests with shareholders.” When an executive doesn’t put his own skin in the game, his interests aren't aligned with mine, he's just playing with the house's money. If he was buying his company’s shares in the open market with his own money, then I’d be convinced his interests were the same as mine. I won’t go into the abuses within the options racket. There used to be a time when corporate executives would buy their company’s shares in the open market when they were bullish on their companies. They were usually well-compensated with salaries and bonuses and their stock purchases were icing on the cake. Now, stock options fall into their laps and shareholders see their own share values diluted. As a practical matter, there is nothing small shareholders can do to stem the dilution. I have seen many small companies’ quarterly earnings go from profit to loss on excessive compensation, some with very dubious managements. As you can see, I have some real problems with corporate gangsters. Not all companies are like this but many are. Many of these managements would fit right in running unions because it isn’t about where these managements operate, it’s about gaming the system in which they operate, aggregating power and blocking any challenges to accountability. Consider companies with near-term problems or questionable markets such as Solyndra or General Electric. Their CEOs run to the last refuge of corporate scoundrels - government. They pour precious money into political coffers to buy corrupt legislation and other favors. Whether in government or in private institutions, these kinds of operators are what is bringing this country down. The tea party activists who have protested liberal politicians’ “solutions” for problems in this country are well aware of the above. Free markets operated by free people, absent corrupt politicians’ interference and even in the presence of the problems I cite above (which are solvable), are infinitely more desirable than any liberal’s impossible utopian scheme. There is a cancer in government and those who believe that cancer can solve everyone’s problems are ignorant hosts to the disease and soon dead. Any more questions, Kenneth? Just because I despise filthy Marxists doesn't mean I can't see problems on my side. Are you that honest about your side? CF Rebel