COMMENTS: 43
There's a Bubble That Still Threatens the Entire American Economy ... and Few Are Talking About It
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Economy headlines via email.
At the Institute for Policy Studies, we've been tracking our nation's astounding executive pay bubble since 1994. We began our annual "Executive Excess" series because we believe that excessive executive compensation has deeply troubling consequences, for both our economy and our polity.
To put the matter most simply: Outrageously large rewards for executives give executives an incentive to behave outrageously -- and engage in behaviors that put the rest of us at risk.
Over the years, we've documented, for instance, how CEOs who downsize, outsource and cook their corporate books have consistently collected bigger paychecks than even the average overpaid U.S. top executive.
Now looking back on our work, we plead guilty to a lack of imagination. We didn't imagine, even in our most cynical moments, that America's top executives -- in their chase after fortune -- would be reckless enough to melt down the entire global financial system.
Since last September, all sorts of analysts and public officials have pinpointed executive excess right at the heart of the recklessness that brought the United States -- and the world -- to the brink of economic cataclysm.
"It is the compensation system," former Federal Home Loan Bank Board Litigation Director William Black put it most simply, "that has proved to be the weak point in everything critical that went wrong, that has produced a global catastrophe."
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, at least at times, appears to concur.
"The financial crisis had many significant causes," he said in June. "But executive compensation practices were a contributing factor."
In February, President Barack Obama signaled an intent to act on this analysis. He committed his administration to a "long-term effort" that would examine how executive pay patterns "have contributed to a reckless culture and quarter-by-quarter mentality that in turn have wrought havoc in our financial system."
This "long-term effort," sadly, has yet to seriously begin. The denizens of our nation's executive suites are going about their business with the same visions of compensation sugarplums that danced in their heads before last September.
In our just-released edition of "Executive Excess," we explain how many of the executives responsible for our country's economic woes are now using the crisis as a springboard for even greater personal windfalls.
Of the 20 financial firms that have received the most bailout dollars, 10 have reported details on the stock options handed out to executives early this year, when share prices were bumping the market bottom.
Thanks to taxpayer assistance, most of these firms have enjoyed surges in their stock prices in recent months that have inflated the value of these options. The top five executives at these 10 firms have seen their personal portfolios jump by $90 million -- in stock-option gains alone, not counting any salary or bonus.
American Express CEO Kenneth Chennault has been one of the big winners. In January, he pocketed options to buy nearly 1.2 million shares at a moment when the credit card giant's stock had nosedived to $16.71 per share.
With the help of $3.4 billion in bailout support, the company has since started to rebound, and in recent weeks, American Express shares have been trading at around $32. That's still only half what they were worth at their peak in 2007, but Chennault, amazingly, stands to make nearly $18 million from his 2009 options alone.
What about all those bailout executive-pay "restrictions" put in place since last September? These restrictions affect only those firms that have collected bailout dollars from the federal government. And the restrictions apply only to a small number of personnel at these firms, and even then they do precious little to return pay at the top of the corporate ladder to the much lower levels considered eminently adequate a generation ago.
Beyond the large but limited universe of bailout recipients, the executive pay status quo remains securely in place. Last year, S&P 500 CEOs averaged $10.1 million, that's 319 times the salary of the average U.S. worker. The gap three decades ago was between 30 and 40 times.
Lobbying armies from corporate and financial trade associations are now energetically doing battle behind the scenes to keep even modest changes in pay rules off the legislative table. We need, truth be told, much more than modest changes.
The debate in Washington over executive pay reform is currently revolving around questions of corporate governance, about how we can better "empower shareholders" to keep executives in check.
These questions certainly do need to be explored. But unless we also address more fundamental questions -- about the overall size of executive pay, about the unconscionable gap between the rewards that executives and workers are receiving -- the executive pay bubble will continue to inflate.
Public officials in Congress and the White House hold the pin that could deflate the executive pay bubble. They have so far failed to use it.
Stay up to date with the latest Economy headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 2, 2009 12:34 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: RevolutionNet on Sep 2, 2009 1:46 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FREE AMERICA
REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mrsanfran on Sep 2, 2009 3:20 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Sep 2, 2009 3:31 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Industrial Revolution didn't originate in the South of England, it came from largely from Engineers in the North of England and Scotland.
It transformed society and created vast Real Wealth, but the Wealth was controlled from London and in the USA from Wall Street.
But the guys in control of the wealth, thought that they had actually produced it by their trading of goods that we had made. They didn't understand the the Real wealth had come from our work and not their trading.
So this illusion has continued for an exceedingly long time.
Within my life time, the effect was most dramatic when Margaret Thatcher came to power, and effectively closed down vast numbers of productive businesses - that were generating real wealth - in The North of England. This produced vast unemployment and poverty in the very people who had been generating all the wealth.
London didn't care, and simply moved the Production to SE Asia where labour was much cheaper and the profits for shareholders greater.
Exactly the same process happenned in the United States.
The illusion of wealth creation continued by those who participated in trading - and some created vast personal fortunes. From their own perspective - they were creating wealth. Even Governments believed it - and the trading went to the most obscene ridiculous lengths in the Casinos in Wall Street and London that were called "Investment Banks".
Meanwhile >90% of the populations of both the US and the UK gradually got poorer and poorer - whilst a tiny minority attained riches beyond any personal capability to ever spend. They sucked the system dry, and their only real objective was to attain the biggest possible number, by the time they dropped dead. They had no idea what to do with their wealth - they just wanted more.
What happenned beyond their private mansions was of no concern. The starving masses were simply considered useless eaters - even though it was they themselves who through their work had actually created the wealth in the first place.
These idiots are now in total control of of Western Government, and are in the process of crashing the entire system.
Whether its by accident or design is pretty much irrelevant. The effect is the same - Mass Impoverishment of >90% of the Population.
Most people now - even those who have a job - do not do any real wealth creating work. By that I mean they do not produce anything of real value that could for example be exchanged with someone in another country who they may in fact owe an enormous debt to.
Meanwhile all we try and do is control the rest of the world with our guns and our bombs.
The truth is that we are so lazy and useless - we have effectively become armed robbers of less militarily powerful nations.
We are an embarrassment to the human race.
How do we get rid of the Criminals in Control of us?
Tony
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Basic Problem is Cultural and Wall Street Inherited it From London
Posted by: Mac Geek
» RE: The Basic Problem is Cultural and Wall Street Inherited it From London
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: The Basic Problem is Cultural and Wall Street Inherited it From London
Posted by: madregal
» RE: The Basic Problem is Cultural and Wall Street Inherited it From London
Posted by: sallyport
» RE: The Basic Problem is Cultural and Wall Street Inherited it From London
Posted by: sbannick
» RE: The Basic Problem is Cultural and Wall Street Inherited it From London
Posted by: satwa.gunam
» RE: The Basic Problem is Cultural and Wall Street Inherited it From London
Posted by: ellienor
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ender on Sep 2, 2009 3:39 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 1950, the golden age of the middle class, executive pay was 30:1 (the CEO made 30 times what an entry-level worker made). As late as 1980 the ratio was still "only" 50:1 because compensation was still largely connected to production and innovation. The CEOs were concerned with long term goals, meaning the company had to stay healthy, the workers had to be retained (i.e. happy and well-paid), pensions had to be fully funded and companies had to play nicely with their suppliers and customers.
Today, a CEO can make money by artificially inflating the stock price long enough for them to cash out. If a crazy scheme crashes the company, so what? They've got a golden parachute, so why not take ridiculous risks for a big payout? Heads or tails, today's corporate pigs win either way.
The CEO pay ratio today is 475:1. How long can that last while simultaneously our manufacturing sector is disappearing? Executive pay has been decoupled from the reality of producing something tangible to merely rigging the game until the next year or the next quarter.
Don't get me wrong: there have been fine innovations that don't require manufacturing, like the service sector.
But the bottom line is that a nation's economy cannot be sustained if the country's main business is not physically changing something (growing carrots, building a car, stocking shelves). Whatever else that is done is by definition ethereal and the gains are likewise fleetingly insubstantial.
******
Oh, and we have to get rid of the political revolving door: a company makes widgets and is overseen by the US Widget Administration. The CEO contributes money to a politician, the politician wins and appoints the CEO of the widget company to head the US Widget Administration. The former CEO changes the regulations to just the way he wants, then quits and then is rehired by his former company as a consultant.
That shit has got to stop.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Widgets vs. Scams
Posted by: madregal
» RE: Widgets vs. Scams
Posted by: bukboy
» RE: Widgets vs. Scams
Posted by: ender
» RE: Widgets vs. Scams
Posted by: bukboy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: weathered on Sep 2, 2009 4:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What we've got are swine dining at the trough of greed. For some greed is a very selfish choice for others it in their DNA.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nihilozero on Sep 2, 2009 4:05 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: swansong on Sep 2, 2009 5:26 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Banks have proven there is still far more money to be made gambling on money itself. No matter how banks relabel the risks and abstractions of intangible profit-promises (corporate paper, mortgage-backed securities, you name it), the practice is deceitful and unsustainable. Corporations are now reduced to commodities as well, with the trading of subsidiaries and paying of contractors that are themselves already twice-removed from the physical world. Now even carbon emissions, energy certificates and healthcare credits are going to be pumped into this artificial wealth building machine (er, bubble), and I'm surprised more have not come out and yelled about this... Bernie Madoff isn't the first nor the last of the big-bad-apples, he is the norm, the latest straw man to distract us from the bigger picture.
So here we are now. Through fierce corporate competition and lack of oversight in the free market we have only encouraged more cleverly disguised abuses, and even more zealous yet vague promises of reform. It is clear that Goldman-Sachs has mastered this ponzi scheme, their cronies Paulson and Kashkari et al having conveniently allowed the demise of an arch-enemy and salvation of its debtors, along with the very calculated structuring of TARP package to generate bonuses and maximum profit. We have yet to see the credit open up, or the money trickle down. Could this be mere coincidence given the billions in profits that could be made, or is it really possible that some are gaming the system?
This biasing of outcomes to favor continued CEO windfalls wouldn’t be possible without predictable responses from policymakers, via lobbyists, monetary contributions, and public relations artifice (oh, and fear!). Without the presumed innocence of an attractive brand name and sharp dressed figurehead, all of these financial institutions are simply flavors of the same racketeering scheme that serves one primary goal- to extract as much wealth (physical or not) as possible, without conscience. Yes, this conscience must also be falsely presumed, as there are copious examples where the rosy faces of Big Ag, Big Oil, and Big Health/Pharma are really paper thin, dutifully shielding the cold-hearted profit predators beneath.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: swansong on Sep 2, 2009 5:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yet we still profess faith that Justice will punish or deter these abuse-prone "corporate persons" and their directors. With some satisfaction, we sometimes penalize individuals who commit heinous acts of fraud, extortion, and destruction, on a smaller scale. Yet what of the profit-seeking institution that simply yielded to its corrupt “master’s wish?” Corporations enjoy all the legal benefits of persons with little accountability, mostly paying fines that go unnoticed by the public. As stipulated by our fractional reserve banking system, money is created and valued arbitrarily, controlled by crony bureaucrats via the faux-federal private Reserve Bank. Upon realizing this fundamental conflict of interest, the sheer magnitude of wealth transfer, and weak systems of deterrence, it becomes clear that the system is highly prone to corruption, since violations rarely lead to significant consequences. Instead, the wrist-slap only bolsters arrogance to further abuse and harm, since cheating is always more profitable in the end. By investing chump change in feigned reparations, corporations can continue to egregiously break the law, sequester valuable resources and ruin our planet, leaving us with all the dire consequences.
We are reaching the finite limits of this massively corrupt and parasitic monetary system. Due to the flexible policy of money creation and the jargon that conceals its abusive capacity, it is mathematically impossible to ever repay the interest on our collective debt. All of our future earned money is already committed to repaying an infinitely growing balance- at least in the current paradigm. We must act now, we musn’t perpetuate our own debt slavery and global turmoil, the current monetary system is flawed and obsolete.
Professor John Nash was seminal in sculpting our modern economic system through non-cooperative equilibrium, though he actually expressed second thoughts regarding its real-world interprations. At first Nash emphasized rational explanations for the discrepancies between his predictions and actual outcomes, though he later admitted that his theories may not be reliable in the real world.
As quoted from Adam Curtis’ “The Trap” 2007(on google video)
“I don’t want to overemphasize rational thinking on the part of humans…they are much more complicated…human behavior is not entirely motivated by self interest of each pure human. Game theory works in terms of self interest… some game theory concepts could be unsound, there’s overdependence on rationality, that is my enlightenment.”
I found this recent paper on economics and equilibrium theory entertaining, in part because it incorporates seemingly common-sense approaches that weren't strongly considered in the original mathematical models of game theory. I could be wrong, I'm not an economist or a mathematician. Anyone who knows more, please enlighten us.
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/lucas.pdf
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Sep 2, 2009 6:04 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The U.S. seems to be different in that it fails to learn from its mistakes. In the 1890's and again in the 1920's we tried combat economics and found out that it has some bad consequences. Did we learn from those experiences? No, when Reagan came along and suggested we try it again, we gave it another try leading us to the Savings and Loan disaster, Enron and finally the Banking disaster of last year. Still, we seem to be ready to try it again just to avoid introducing sensible rules for this game.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BenL8 on Sep 2, 2009 6:25 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cberkland on Sep 2, 2009 7:43 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: leafsong1 on Sep 2, 2009 7:41 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excessive executive compensation is a hazard to social stability and democracy. There is a very strong case to be made against it. This author failed miserably in making that case.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Sep 2, 2009 7:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I was a kid in the 50's, I went to just an ordinary local school a short walking distance from where I lived. Sure I passed a mill that had been bombed out - on the way to school, that had not yet been rebuilt from the devastation of WWII.
In theory the country was totally bankrupt, yet there was absolutely nothing wrong with the schools or the hospitals - and the standards of education and medical care were far superior then to what they are now. The schools were well maintained and the hospitals were clean - and safe - and everything was free for everyone - paid out of ordinary taxation. When kids left school, everyone either got some kind of apprenticeship - where they learnt a valuable practical skill - whilst being a paid employee - or they went on to collegs or university - and were paid a student grant (student loans were unheard of) and tuition was free and lecturers well paid and respected.
Where did all the money come from to do it?
Now - just look at the State of our inner cities - across America and most of Europe.
Just look at the state of some of the buildings. They have been neglected for years and are falling apart.
So why, after over 50 years of the most unparalleled wealth in the history of the human race are many of our cities in such a disgusting state?
Why don't we care for our Children? Why do we send them to schools, that are falling down through lack of maintenance - and are a complete visual eyesore? Why do we teach them such nonsense - and then cast them out into a world which is not only lacking in jobs that need doing, but the kids haven't been trained in the practical skills needed to do the work required?
Why have we no money for all the things that need to be done now, when after WWII when we had nothing - we had all the money necessary to employ people to work, rebuild and make enormous progress?
Meanwhile, we blame the kids for their poor behaviour - yet it is us not them that have created this shit heap of neglect. How can we blame our kids. It's all our fault not there's.
We simply do not care enough for our Children.
Anyway, whilst the kids should be employed - and paid to do these jobs on an apprenticeship - either by working for a small private company - or a small local authority - they are not - so nothing gets done to improve anything...
Whilst the fat cats sit guzzling all the cream and getting fatter...
Except that things are slowly changing, and the kids instead of revolting - are getting off their bums - and volunteering - and cleaning the place up, and painting and planting communal gardens in the most deprived inner city areas...
In fact that is exactly what our 18 year old daughter and her friends are doing again now...
* For a Concert Ticket
http://www.rockcorps.com/
On of the best things the UK has imported from the USA.
RockCorps harnesses the power of music to inspire volunteering by producing concerts for which the only way in is to give 4 hours at a volunteer project. You can't win a ticket; you can't buy a ticket; you have to earn a ticket. RockCorps is an international movement with more than 20 live events, 40,000 volunteers and an audience of millions who have heard the message that "Volunteering is cool." The movement is growing, so check back here for more updates.
Tony
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MeyravLevine on Sep 2, 2009 8:17 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Our story starts in 1954, the year that Mitt's dad George became the chief executive of American Motors, the newly created company that had just emerged from what qualified, at the time, as the largest corporate merger in U.S. business history.
George Romney's new executive status, not surprisingly, quickly catapulted the Romney family into the nation's economic elite, the most affluent 0.01 percent of U.S. income-earners. But here's the surprising part. George Romney's new status did not make him super-rich.
In fact, as the top exec at American Motors, George Romney never made more than $225,000 a year. His total annual income over these years -- his auto industry take-home coupled with gains from his personal investments -- only averaged $275,000. That's just $1.8 million in today's dollars, points out New York Times reporter David Leonhardt, a sum not even close to the near $10 million that a corporate executive needed to make in 2005 to enter the ranks of America's topmost 0.01.
And that's also not the only difference between the wealthy in George Romney's time and ours. Back in 1960, taxpayers who reported $275,000 in income paid on average, after exploiting every loophole they could find, just under 44 percent of that income in federal taxes. By contrast, in 2005, the most recent year with IRS data available, taxpayers in America's most affluent 0.01 percent -- average income, $27.3 million -- paid only 20.9 percent of that to Uncle Sam.
In other words, back in George Romney's heyday, America's most affluent one-hundredth of 1 percent paid over twice as much of their income in taxes as their counterparts do today. And they started out, after adjusting for inflation, with considerably less income! What about average Americans, then and now? In George Romney's 1960, American workers were enjoying their most prosperous years ever. Over the quarter century right after World War II, the real incomes of average Americans more than doubled. Indeed, incomes for average Americans jumped faster in these postwar years than incomes for wealthy Americans like George Romney. In 1940, the last full year before U.S. entry into World War II, the most affluent 0.01 percent of U.S. households took home 336 times more income than the average household in the bottom 90 percent. The gap in 1960: only 158 times."
Sam Pizzigati is the editor of the online weekly Too Much, and an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Bring the 1950's tax rates to redistribute our wealth stolen by the top 1%
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Sep 2, 2009 8:52 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tazdelaney on Sep 2, 2009 10:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
between these entities is draining 20% of the total GDP of the USA - something unseen anywhere else and unprecedented in history anywhere. these industries in the background, as in the shady deal with obama, threaten the government with their bubble bursting. however, if the drain weren't so massive on our tiny pocketbooks; we could weather whatever consequences of their corporate meltdowns.
according to the wall street journal during the campaign, obama's plan would cut the revenues of these industries by $400billion a year or more and even they saw the balance with the GDP factor, (while warning the industries...) this shows just how far obama has betrayed us and his promises.
astonishingly, as also referenced by krugman, 80%+ of all new jobs created in this century have been in healthcare and pharma. since throughout the decade, we've barely created the 147,000 jobs a month needed to just cover the young new would-be entries into the workforce... we can see that their big bucks boom has been the sole thing keeping america from a full-blown depression SINCE 2002... subtract 80% of all new jobs from this decade and we'd now be looking at a shattered economy with food riots and full-scale martial law, etc. not that we aren't pretty much there now...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Sep 2, 2009 10:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxsmart on Sep 2, 2009 12:46 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or like allowing some to have poor healthcare so disease can spread to the rest of society.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: swansong on Sep 2, 2009 1:47 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As corporations have misused public sentiment (ie consumerism) in the pursuit of profit, what we now know to be dangerous and polluting substances are found everywhere- air, water and soil. They are in our food (at "allowable amounts"), and they end up in our mothers' breastmilk. We squabble over pesticide-covered veggies while we inhale carbon monoxide, ozone, drink fluoride and chlorine and herbicides leaked into our water. And then we take a pill to make it all go away, so we can continue to consume without hindrance.
As we constantly ingest these hormones, antibiotics, heavy metals, toxic chemicals, and other immune/cancer/disease stimulating substances in our Western diets, we are reducing our collective fitness and disturbing our capacity to survive hardship and environmental stressors. Early onset of menstruation, premature deliveries, sperm production, all these things afflict our children more than they do us. Sad thing is that there is more than meets the eye (ie phenotype) when it comes to genetic disease.
Medicine can treat most symptoms, though we are now on the edge of genetic therapy. Perhaps this should be worrying, given the many other pharmaceutical technologies that appeared beneficial yet later turned out to have grave side effects (rushed through testing to make profit quickly before a recall, a scary spin on planned obsolescence).
Our gene pools are being systematically degraded by these artificial stressors, the induced by profiteer industries with massive scales and powerful influence. Increasing numbers of individuals are born with undesirable genetic traits, such as autism (or its recessive gene products), type I and II diabetes, depression and schizophrenia, and genetic predisposition to many cancers.
Therefore, what we would historically view as a collection of isolated, unfortunate cases can often be traced to corporate abuses of the environment, food, water, and health. Increasingly scientists find these effects are both external and internal.
Popular in the past among the wealthy elite, eugenics favored inbreeding and maintenance of bloodlines, resulting in vast genetic defects and mental retardation. They had rational aims, though these negative outcomes were unanticipated. Hmm, smells just like free market capitalism. And just think, many of these families are still running big business.
It's entirely possible that individuals of all classes might one day be so tainted genetically that someone might propose the idea of restricting reproduction yet again. Would it not be in humanity's evolutionary interest to only support those with the most successful traits? Yikes, looks like we may be moving faster toward death panels than we hoped, though maybe still a few decades away.
Or have we already derailed the train of our species' progress for the sake of short-term profit, the consequences and magnitude of which are still uncertain? Progressives like to think of the effects on our children and their children- well I assure you this view should not be limited to their economy or global environment, since they now potentially harbor genetic by-products of today's corporate abuses.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VoxMagi on Sep 2, 2009 2:45 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Executions, people. Death penalties for extreme cases of corporate malfeasance. Their problem is that they aren't quite liberal enough in the application of this policy, since they still seem to have a lot of problems making anything that isn't 3/4 toxic waste, but I think they're really onto something with the concept of personal responsibility for corporate decisions that hurt people, maim their economy and leave their reputation in ruins.
We'll happily execute one person for shooting another...but we won't fry a person whose poor judgment and profit lust causes physical harm and shortened lifespans for thousands or tens of thousands or even millions of Americans?
Heck, even Republicans should favor this. They love the death penalty, spout off about honesty and integrity and accountability all day long, and universally gripe about crime and eroding moral standards!
So lets rally for new stringent laws!! (and the best part is, 99 % of us are too poor to ever run afoul of them! Finally a virture of poverty!) Like survival of the fittest and free market capitalism, killing corrupt execs will 'improve the breed' by winnowing away the dross and drek and leaving us with future herds of CEOs that are smarter and more capable of ethically sound choices!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mmckinl on Sep 2, 2009 5:23 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tax the hell out of them and all other overpaid executives and rentiers ...
In this way they will never in one year get enough to cheat and retire ...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LeonBNJ on Sep 2, 2009 6:36 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hancoo on Sep 2, 2009 7:23 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LHB on Sep 3, 2009 1:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bearzerker on Sep 3, 2009 2:21 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These overpayments to wallstreet boardmembers by publicly traded companies is nothing short of grand theft from the common shareholders and pension plans...
this must stop!... these publically traded company officials have no right to the extortionate payments they recieve while I and many other investors recieve penny dividends when it should be dollars!
we need to start sending these criminals to jail.... SERIOUSLY!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Babygoat on Sep 3, 2009 3:30 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the anger will have swelled to anarchy and hopefully, some of us will come across them! Maybe we'll only feed them money. It won't be good for anything else anyway. Choke on it Bastard!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gimmie shelter on Sep 3, 2009 3:33 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: grkjr on Sep 3, 2009 6:06 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bukboy on Sep 4, 2009 1:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I currently consider our nature, and I mean in every single sense, as institutions of strategies that are successful at generating growth for the society that hosts the implementers of those strategies.(growth in terms of development, or power projection or technology, or simply overcoming ....)
Following from this, any existing institution has been created as an imperfect solution to existing problems. With only its resulting macroscopic growth effect as arbiter with veto power.
In consequence I believe that our morality, our knowledge, etc... are all evolving within their contemporary environments. Also, by implication were never perfect and never will nor should be.
Within this context, I ask the question whether there is any purpose in supporting the evolutionary institutions "nation states" over corporate entities? Especially if corporations are far more efficient at generating growth for their members than nations.
Basically, Why oppose it if it isn't affecting you?
I agree with you that making money by manipulation is most likely a parasitical behaviour, as I believe money is at its core and most basic, no more than an evolutionary institution and tool for exchange of human production, however, considering the strong contribution from the jewish influence in our current Greco,Roman,Judeo originated western culture, and the undeniable contribution of banking, the financial and legal profession, in their redistribution of a societies resources to the area of most growth, irrespectively of perceived contemporary ethical beliefs, and the resulting growth of that culture, how can you distinguish between bad middlemen, and good middlemen?
The ability of shrewd leaders to outsmart the rest of the population bestows benefits on the host society in that those leaders want to preserve their privileged position, and thereby outsmart the leaders of any competing societies, for continued own societal survival. Ultimately I think this would by far offset the inherent negative effect of the leaders theft of resources from their own society.
Just throwing some ideas out?
Any ideas on what humanity will become, after all human societies become too homogenized in culture for there to be any basis or even excuse for discrimination or targeting over differences, and hence no justification for the preservation of the nation states institution?
Radek
rtanski@gmail.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: teon6 on Sep 20, 2009 4:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 2, 2009 12:34 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: RevolutionNet on Sep 2, 2009 1:46 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FREE AMERICA
REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mrsanfran on Sep 2, 2009 3:20 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Sep 2, 2009 3:31 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Industrial Revolution didn't originate in the South of England, it came from largely from Engineers in the North of England and Scotland.
It transformed society and created vast Real Wealth, but the Wealth was controlled from London and in the USA from Wall Street.
But the guys in control of the wealth, thought that they had actually produced it by their trading of goods that we had made. They didn't understand the the Real wealth had come from our work and not their trading.
So this illusion has continued for an exceedingly long time.
Within my life time, the effect was most dramatic when Margaret Thatcher came to power, and effectively closed down vast numbers of productive businesses - that were generating real wealth - in The North of England. This produced vast unemployment and poverty in the very people who had been generating all the wealth.
London didn't care, and simply moved the Production to SE Asia where labour was much cheaper and the profits for shareholders greater.
Exactly the same process happenned in the United States.
The illusion of wealth creation continued by those who participated in trading - and some created vast personal fortunes. From their own perspective - they were creating wealth. Even Governments believed it - and the trading went to the most obscene ridiculous lengths in the Casinos in Wall Street and London that were called "Investment Banks".
Meanwhile >90% of the populations of both the US and the UK gradually got poorer and poorer - whilst a tiny minority attained riches beyond any personal capability to ever spend. They sucked the system dry, and their only real objective was to attain the biggest possible number, by the time they dropped dead. They had no idea what to do with their wealth - they just wanted more.
What happenned beyond their private mansions was of no concern. The starving masses were simply considered useless eaters - even though it was they themselves who through their work had actually created the wealth in the first place.
These idiots are now in total control of of Western Government, and are in the process of crashing the entire system.
Whether its by accident or design is pretty much irrelevant. The effect is the same - Mass Impoverishment of >90% of the Population.
Most people now - even those who have a job - do not do any real wealth creating work. By that I mean they do not produce anything of real value that could for example be exchanged with someone in another country who they may in fact owe an enormous debt to.
Meanwhile all we try and do is control the rest of the world with our guns and our bombs.
The truth is that we are so lazy and useless - we have effectively become armed robbers of less militarily powerful nations.
We are an embarrassment to the human race.
How do we get rid of the Criminals in Control of us?
Tony
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Basic Problem is Cultural and Wall Street Inherited it From London
Posted by: Mac Geek
» RE: The Basic Problem is Cultural and Wall Street Inherited it From London
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: The Basic Problem is Cultural and Wall Street Inherited it From London
Posted by: madregal
» RE: The Basic Problem is Cultural and Wall Street Inherited it From London
Posted by: sallyport
» RE: The Basic Problem is Cultural and Wall Street Inherited it From London
Posted by: sbannick
» RE: The Basic Problem is Cultural and Wall Street Inherited it From London
Posted by: satwa.gunam
» RE: The Basic Problem is Cultural and Wall Street Inherited it From London
Posted by: ellienor
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ender on Sep 2, 2009 3:39 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 1950, the golden age of the middle class, executive pay was 30:1 (the CEO made 30 times what an entry-level worker made). As late as 1980 the ratio was still "only" 50:1 because compensation was still largely connected to production and innovation. The CEOs were concerned with long term goals, meaning the company had to stay healthy, the workers had to be retained (i.e. happy and well-paid), pensions had to be fully funded and companies had to play nicely with their suppliers and customers.
Today, a CEO can make money by artificially inflating the stock price long enough for them to cash out. If a crazy scheme crashes the company, so what? They've got a golden parachute, so why not take ridiculous risks for a big payout? Heads or tails, today's corporate pigs win either way.
The CEO pay ratio today is 475:1. How long can that last while simultaneously our manufacturing sector is disappearing? Executive pay has been decoupled from the reality of producing something tangible to merely rigging the game until the next year or the next quarter.
Don't get me wrong: there have been fine innovations that don't require manufacturing, like the service sector.
But the bottom line is that a nation's economy cannot be sustained if the country's main business is not physically changing something (growing carrots, building a car, stocking shelves). Whatever else that is done is by definition ethereal and the gains are likewise fleetingly insubstantial.
******
Oh, and we have to get rid of the political revolving door: a company makes widgets and is overseen by the US Widget Administration. The CEO contributes money to a politician, the politician wins and appoints the CEO of the widget company to head the US Widget Administration. The former CEO changes the regulations to just the way he wants, then quits and then is rehired by his former company as a consultant.
That shit has got to stop.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Widgets vs. Scams
Posted by: madregal
» RE: Widgets vs. Scams
Posted by: bukboy
» RE: Widgets vs. Scams
Posted by: ender
» RE: Widgets vs. Scams
Posted by: bukboy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: weathered on Sep 2, 2009 4:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What we've got are swine dining at the trough of greed. For some greed is a very selfish choice for others it in their DNA.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nihilozero on Sep 2, 2009 4:05 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: swansong on Sep 2, 2009 5:26 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Banks have proven there is still far more money to be made gambling on money itself. No matter how banks relabel the risks and abstractions of intangible profit-promises (corporate paper, mortgage-backed securities, you name it), the practice is deceitful and unsustainable. Corporations are now reduced to commodities as well, with the trading of subsidiaries and paying of contractors that are themselves already twice-removed from the physical world. Now even carbon emissions, energy certificates and healthcare credits are going to be pumped into this artificial wealth building machine (er, bubble), and I'm surprised more have not come out and yelled about this... Bernie Madoff isn't the first nor the last of the big-bad-apples, he is the norm, the latest straw man to distract us from the bigger picture.
So here we are now. Through fierce corporate competition and lack of oversight in the free market we have only encouraged more cleverly disguised abuses, and even more zealous yet vague promises of reform. It is clear that Goldman-Sachs has mastered this ponzi scheme, their cronies Paulson and Kashkari et al having conveniently allowed the demise of an arch-enemy and salvation of its debtors, along with the very calculated structuring of TARP package to generate bonuses and maximum profit. We have yet to see the credit open up, or the money trickle down. Could this be mere coincidence given the billions in profits that could be made, or is it really possible that some are gaming the system?
This biasing of outcomes to favor continued CEO windfalls wouldn’t be possible without predictable responses from policymakers, via lobbyists, monetary contributions, and public relations artifice (oh, and fear!). Without the presumed innocence of an attractive brand name and sharp dressed figurehead, all of these financial institutions are simply flavors of the same racketeering scheme that serves one primary goal- to extract as much wealth (physical or not) as possible, without conscience. Yes, this conscience must also be falsely presumed, as there are copious examples where the rosy faces of Big Ag, Big Oil, and Big Health/Pharma are really paper thin, dutifully shielding the cold-hearted profit predators beneath.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: swansong on Sep 2, 2009 5:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yet we still profess faith that Justice will punish or deter these abuse-prone "corporate persons" and their directors. With some satisfaction, we sometimes penalize individuals who commit heinous acts of fraud, extortion, and destruction, on a smaller scale. Yet what of the profit-seeking institution that simply yielded to its corrupt “master’s wish?” Corporations enjoy all the legal benefits of persons with little accountability, mostly paying fines that go unnoticed by the public. As stipulated by our fractional reserve banking system, money is created and valued arbitrarily, controlled by crony bureaucrats via the faux-federal private Reserve Bank. Upon realizing this fundamental conflict of interest, the sheer magnitude of wealth transfer, and weak systems of deterrence, it becomes clear that the system is highly prone to corruption, since violations rarely lead to significant consequences. Instead, the wrist-slap only bolsters arrogance to further abuse and harm, since cheating is always more profitable in the end. By investing chump change in feigned reparations, corporations can continue to egregiously break the law, sequester valuable resources and ruin our planet, leaving us with all the dire consequences.
We are reaching the finite limits of this massively corrupt and parasitic monetary system. Due to the flexible policy of money creation and the jargon that conceals its abusive capacity, it is mathematically impossible to ever repay the interest on our collective debt. All of our future earned money is already committed to repaying an infinitely growing balance- at least in the current paradigm. We must act now, we musn’t perpetuate our own debt slavery and global turmoil, the current monetary system is flawed and obsolete.
Professor John Nash was seminal in sculpting our modern economic system through non-cooperative equilibrium, though he actually expressed second thoughts regarding its real-world interprations. At first Nash emphasized rational explanations for the discrepancies between his predictions and actual outcomes, though he later admitted that his theories may not be reliable in the real world.
As quoted from Adam Curtis’ “The Trap” 2007(on google video)
“I don’t want to overemphasize rational thinking on the part of humans…they are much more complicated…human behavior is not entirely motivated by self interest of each pure human. Game theory works in terms of self interest… some game theory concepts could be unsound, there’s overdependence on rationality, that is my enlightenment.”
I found this recent paper on economics and equilibrium theory entertaining, in part because it incorporates seemingly common-sense approaches that weren't strongly considered in the original mathematical models of game theory. I could be wrong, I'm not an economist or a mathematician. Anyone who knows more, please enlighten us.
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/lucas.pdf
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Sep 2, 2009 6:04 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The U.S. seems to be different in that it fails to learn from its mistakes. In the 1890's and again in the 1920's we tried combat economics and found out that it has some bad consequences. Did we learn from those experiences? No, when Reagan came along and suggested we try it again, we gave it another try leading us to the Savings and Loan disaster, Enron and finally the Banking disaster of last year. Still, we seem to be ready to try it again just to avoid introducing sensible rules for this game.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BenL8 on Sep 2, 2009 6:25 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cberkland on Sep 2, 2009 7:43 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: leafsong1 on Sep 2, 2009 7:41 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excessive executive compensation is a hazard to social stability and democracy. There is a very strong case to be made against it. This author failed miserably in making that case.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Sep 2, 2009 7:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I was a kid in the 50's, I went to just an ordinary local school a short walking distance from where I lived. Sure I passed a mill that had been bombed out - on the way to school, that had not yet been rebuilt from the devastation of WWII.
In theory the country was totally bankrupt, yet there was absolutely nothing wrong with the schools or the hospitals - and the standards of education and medical care were far superior then to what they are now. The schools were well maintained and the hospitals were clean - and safe - and everything was free for everyone - paid out of ordinary taxation. When kids left school, everyone either got some kind of apprenticeship - where they learnt a valuable practical skill - whilst being a paid employee - or they went on to collegs or university - and were paid a student grant (student loans were unheard of) and tuition was free and lecturers well paid and respected.
Where did all the money come from to do it?
Now - just look at the State of our inner cities - across America and most of Europe.
Just look at the state of some of the buildings. They have been neglected for years and are falling apart.
So why, after over 50 years of the most unparalleled wealth in the history of the human race are many of our cities in such a disgusting state?
Why don't we care for our Children? Why do we send them to schools, that are falling down through lack of maintenance - and are a complete visual eyesore? Why do we teach them such nonsense - and then cast them out into a world which is not only lacking in jobs that need doing, but the kids haven't been trained in the practical skills needed to do the work required?
Why have we no money for all the things that need to be done now, when after WWII when we had nothing - we had all the money necessary to employ people to work, rebuild and make enormous progress?
Meanwhile, we blame the kids for their poor behaviour - yet it is us not them that have created this shit heap of neglect. How can we blame our kids. It's all our fault not there's.
We simply do not care enough for our Children.
Anyway, whilst the kids should be employed - and paid to do these jobs on an apprenticeship - either by working for a small private company - or a small local authority - they are not - so nothing gets done to improve anything...
Whilst the fat cats sit guzzling all the cream and getting fatter...
Except that things are slowly changing, and the kids instead of revolting - are getting off their bums - and volunteering - and cleaning the place up, and painting and planting communal gardens in the most deprived inner city areas...
In fact that is exactly what our 18 year old daughter and her friends are doing again now...
* For a Concert Ticket
http://www.rockcorps.com/
On of the best things the UK has imported from the USA.
RockCorps harnesses the power of music to inspire volunteering by producing concerts for which the only way in is to give 4 hours at a volunteer project. You can't win a ticket; you can't buy a ticket; you have to earn a ticket. RockCorps is an international movement with more than 20 live events, 40,000 volunteers and an audience of millions who have heard the message that "Volunteering is cool." The movement is growing, so check back here for more updates.
Tony
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MeyravLevine on Sep 2, 2009 8:17 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Our story starts in 1954, the year that Mitt's dad George became the chief executive of American Motors, the newly created company that had just emerged from what qualified, at the time, as the largest corporate merger in U.S. business history.
George Romney's new executive status, not surprisingly, quickly catapulted the Romney family into the nation's economic elite, the most affluent 0.01 percent of U.S. income-earners. But here's the surprising part. George Romney's new status did not make him super-rich.
In fact, as the top exec at American Motors, George Romney never made more than $225,000 a year. His total annual income over these years -- his auto industry take-home coupled with gains from his personal investments -- only averaged $275,000. That's just $1.8 million in today's dollars, points out New York Times reporter David Leonhardt, a sum not even close to the near $10 million that a corporate executive needed to make in 2005 to enter the ranks of America's topmost 0.01.
And that's also not the only difference between the wealthy in George Romney's time and ours. Back in 1960, taxpayers who reported $275,000 in income paid on average, after exploiting every loophole they could find, just under 44 percent of that income in federal taxes. By contrast, in 2005, the most recent year with IRS data available, taxpayers in America's most affluent 0.01 percent -- average income, $27.3 million -- paid only 20.9 percent of that to Uncle Sam.
In other words, back in George Romney's heyday, America's most affluent one-hundredth of 1 percent paid over twice as much of their income in taxes as their counterparts do today. And they started out, after adjusting for inflation, with considerably less income! What about average Americans, then and now? In George Romney's 1960, American workers were enjoying their most prosperous years ever. Over the quarter century right after World War II, the real incomes of average Americans more than doubled. Indeed, incomes for average Americans jumped faster in these postwar years than incomes for wealthy Americans like George Romney. In 1940, the last full year before U.S. entry into World War II, the most affluent 0.01 percent of U.S. households took home 336 times more income than the average household in the bottom 90 percent. The gap in 1960: only 158 times."
Sam Pizzigati is the editor of the online weekly Too Much, and an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Bring the 1950's tax rates to redistribute our wealth stolen by the top 1%
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Sep 2, 2009 8:52 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tazdelaney on Sep 2, 2009 10:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
between these entities is draining 20% of the total GDP of the USA - something unseen anywhere else and unprecedented in history anywhere. these industries in the background, as in the shady deal with obama, threaten the government with their bubble bursting. however, if the drain weren't so massive on our tiny pocketbooks; we could weather whatever consequences of their corporate meltdowns.
according to the wall street journal during the campaign, obama's plan would cut the revenues of these industries by $400billion a year or more and even they saw the balance with the GDP factor, (while warning the industries...) this shows just how far obama has betrayed us and his promises.
astonishingly, as also referenced by krugman, 80%+ of all new jobs created in this century have been in healthcare and pharma. since throughout the decade, we've barely created the 147,000 jobs a month needed to just cover the young new would-be entries into the workforce... we can see that their big bucks boom has been the sole thing keeping america from a full-blown depression SINCE 2002... subtract 80% of all new jobs from this decade and we'd now be looking at a shattered economy with food riots and full-scale martial law, etc. not that we aren't pretty much there now...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Sep 2, 2009 10:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxsmart on Sep 2, 2009 12:46 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or like allowing some to have poor healthcare so disease can spread to the rest of society.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: swansong on Sep 2, 2009 1:47 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As corporations have misused public sentiment (ie consumerism) in the pursuit of profit, what we now know to be dangerous and polluting substances are found everywhere- air, water and soil. They are in our food (at "allowable amounts"), and they end up in our mothers' breastmilk. We squabble over pesticide-covered veggies while we inhale carbon monoxide, ozone, drink fluoride and chlorine and herbicides leaked into our water. And then we take a pill to make it all go away, so we can continue to consume without hindrance.
As we constantly ingest these hormones, antibiotics, heavy metals, toxic chemicals, and other immune/cancer/disease stimulating substances in our Western diets, we are reducing our collective fitness and disturbing our capacity to survive hardship and environmental stressors. Early onset of menstruation, premature deliveries, sperm production, all these things afflict our children more than they do us. Sad thing is that there is more than meets the eye (ie phenotype) when it comes to genetic disease.
Medicine can treat most symptoms, though we are now on the edge of genetic therapy. Perhaps this should be worrying, given the many other pharmaceutical technologies that appeared beneficial yet later turned out to have grave side effects (rushed through testing to make profit quickly before a recall, a scary spin on planned obsolescence).
Our gene pools are being systematically degraded by these artificial stressors, the induced by profiteer industries with massive scales and powerful influence. Increasing numbers of individuals are born with undesirable genetic traits, such as autism (or its recessive gene products), type I and II diabetes, depression and schizophrenia, and genetic predisposition to many cancers.
Therefore, what we would historically view as a collection of isolated, unfortunate cases can often be traced to corporate abuses of the environment, food, water, and health. Increasingly scientists find these effects are both external and internal.
Popular in the past among the wealthy elite, eugenics favored inbreeding and maintenance of bloodlines, resulting in vast genetic defects and mental retardation. They had rational aims, though these negative outcomes were unanticipated. Hmm, smells just like free market capitalism. And just think, many of these families are still running big business.
It's entirely possible that individuals of all classes might one day be so tainted genetically that someone might propose the idea of restricting reproduction yet again. Would it not be in humanity's evolutionary interest to only support those with the most successful traits? Yikes, looks like we may be moving faster toward death panels than we hoped, though maybe still a few decades away.
Or have we already derailed the train of our species' progress for the sake of short-term profit, the consequences and magnitude of which are still uncertain? Progressives like to think of the effects on our children and their children- well I assure you this view should not be limited to their economy or global environment, since they now potentially harbor genetic by-products of today's corporate abuses.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VoxMagi on Sep 2, 2009 2:45 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Executions, people. Death penalties for extreme cases of corporate malfeasance. Their problem is that they aren't quite liberal enough in the application of this policy, since they still seem to have a lot of problems making anything that isn't 3/4 toxic waste, but I think they're really onto something with the concept of personal responsibility for corporate decisions that hurt people, maim their economy and leave their reputation in ruins.
We'll happily execute one person for shooting another...but we won't fry a person whose poor judgment and profit lust causes physical harm and shortened lifespans for thousands or tens of thousands or even millions of Americans?
Heck, even Republicans should favor this. They love the death penalty, spout off about honesty and integrity and accountability all day long, and universally gripe about crime and eroding moral standards!
So lets rally for new stringent laws!! (and the best part is, 99 % of us are too poor to ever run afoul of them! Finally a virture of poverty!) Like survival of the fittest and free market capitalism, killing corrupt execs will 'improve the breed' by winnowing away the dross and drek and leaving us with future herds of CEOs that are smarter and more capable of ethically sound choices!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mmckinl on Sep 2, 2009 5:23 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tax the hell out of them and all other overpaid executives and rentiers ...
In this way they will never in one year get enough to cheat and retire ...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LeonBNJ on Sep 2, 2009 6:36 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hancoo on Sep 2, 2009 7:23 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LHB on Sep 3, 2009 1:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bearzerker on Sep 3, 2009 2:21 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These overpayments to wallstreet boardmembers by publicly traded companies is nothing short of grand theft from the common shareholders and pension plans...
this must stop!... these publically traded company officials have no right to the extortionate payments they recieve while I and many other investors recieve penny dividends when it should be dollars!
we need to start sending these criminals to jail.... SERIOUSLY!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Babygoat on Sep 3, 2009 3:30 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the anger will have swelled to anarchy and hopefully, some of us will come across them! Maybe we'll only feed them money. It won't be good for anything else anyway. Choke on it Bastard!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gimmie shelter on Sep 3, 2009 3:33 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: grkjr on Sep 3, 2009 6:06 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bukboy on Sep 4, 2009 1:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I currently consider our nature, and I mean in every single sense, as institutions of strategies that are successful at generating growth for the society that hosts the implementers of those strategies.(growth in terms of development, or power projection or technology, or simply overcoming ....)
Following from this, any existing institution has been created as an imperfect solution to existing problems. With only its resulting macroscopic growth effect as arbiter with veto power.
In consequence I believe that our morality, our knowledge, etc... are all evolving within their contemporary environments. Also, by implication were never perfect and never will nor should be.
Within this context, I ask the question whether there is any purpose in supporting the evolutionary institutions "nation states" over corporate entities? Especially if corporations are far more efficient at generating growth for their members than nations.
Basically, Why oppose it if it isn't affecting you?
I agree with you that making money by manipulation is most likely a parasitical behaviour, as I believe money is at its core and most basic, no more than an evolutionary institution and tool for exchange of human production, however, considering the strong contribution from the jewish influence in our current Greco,Roman,Judeo originated western culture, and the undeniable contribution of banking, the financial and legal profession, in their redistribution of a societies resources to the area of most growth, irrespectively of perceived contemporary ethical beliefs, and the resulting growth of that culture, how can you distinguish between bad middlemen, and good middlemen?
The ability of shrewd leaders to outsmart the rest of the population bestows benefits on the host society in that those leaders want to preserve their privileged position, and thereby outsmart the leaders of any competing societies, for continued own societal survival. Ultimately I think this would by far offset the inherent negative effect of the leaders theft of resources from their own society.
Just throwing some ideas out?
Any ideas on what humanity will become, after all human societies become too homogenized in culture for there to be any basis or even excuse for discrimination or targeting over differences, and hence no justification for the preservation of the nation states institution?
Radek
rtanski@gmail.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: teon6 on Sep 20, 2009 4:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Tax the Corporations and the Rich or Take Draconian Cuts -- the Decision Is Ours
Fury at Wall St. Banks Fuels Public Action for Move Your Money Campaign
Why Congress Wants You to Shun Your Local Bookstore and Shop at Amazon Instead




