"Rich are getting richer, poor are getting poorer"???

[Michael]

Thanks for pointing out that article Imhotep.

So basically - the rich are getting richer, but the poor are also getting richer.

Ha! Someone finally understand what I have been trying to say by reading an article! Not attacking you Osna! You know you are on my good side

 

[Snake Vargas]

I like your rant about corporate CEOs, SnakeVargas. However, you are partly responsible for what these guys make. I'm assuming you've bought a share or stock of invested money in an investment/mutual fund.

Personally, CEOs making scandalous amounts of money is a problem that we, as investors, created ourselves. Most stockholders in companies don't bother to vote on what directors are elected. We throw away our proxy forms and allow bad directors to stay. These bad directors end up approving huge compensation deals for CEOs even when our stocks go down! When we all realize that we let the wrong people manage our companies, hundred of millions of stockholders' money has already been paid out. We're all to blame.

Yeah, I know. I only own a few though, of one company. I'll probably get rid of them at some point in any case. I wish that little thing could make a difference, but I'd probably be kidding myself. Nevertheless, like I said, if I don't like it I should do something, or else shut up and put up.

I have no problem with companies making a profit per se, but it's the neglect of social effects and moral considerations that turns me off, and the greed that makes them not content with smaller profits but seeking to be the best and richest.

 

[Michael]

There isn't any real evidence to support that a $100 million per year CEO does a better job of returning value to stockholders than a $500,000 per year CEO. They justify that $99.5 million difference with stupid subjective terms like "relative compensation."

Correct me if I'm wrong, Osnabrueck, but aren't Germans still distrustful of corporations? I'm having a discussion in another thread about a German banker who was blown up in his armoured Mercedes and he was just one of many who have fallen to the same fate.

The pay packages for European and Japanese CEOs are much lower. The "Celebrity CEO" is an American concept that costs stockholders billions of dollars. They compete with each other on things like who has a better golf club membership, who has the more advanced corporate jet.

If I am not mistaken the case is also the same with Chinese CEOs. They are not paid as much as CEOs in the US. I think the money paying companies, like the ones in the US, is a trend that may only seen in such a country like the US that is obssessed with paying the most oddest positions the most money.

One thing that always gets me is the classic tale of the police officer and the teacher. The police officer and the teacher, alone, make more of a different in a community than a CEO does. Why aren't they paid more? It is rather interesting to note, that at one time I was at a lecture by one of my professors in which he noted that he was a paleo-conservative and he was pragmatic of things. He argued that the garbage collector, and others alike for that matter, should get paid on how much their position is valued at. Giving value to a position is a hardship onto itself, however, hypotheically speaking, if one could do this, the garbage collector would get paid more.

Also, has anyone noticed that names for the lowest positions have changed, as if they want to change the title for 1. the community not to look down the such a position and once a new, more elegant or professional name is in place, the upper class, middle class, and even the lower class can speak of it as if it is better that the name that was given before? For example(in case some of you have lost me here), take for instance Custodian. The person who cleans at the office, or buildling. Many companies have changed the name of this position to Sanitation Engineer or Sanitation Technician. What gives?

Yeah, I know. I only own a few though, of one company. I'll probably get rid of them at some point in any case. I wish that little thing could make a difference, but I'd probably be kidding myself. Nevertheless, like I said, if I don't like it I should do something, or else shut up and put up.

I have no problem with companies making a profit per se, but it's the neglect of social effects and moral considerations that turns me off, and the greed that makes them not content with smaller profits but seeking to be the best and richest.

SV you are right, but one thing I would like to mention is that it seems that society as a whole--the US and many western countries--have given up on virtues, which personally, is what enables companies to function in such a manner. A manner in which they may attention, with great regard, to social issues and the impact of their success. Capitalism has enabled democraices, for the most part, to modify their company, profits, etc., in order to succeed,and they do this at whatever cost. I think Capitalism, in many ways or forms, does away with ethical and moral values. I don't think you can have them when you consider such a fierce market and Adam Smith's invisible hand.

 

[SDNR]

Thanks for pointing out that article Imhotep.

So basically - the rich are getting richer, but the poor are also getting richer.

Ha! Someone finally understand what I have been trying to say by reading an article! Not attacking you Osna! You know you are on my good side

Funny .....because I said exactly the same thing in my very first post in this thread

 

[Michael]

Funny .....because I said exactly the same thing in my very first post in this thread

Oh really. My apologies I didn't realize that.

Here we go...

The rich are indeed getting richer ....but so are the poor, just not quite as quickly

You are right in saying that Rob. However, a few posts after, I started saying that, and I proposed my proportionality theory.

 

[Imhotep Evil]

I don't think I said anything about the "poor taste of some rich people" IE ....but you are correct, there is nothing new about some super rich people having poor taste.

In the 17th and 18th centuries, the finest furniture makers in France were commissioned to create objects for the great houses all over Europe. A lot of the furniture made for the aristocracy of Eastern Europe was much bolder and more flamboyant than the furniture made for the French aristocracy -- the French taste was more subtle and refined -- many Parisians considered the tastes of Eastern Europeans (particularly the Russians) to be vulgar and showy.

That my friend is only a small part of the iceberg. Vulgar are also some of those baroque estates/palaces made for the nouveau riche of the post-renaissance period. And it goes back even further, way, way further.

 

[Michael]

IE why did you go on and have to mention an artist, or period where Rob will feel the need to post his inspirations in life. just kidding.

 

[SDNR]

IE why did you go on and have to mention an artist, or period where Rob will feel the need to post his inspirations in life. just kidding.

I should stop dong that ..sorry (post deleted.)

 

[450SEL6.9]

If I am not mistaken the case is also the same with Chinese CEOs. They are not paid as much as CEOs in the US. I think the money paying companies, like the ones in the US, is a trend that may only seen in such a country like the US that is obssessed with paying the most oddest positions the most money.

Chinese CEOs are paid very little in many cases. Keep in mind that the shares in these huge Chinese companies are all mostly (50, 60, 75%) owned by the Chinese government. They don't dish out American-style payoffs.

 

[Michael]

I should stop dong that ..sorry (post deleted.)

NO NO NO. You did not have to delete that post my friend. I was only joking. I apologize.

 

[SDNR]

Don't apologize Mike -- I was getting off the topic again -- so it was a helpful and polite reminder

 

[Imhotep Evil]

OK, back on topic, what that article failed to articulate was savings and debt.
The middle might make more money, but they have a smaller slice of a (quite) bigger pie, and that piece comes with marshlands of debt.

Also, the idea of ostentatios vulgar display of wealth is not new and/or american.

 

[Osnabrueck]

Quick footnote - A problem Germany has with their economy is that folks just save too much! Debt isn't necessarily a bad thing - and I won't say any more least I exceed my qualifications as an armchair economist.

 

[SDNR]

Just on the subject of finance: has Wesley Snipes been arrested yet? ...last I heard, he owes millions of dollars in taxes and is hiding from the IRS.

 

[Imhotep Evil]

Quick footnote - A problem Germany has with their economy is that folks just save too much! Debt isn't necessarily a bad thing - and I won't say any more least I exceed my qualifications as an armchair economist.

Yep, that's a problem too.
Neither debt or too much savings are good.

 

[450SEL6.9]

The rich are getting filthy rich again. Investment bank Goldman Sachs paid $2.58 billion US for a stake in Chinese bank ICBC in April. Today ICBC went public. Goldman's shares are worth $7.48 billion. That's nearly a $5 billion gain for six months work!

Not too long ago, Goldman made a $3.7 billion gain from a stake in Japanese bank Sumitomo Mitsui. They paid about $1.3 billion for it.

Goldman has 287 partners globally and they're likely paid an average of 5 million pounds according to one article. However, they can invest in Goldman's principal/proprietary transactions like ICBC. In the world of high finance, a game available only to the rich, the rich keep getting richer.