apple strudel

I got no problem with that.

It's not arbitrary at all. Socialists have been talking about these sorts of ratios for 100 years or so. I just happen to agree with Orwell's position on the subject.

I would disagree. Without workers, companies fail completely. Why do you think rick people are so into union busting?


You're making the argument backwards. A CEO is not worth 400 times the salary of an essential cog in his business. If the position was not essential, it should not exist. Further, look at the effects of massive wage differences - it creates a corporatist royalty who hold far more power than you or I. But they wield that power like a weapon. Do you like giving up power in a country where men are ostensibly considered equal? I don't.

chicowalker

Possibly.

did they tell the other clients to go long? Meetings with sophisticated investors aren't usually "you should buy this." Instead the discussion would be about the client's objectives, where this would fit within their portfolio, what some performance expectations would be in various scenarios, etc. -- as I'm sure you know.

Also, what was disclosed about their own positions? what was disclosed about how the pool was created and the other client (was that Paulsen & Co?)?

There certainly could have been wrongdoing, but I could also easily see a scenario where Goldman met most, if not all, of these requirements. (Don't get me wrong -- failing to meet even one, depending on how it occurred, could be very serious in and of itself.)

chicowalker

They work pretty well -- I'd say our relatively free (it certainly isn't completelt free) market works better than any other system.

actually, yeah

apple strudel

Take a peek at the lack of debt, overall wealth, and ethical distribution of wealth in Norway. They're actually doing far better than we are at this whole fiscally conservative thing, but that's because they don't have a bunch of assh0les at the top looking to skim as much money off not only their own people but as many developing nations as well (see Fiji water, and Bechtel in Bolivia for some simple examples of economic terrorism). Free markets suck, that's why we developed ant-trust regulation more than a century ago. People were smarter back then, though. No TV.

Free market capitalism works great for 10% or fewer of the people in the country. The rest of us see gradually but steadily declining standards of living.

chicowalker

Then waht's the basis for 20:1?

Without any workers, certainly. But most rich people really aren't "into" union busting.

In my experience, unions become irrelevant when employees are paid fair wages and treated well. For the many instances when that doesn't occur, unions can be a very valuable method -- when the unions actually fight for their members, that is.

Again, you're making blanket statements that simply aren't true.

First, while non-essential positions shouldn't exist, I think we both know that's often not the case.

Second, while a role may be essential, that doesn't mean it can't be filled by many people. Granted, a company like Goldman Sachs pays a building management company for janitorial services -- but while those janitorial services are essential, they don't help the company profit or grow, and they can be taken care of by virtually any adult. The notion that a banker or salesman who earns tens of millions of dollars for the firm should be held to 20x the janitor's salary is, again, completely arbitrary -- and that's why that talented individual won't stay at Goldman if he's not going to earn what he's worth, while the janitor -- union or not -- is going to stay at roughly the same wages he's getting paid.

Finally, I don't believe in this notion of "corporate royaltists." Do some rich people wield power like a weapon? Sure. So do some non-rich people (some politicians, for example). But most rich people live pretty normal lives. Even if they didn't, however, that has nothing to do with what an individual is worth to a company.

All men are equal in terms of rights (though there are exceptions -- prisoners, for ex), but all men simply aren't equal in terms of their capabilities. I'd love to be a pro baseball player, but it's not going to happen. Similarly, not everybody is capable of running Goldman Sachs. Those who can do it are going to get paid (just like people who are actually talented at playing baseball).

chicowalker

Norway also benefits just a tad from having immense oil wealth and relatively few people.

I actually have friends who left Norway to live here. They love Norway, too, but I've never heard them claim that the US should try to be more like Norway -- I think they recognize that there are some pretty critical differences between the countries.

apple strudel

There's a long and dirty history of union busting in this country. It's easy to find plenty of information on the subject. And the people busting unions are the people at the top.

Look at Walmart wages, profits, and their efforts to prevent any unionization and put it all together. It's pretty simple math. Less money for workers means more money for shareholders.


Nope.

Free market capitalism seeks efficiency and the best way to do this is to reduce costs. Why do you think supermarkets built automated checkout?

A workplace without a janitorial staff goes to hell pretty damn fast. Try it and let me know how it works out. Those guys making money for the company won't work there very long. Ergo they actually do help a company profit and grow.

Why did corporations sue to overturn 100 years of legal precedent that limits corporate political donations? Because money is power. Humanizing rich people doesn't mean they don't **** people over royally. Take a look at the Bechtel and Fiji water examples, just as a starter. There are endless examples of things like this. Just because you're playing the corporate apologist doesn't mean you don't get screwed by them, you're just happy about it.

[/quote]All men are equal in terms of rights (though there are exceptions -- prisoners, for ex), but all men simply aren't equal in terms of their capabilities. I'd love to be a pro baseball player, but it's not going to happen. Similarly, not everybody is capable of running Goldman Sachs. Those who can do it are going to get paid (just like people who are actually talented at playing baseball).[/quote]

Using the system to justify the system is a non-starter argument, don't you think?

apple strudel

America has loads of wealth, too.

Personal anecdote is not a good argument. And there are critical differences between the two countries: Norwegians believe in helping each other and Americans, who used to believe in helping each other, now believe in screwing each other over. The USA is now the economic equivalent of The Lord of the Flies.

chicowalker

None of that contradicts what I said: "...most rich people really aren't "into" union busting..."

You're 2-2 so far in crafting responses that aren't addressing what I said: "...unions become irrelevant when employees are paid fair wages and treated well..."

In fact, if Walmart treats its employees poorly, then what you said confirms what then followed in my post: "...For the many instances when that doesn't occur, unions can be a very valuable method..."

Screwing over employees generally isn't a good way to run a business. Generally. And it certainly isn't the only way to grow a successful one.

"Seeks efficiency," yes. Seeks.

(But cutting costs isn't always the best way to do that, no.)

Again, you're trying to go from certain examples to entire blanket statements -- and, again, I never claimed that the examples don't exist -- the contrary is true.

But, again, the fact that some companies and some rich people screw people over doesn't mean all companies and rich people do -- just as the fact that some employees screw over their employers and fellow employees doesn't mean all employees do.

I view you calling me a corporate apologist as about the same as if somebody were to call you an apologist for the lazy and incapable -- in other words, that both are blind to reality.

No, I don't think -- because to me the system makes sense. I believe in individual freedoms, not some bureaucracy running things. You realize that your example, Norway, also uses "free" market capitalism, right? It's just less free than the US (which, as you've pointed out, isn't free, either -- and it shouldn't be).

But if you don't like capitalism, what do you propose as an alternative for the US?

(And what is the objective basis for your 20:1 ratio, since it isn't arbitrary?)


[btw, I'm probably out for the night -- but I'll check back in tomorrow if so. have a good night]

apple strudel

Corporations certainly are. It's not like I mean rich people do it for sport. Businesses do it for profit.