Why CEOs aren't hiring

[d-ray657]

Interesting op-ed piece from the Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/25/AR2010072502770.html

The writer missed one of the most obvious reasons. The CEO's are waiting until after November so that they can get more of their lapdogs in congress.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

Interesting op-ed piece from the Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/25/AR2010072502770.html

The writer missed one of the most obvious reasons. The CEO's are waiting until after November so that they can get more of their lapdogs in congress.

Regards,

D-Ray

Do you bet heavy when you've got a weak hand?

If so, we got a friendly little game Saturday nite, and you're welcome to set in. I think we're gonna be playing something called poker, don't know too much about it, myself.

What you're suggesting is that the corporations are purposely suppressing the economy in order to get more Republicans elected.

I figure that they've got both sides bought off in the first place, but there may be an element of truth to your argument.

But I contend that they're being cautious, with good reason. This election brings a lot of uncertainty, demand is still weak, and if you tool up and produce a bunch of widgets that nobody wants, you're gonna take it in the shorts.

Fools rush in. Besides, I don't see every CEO as another Hannibal Lecter.

Chas

[d-ray657]

Do you bet heavy when you've got a weak hand?

If so, we got a friendly little game Saturday nite, and you're welcome to set in. I think we're gonna be playing something called poker, don't know too much about it, myself.

What you're suggesting is that the corporations are purposely suppressing the economy in order to get more Republicans elected.

I figure that they've got both sides bought off in the first place, but there may be an element of truth to your argument.

But I contend that they're being cautious, with good reason. This election brings a lot of uncertainty, demand is still weak, and if you tool up and produce a bunch of widgets that nobody wants, you're gonna take it in the shorts.

Fools rush in. Besides, I don't see every CEO as another Hannibal Lecter.

Chas

You're right about them owning members of both parties. I meant to say "their favorite lapdogs."

I don't know about the weak hand though. Management has had a good hand for a long time, and they have drawn another ace with high unemployment. They're not all evil, but most are amoral. The expansion of profit takes precedence over every other thing.

Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

What you're suggesting is that the corporations are purposely suppressing the economy in order to get more Republicans elected.

Sounds about right to me.

I figure that they've got both sides bought off in the first place, but there may be an element of truth to your argument.

More than an "element", I'd say.

Besides, I don't see every CEO as another Hannibal Lecter.

Neither do I. I just recognize them for what they are, and act accordingly. We need them, True dat. But people who engage in hero worship of these guys and defend their imagined right to be assholes are fools who deserve what they have coming, IMHO.

Chas

Think I'll finish my salad and go to bed with that thought fresh in my mind....

Dave

[Charles]

You're right about them owning members of both parties. I meant to say "their favorite lapdogs."

I don't know about the weak hand though. Management has had a good hand for a long time, and they have drawn another ace with high unemployment. They're not all evil, but most are amoral. The expansion of profit takes precedence over every other thing.

Regards,

D-Ray

What do you suggest they do?

Hire a bunch of people they don't need and build a bunch of stuff that nobody's gonna buy?

I will admit, CEO's tend to be way overpaid, but that's another issue. Companies do go broke.

As far as I'm concerned, now is a time so sit on your assets instead of pissing them away. Then you will be poised to make a move when things open up.

Chas

Kind of hard to set the world on fire when you're busted.

[BlueStreak]

If they all "hire a bunch of people" there will be more people who can buy things, creating demand. So long as they refuse to hire, or invest any money in their businesses the economy will remain sluggish.

What do you expect a bunch of unemployed people to do? Run out and buy a new car? Have their home renovated? Are they gonna hit the local High End Audio store and load up on McIntosh and Martin-Logan? Spend a weekend in the Hamptons? Dinner at Ruths Chris?----------When they got no friggin' job?

Dave

[finnbow]

I'm with Chas on this one. There's no nefarious intent here, just a lot of nervousness and uncertainty about the state of the economy. Would it be better if all employers were to simultaneously start hiring? Of course, but that's not the way things work. Economics is all about the herd mentality, both in good times and in bad. It just so happens that everyone (including us) is pretty negative about the current state of affairs.

[Charles]

I'm with Chas on this one. There's no nefarious intent here, just a lot of nervousness and uncertainty about the state of the economy. Would it be better if all employers were to simultaneously start hiring? Of course, but that's not the way things work. Economics is all about the herd mentality, both in good times and in bad. It just so happens that everyone (including us) is pretty negative about the current state of affairs.

Thank you, Finn, I need all the support I can get.

Chas

[d-ray657]

It now appears that employers are sitting on $1.8 Trillion in cash and enjoying soaring profits, but they are permanently eliminating jobs - here at least.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/27/AR2010072704791.html

As has been said before, corporations have not loyalty - not to their employees (or former employees), not to their country - only to their bottom line. As far as the bottom line goes, there is no such thing as enough profits.

Regards,

D-Ray

[finnbow]

As has been said before, corporations have not loyalty - not to their employees (or former employees), not to their country - only to their bottom line. As far as the bottom line goes, there is no such thing as enough profits.

Regards,

D-Ray

Like it or not, they have a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders. Admittedly, they are often short-sighted in what the best strategy may be in fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities. However, their main job is to make money.

[piece-itpete]

I agree with Chas and Finn too.

Whoa :)

Besides, the Dems are half the ruling class too. So half the corps should be hiring.

Pete

[d-ray657]

I agree with Chas and Finn too.

Whoa :)

Besides, the Dems are half the ruling class too. So half the corps should be hiring.

Pete

I would give you big odds that the Dems are a significant minority in the board rooms.

Regards,

D-Ray

[finnbow]

I would give you big odds that the Dems are a significant minority in the board rooms.

Regards,

D-Ray

Yeh, but that only makes sense. For better or worse, the GOP is the party of management and the Democrats are the party of labor. I would give you similar odds that Republicans are a significant minority (probably a bigger minority) in the upper echelons of Big Labor. It is what it is.

[noonereal]

Yeh, but that only makes sense. For better or worse, the GOP is the party of management and the Democrats are the party of labor. I would give you similar odds that Republicans are a significant minority (probably a bigger minority) in the upper echelons of Big Labor. It is what it is.

of course this is true which is why it is so ironic to see all these tea bags swearing allegiance to their masters as they are oppressed by them

[d-ray657]

of course this is true which is why it is so ironic to see all these tea bags swearing allegiance to their masters as they are oppressed by them

+1

Regards,

D-Ray

[finnbow]

of course this is true which is why it is so ironic to see all these tea bags swearing allegiance to their masters as they are oppressed by them

+2. My mother-in-law is a case in point (bless her heart). Her husband was a union master printer, her sister a schoolteacher, and her brother a government worker. All three of her kids work for the Federal Gov't. Two of their spouses are schoolteachers. I don't ever think she's eaten a bite a food that wasn't provided by someone who was a natural Democratic constituent.

That said, she's somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun on the political spectrum and blind to the irony of it.:confused: She worships at the altar of the Maharushi and truly thinks Glenn Beck is brilliant and insightful. Go figure.

[piece-itpete]

Yeah, the Dems are really labor :rolleyes:

Someone please look up net worth of Congress by party. And perhaps their background too.

I've seen what the party of labor's done to the laborers in my hometown.

Pete

[Boreas]

Yeah, the Dems are really labor :rolleyes:

Someone please look up net worth of Congress by party. And perhaps their background too.

I've seen what the party of labor's done to the laborers in my hometown.

Pete

The point is where the parties draw their constituencies, not how much money their elected representatives have or how they got it. Also, we've been down this road a hundred times on this board. The wealth among our congressmen and senators is pretty much equally divided between the two parties. There's really no conclusion to be drawn other than that politics is a very lucrative business.

Now, Cleveland. Don't you think the corporate (Republican) bosses are at least equally to blame for moving their operations, first to cheap "right to work" states (red states) and then to foreign countries? I do.

John

[Charles]

I would give you big odds that the Dems are a significant minority in the board rooms.

Regards,

D-Ray

I suspect it's more evenly divided than you think, especially in the financial sector.

But I'm having difficulty mining any data. You have to take it case by case.

Chas

[d-ray657]

I suspect it's more evenly divided than you think, especially in the financial sector.

But I'm having difficulty mining any data. You have to take it case by case.

Chas

I'm sure there are some democrats among the ruling elite. But you might have a point about the financial sector. There are plenty of sharp cookies there that long ago realized how damaging voodoo economics can be.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

I'm sure there are some democrats among the ruling elite. But you might have a point about the financial sector. There are plenty of sharp cookies there that long ago realized how damaging voodoo economics can be.

Regards,

D-Ray

Or, perhaps, how rewarding Keynesian economics can be.

Chas

[noonereal]

Or, perhaps, how rewarding Keynesian economics can be.

Chas

yeah, that's it.

[Charles]

yeah, that's it.

Wouldn't you like to be able to borrow discounted money from the Fed Reserve, and then turn around and loan 10X as much, along with a couple of points, back to the Treasury?

An oversimplification, but close enough for hand grenades.

And if that ain't good enough, once you get large enough, the government privatizes profits and socializes losses.

Ain't it grand???

Chas

[noonereal]

Wouldn't you like to be able to borrow discounted money from the Fed Reserve, and then turn around and loan 10X as much, along with a couple of points, back to the Treasury?

An oversimplification, but close enough for hand grenades.

And if that ain't good enough, once you get large enough, the government privatizes profits and socializes losses.

Ain't it grand???

Chas

damn socialists

[merrylander]

I think everyone missed a key point in taht article, that the current crop of CEOs never experienced the Great Depression, gives them a whole different outlook on emloyee loyalty and employer loyalty.