Why CEOs can't stand Obama

[whell]

There has been comments in the forum regarding the $2.0 Billion that corp America is "sitting on", and why such companies are hording cash versus investing and spurring the economy. Here's some CEO perspectives on why they're choosing to sit on the sidelines right now:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/why-CEOs-cannot-stand-obama.aspx

[Boreas]

There has been comments in the forum regarding the $2.0 Billion that corp America is "sitting on", and why such companies are hording cash versus investing and spurring the economy. Here's some CEO perspectives on why they're choosing to sit on the sidelines right now:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/why-CEOs-cannot-stand-obama.aspx

"In unusually vitriolic attacks on a sitting president, including references to communist Russia and Adolf Hitler, CEOs have complained they can't predict what Obama will do next -- and how his new regulations and taxes might hit their companies."

And we're supposed to take these "CEOs" seriously?

John

[noonereal]

There has been comments in the forum regarding the $2.0 Billion that corp America is "sitting on", and why such companies are hording cash versus investing and spurring the economy. Here's some CEO perspectives on why they're choosing to sit on the sidelines right now:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/why-CEOs-cannot-stand-obama.aspx

lmao

just spoiled little brats

nothing more

it's really off putting

[BlueStreak]

In other words they hate not having a government that sucks up to them. Boo Hoo, so life is hard. Poor babies, somebody get the spoiled little bastards a tissue.

Hey! I see the sequel to Wall Street is out! Maybe this time someone KILLS Gekko in the most shocking manner conceivable? Probably not, but I can dream can't I?

Dave

[merrylander]

"In unusually vitriolic attacks on a sitting president, including references to communist Russia and Adolf Hitler, CEOs have complained they can't predict what Obama will do next -- and how his new regulations and taxes might hit their companies."

And we're supposed to take these "CEOs" seriously?

John

Certainly NOT T.J. Rodgers if he is who I think, wasn't he the hatchet man who used to take ailing companies and bleed them dry at considerable profit to himself?

[whell]

Certainly NOT T.J. Rodgers if he is who I think, wasn't he the hatchet man who used to take ailing companies and bleed them dry at considerable profit to himself?

No. Rodgers is a life-long computer guy.

[merrylander]

Apparently also a libertarian and a laissez faire capitalist and look just where that got us.

[d-ray657]

One of the quotes in that article highlighted the reason why corporations do not deserve the status of persons. One of the CEOs defended the morality of his position by stating that it protected the bottom line. If the only duty these "persons" owe is to the bottom line, they are not responsible citizens. They lack humanity, therefore, they do not deserve to be persons.

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

"CEOs are uncertain, so they don't want to have the liability of adding a lot of employees,"

Taa da!

Like it or not, CEOs owe the shareholders their due - isn't it called 'fiduciary duty'?

So the Dems are demonizing business. Brilliant, that'll spur growth.

Pete

PS:

[d-ray657]

To say corporations are not persons - or that they don't deserve to be - is not to demonize them. However, because they lack human values, they do not deserve to stand on equal footing as humans with respect to constitutional rights. The CEO's certainly want to demonize the President, though. They don't give a flying flip about the working stiffs if they are not going to bring them an immediate profit.

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

Not you specifically but the left overall.

How do we handle quasi-personhood, and as always the question - who decides?

Pete

[merrylander]

Not you specifically but the left overall.

How do we handle quasi-personhood, and as always the question - who decides?

Pete

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

"and to petition the government . . ." This presumably applies to the people so use any dictionary you want and look up "people", it would take a hell of a reach to define Exxon-Mobil as a people. or even several people.

Read a bit further " . . .for a redress of grievances." - to have a grievance something must have been done, i.e., redress is a post facto function, this does not mean that "people" get to seek redress until something has been done by the governmant. Exxon Mobil and Enron got invited into Prince Dickie's office to write the last energy bill.

In conclusion a $100 bill is not a petition despite what K Street and the Supremes would have us believe. It is a sad day when even our Supreme Court Justices do not comprehend the English language.:p

[piece-itpete]

What about collective bargaining then?

Pete

[BlueStreak]

'the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievences."--Collectivism. Which, you might say "Well, if it's good for the unions." to which I will respond, "If it's good for the corps, then why is it bad for the worker?"

But, before you go there, the corporations, even without "personhood", have the where-with-all to hire lobbyists and "buy" politicians, always have. Without collective bargaining, I do not. The idea of corporate personhood is to further cripple the ability of the common man to seek redress while strengthening the influence of business over government under the (foolish) assumption that "What's good for the mine is good for the miner.".

Give the boss whatever he wants, and he'll take good care of his serfs?

Well, maybe in some cases....................

Dave

[merrylander]

What about collective bargaining then?

Pete

It is allowed under the labor laws. This "activist" court wrote a law allowing corporations citizenship. I was under the impression that you right winggers abhor an activist court, correct me if I am wrong.:rolleyes:

[piece-itpete]

The reason I mentioned collectivism is, what's good for the goose is good for the gander....

Pete

[merrylander]

The reason I mentioned collectivism is, what's good for the goose is good for the gander....

Pete

Collective bargaining is allowed or protected by labor laws passed by Congress. Congress passed no law permitting or protecting collective action by corporations, In fact Congress has done the opposite in passing laws against restraint of trade, etc.:p

As an example of why workers need bargaining power, I once asked our company lawyer if I could sue an auto manufacturer regarding a defect. His answer was "Sure you can, you can also waltz with a grizzly bear but I don't recommend either."

[BlueStreak]

The reason I mentioned collectivism is, what's good for the goose is good for the gander....

Pete

Except the folks at the bottom, (us), are being stripped of our collective power. While those at the top are being granted ever-more power. It's not where we are that bothers me so much as it is where we are headed.

The "backroom deals" that we decry are being moved to legitimacy. It used to be you had to guess who owns which politician.

Soon you will see corporate endorsements of politicians on t.v. commercials;

"President_____ brought to you by Exxon Mobil, because high gas prices are good for America!"

"Clean Air and Water? Screw that. Your job is more important. Vote for _____ this November. (This message brought to you by the God Fearing Americans at U.S. Steel.)"

"You are all grossly overpaid and always will be no matter how low the wages. Put ____in the Whitehouse and we will fix that. (This Message paid for by the National Right to Work Association.)"

I know, these examples are a bit extreme. Just my sense of humor kicking in.

But, seriously...

Dave

Dave

[merrylander]

Not really extreme.:mad:

[Grumpy]

The reason I mentioned collectivism is, what's good for the goose is good for the gander....

Pete


Had to reread your post, though you said colecovision. :D

[whell]

Jack Welch weighs in: http://www.cnbc.com/id/39321858

[merrylander]

Of course, the fat cats don't want to see their excesses reined in. Hey, they don't need to go to Las Vegas, we have the biggest gambling casino on the East Coast right here at Wall Street.

The Supreme court needs to be ridiculed, some of their recent decisions defy any sane explanation. Ever since old Smiling Jack took the helm the place has become a disaster.

Our CEOs are overpaid, under worked and run like a herd of cattle. One bellweather sheep mouths off and the rest follow blindly. It is no damn wonder the Chinese are eating our lunch. To paraphrase Sir Winston "Never before in the course of human history have so many owed so little to so few" bunch of damn parasites.

I have said it before and will say it again, there is no man or woman on God's green earth worth more that $800,000 a year, and there are damn few of them.

[d-ray657]

It's surprising that a management official is not going to like the way the administration stands up to business interests? Obviously the prefer the boot-lickers that were in office before Obama came in.

Regards,

D-ray

[noonereal]

One thing that is changing. The left is starting to speak the truth. Just last night I heard it said how ridiculous it is that so many people are voteing against their own best interests. I have been saying this forever. (as you all know!!:D)

The reason seems to be that everyone thinks they will be one of the wealthy one day.

Sorry all, if you are not born into it, it's like playing lotto.

[piece-itpete]

Yeah, the left is really hammering those big companies like pharmaceuticals with their backroom deals.

I guess it depends how much the Dems take in donations :p

Pete

[noonereal]

Yeah, the left is really hammering those big companies like pharmaceuticals with their backroom deals.

I guess it depends how much the Dems take in donations :p

Pete

big pharma got such a sweet deal from Bush that the oil industry was jelious

I seriously want the executives at pharmaceuticals thrown in jail and or executed for their crimes against humanity.

[Boreas]

It's surprising that a management official is not going to like the way the administration stands up to business interests? Obviously the prefer the boot-lickers that were in office before Obama came in.

Regards,

D-ray

Not exactly boot lickers. Bush was a Harvard MBA and a failed CEO himself. Cheney was Haliburton, Rumsfeld was Searle, Condi was Chevron............

What we had with the Bush Administration was a wholly owned subsidiary of multi-national megacorporations.

John

[piece-itpete]

Yeah, Obama really cracked down on that oil grubbing scum in the land management bureau.

Pete

[BlueStreak]

Jack Welch weighs in: http://www.cnbc.com/id/39321858

Who cares? Screw Jack Welch.

I had a friend who idolized this guy. He used to work for GE, here at the former tv plant in Suffolk.
He was telling me one day how Jack Welch made his 401k swell, ".....he got rid of this, he got rid of that,...."
I interrupted him and said, "HE GOT RID OF YOU. So, how long were you unemployed after that, Karl? Seven, eight months was it?" This was followed by silence and a blank stare.:p

What a nipplehead......

Dave

[merrylander]

Yeah, Obama really cracked down on that oil grubbing scum in the land management bureau.

Pete

Guess who put them there? You keep harping on how long it is taking him to clean up the farking mess your boys made, took them eight years to get everything FUBAR, but Obama must clean it all up in eighteen months.:rolleyes:

[d-ray657]

Not exactly boot lickers. Bush was a Harvard MBA and a failed CEO himself. Cheney was Haliburton, Rumsfeld was Searle, Condi was Chevron............

What we had with the Bush Administration was a wholly owned subsidiary of multi-national megacorporations.

John

Ah well, Obama would have never been allowed in to that country club anyway.

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

Screw GE and the horse they rode in on, they are closing their last lamp plant up the road in Westminster, having all their bulbs made in China, so buy Sylvania.

[piece-itpete]

Ah well, Obama would have never been allowed in to that country club anyway.

Regards,

D-Ray

Them there folks don't holt with commies theah.

Pee

[Boreas]

I interrupted him and said, "HE GOT RID OF YOU. So, how long were you unemployed after that, Karl? Seven, eight months was it?" This was followed by silence and a blank stare.:p

What a nipplehead......

Dave

Those Tidewater crackers must hate your Carpetbagger ass! ;)

John

[merrylander]

These CEOs that have their panties in a bunch are so bloody stupid one wonders how in hell they got to where they are. They don't want regulation even though the lack of regulation is what got us in this mess.

Our mortgage system sucks, pure and simple, whoever came up with the idea of securitization and/or derivatives was insane or crooked or both. CMHC regulates mortgages in Canada, they do not allow securitization or derivatives. Hence the government did not have to bail out any banks. Probably why Toronto Dominion (TD) and Royal Bank of Canadsa (RBC) are buying out banks here. Be happy if you bank with either one as they are honest to a fault.

[BlueStreak]

Those Tidewater crackers must hate your Carpetbagger ass! ;)

John

Yes, but they tolerate me, because I'm very good at what I do.
That, and I'm waaaayyyy meaner than they could ever be.:p

Dave

[merrylander]

The memory came back to me last night, when I saw TJ's picture in the link he reminded me of Al "Chainsaw" Dunlap.

[BlueStreak]

It is fitting that the CEO’s - those "captains of industry" that ran their companies aground - should reward themselves with big bonuses at the expense of the American taxpayer. The robber barons of the past have nothing on their immodest greed, which would make even the most rapacious pirate blush for shame. Surely, this is capitalism at its very best.

Well, when you're led to believe that unbridled greed is good, that people are poor because they deserve to be, and that excessive wealth is a sign that one has been "blessed" (Ostensibly by God himself.).----What do you expect?

And I have a feeling it's about to get even worse.

Dave

[merrylander]

I sometimes wonder at the people who give all the credit to the captains of industry and finance. Where would Carnegie (BTW that's 3 syllables) or Mellon or all of them have been without workers? Just because there are more workers than jobs they take people for granted, and I sometimes think it is the FED's job to see that full employment is never achieved.

So where in the most Christian of nations do you ever hear "The servant is worthy of his hire"? Certainly not around here or any other place I have worked. Those pious bastards will attend church on Sunday and the other six days are never spent "Loving thy neighbour as thyself". Unless they are interpreting "loving" as meaning to fornicate.

What seems to have escaped these Masters of the Universe is that they are slowly but inevitably destroying this nation. America is on the skids and Wall Street is supplying the grease. All for their thirty pieces of silver.

[piece-itpete]

A new study came out recently, it said that the threshold for monetary security/'happiness' was $75k. They said it was remarkably true across the country.

So, set the minimum at 75K and tax the living crap out of anything over 80.

Pete

[d-ray657]

A new study came out recently, it said that the threshold for monetary security/'happiness' was $75k. They said it was remarkably true across the country.

So, set the minimum at 75K and tax the living crap out of anything over 80.

Pete

Best idea I've heard from you yet, Pete.:D

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

Even a troglodyte like me comes up with a good one occasionally :)

Pete

[BlueStreak]

The way to increase the richness of our way of life as Americans is to raise the standard of living for all - not a divided class society between the “haves and have-nots.” It is the ordinary working people that get up every day and do the jobs upon which everyone depends and that everyone takes for granted. They are neglected and ignored for all their worth and the importance of their work. Never before in our country has there been a greater disparity between the income levels of wage-earners and the salaried executives of “Corporate America.” Still we live in a world that would deny ordinary working people even the most basic of human rights and benefits of life. (After a decade of voting itself an annual cost-of-living increase, the Congress finally voted to raise the minimum wage by a niggardly $2.10 an hour!) Have we learned nothing from history? In every age there has been unrest, revolution or war for the suppression of the masses to satisfy the greed and ambitions of the ruling classes. Apparently, nothing has changed; and so long as such inequities exist, it never will. Need must it be so: Blessed are the rich, for they shall receive tax cuts.


No, no. The new truth is that "suppression of the masses" and "satisfying the greed and ambitions of the ruling classes" is what made America great. And that war, BTW, is good. It "thins the herd" and contractors make boatloads of money off of it.

And, before anyone get's started; I know both parties are guilty. But, at least one side attempts to make it sound shamefull, the other side openly embraces this hideous ideology.-----And claims to be Christian, no less.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

I sometimes wonder at the people who give all the credit to the captains of industry and finance. Where would Carnegie (BTW that's 3 syllables) or Mellon or all of them have been without workers? Just because there are more workers than jobs they take people for granted, and I sometimes think it is the FED's job to see that full employment is never achieved.

So where in the most Christian of nations do you ever hear "The servant is worthy of his hire"? Certainly not around here or any other place I have worked. Those pious bastards will attend church on Sunday and the other six days are never spent "Loving thy neighbour as thyself". Unless they are interpreting "loving" as meaning to fornicate.

What seems to have escaped these Masters of the Universe is that they are slowly but inevitably destroying this nation. America is on the skids and Wall Street is supplying the grease. All for their thirty pieces of silver.

Once heard someone say; "Teddy Roosevelt built the Panama Canal!" An oldtimer responded; "Really? Holy smokes! That a lot of work for one man!":p

Dave

[Brother_Karl]

No, no. The new truth is that "suppression of the masses" and "satisfying the greed and ambitions of the ruling classes" is what made America great.

If, by great, you mean rich then that is true. But it is true in the same sense as that expansionist empire building made Europe rich. The question is, does that make it right?

[BlueStreak]

If, by great, you mean rich then that is true. But it is true in the same sense as that expansionist empire building made Europe rich. The question is, does that make it right?

In my opinion, No. In the opinion of all too many of our contemporaries, Yes.

Dave

[piece-itpete]

We can always go to central planning.

Hey, it worked for Russia.

Pete

[BlueStreak]

He is a captain of industry, a champion of free enterprise, a victor of the corporate proxy battle - he is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the company. He has energy and ambition. He is also arrogant, egocentric and unprincipled. He is much admired.

The first order of business is to double his salary, to which is added the most generous pension and retirement benefits, not to mention stock options. Next, he fires half of the employees of the company, and cuts the pay for the rest, who must now work twice as hard for less money under his new management authority.

He effects further “improvements” by implementing cost-cutting measures designed to improve - not the product line, but - the bottom line. He is tireless in his efforts. To enhance company productivity, he systematically strips away employee benefits (except his own) in his relentless pursuit of profitability; for which the Board of Directors votes him a bonus.

He drives on. He fights all efforts of organized labor, leveraging his bargaining position with borrowing against the company pension plan (after cashing in his own), and blackmailing concessions from the union with threats of bankruptcy. Meanwhile, he dazzles the shareholders with mergers and acquisitions. He promotes himself as a man of vision - full of prospects for the future - but his plans never extend beyond the company’s next quarterly profit statement.

And finally, when things - as they inevitably do - begin to go awry, he trades in his stock options and bails out with his golden parachute.

A cogent analysis, Sir. Today we celebrate people like this as heroes (Jack Welch comes to mind.). And that is truly sad because they BUILD nothing. They only tear down and destroy, often leaving entire communities decimated in their path. But, hey! He made lots of money doing it....He truly has been "blessed", so it must be good. Right?

Dave

[BlueStreak]

We can always go to central planning.

Hey, it worked for Russia.

Pete

We can have capitalism without celebrating miscreants who only take away, abandon, and destroy in the name of personal gain, Pete.

Dave

[piece-itpete]

Who decides?

Pete

[merrylander]

He is a captain of industry, a champion of free enterprise, a victor of the corporate proxy battle - he is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the company. He has energy and ambition. He is also arrogant, egocentric and unprincipled. He is much admired.

The first order of business is to double his salary, to which is added the most generous pension and retirement benefits, not to mention stock options. Next, he fires half of the employees of the company, and cuts the pay for the rest, who must now work twice as hard for less money under his new management authority.

He effects further “improvements” by implementing cost-cutting measures designed to improve - not the product line, but - the bottom line. He is tireless in his efforts. To enhance company productivity, he systematically strips away employee benefits (except his own) in his relentless pursuit of profitability; for which the Board of Directors votes him a bonus.

He drives on. He fights all efforts of organized labor, leveraging his bargaining position with borrowing against the company pension plan (after cashing in his own), and blackmailing concessions from the union with threats of bankruptcy. Meanwhile, he dazzles the shareholders with mergers and acquisitions. He promotes himself as a man of vision - full of prospects for the future - but his plans never extend beyond the company’s next quarterly profit statement.

And finally, when things - as they inevitably do - begin to go awry, he trades in his stock options and bails out with his golden parachute.

Sounds like Al Dunlap's bio.:rolleyes:

[BlueStreak]

Who decides?

Pete

"The market"?

That's a joke. Hows that workin' out? Where have all of the "good jobs" gone? If no other lesson has been learned it should be that people will buy themselves into the unemployment line for the sake of a cheaper widget. They'll admire a "corporate hatchet man", such as Lorenzo or Icahn, even after it's THEIR head that has been cleaved.

Someone has to make the rules. And I don't trust corporations to govern themselves, not entirely anyhow. This is why the Congress was given the power to "regulate commerce". (Or is this the part of the Constitution that we choose to ignore, out of fear of retribution from Mahogany Row?) To my mind the problem isn't government involvement, per se, but assembling a government that does it's job responsibly. That's the problem we have today.

Dave

[piece-itpete]

As we all know, substituting government control for market control - abeit under rules applied evenhandedly - has been a colossal success where attempted.

Pete

[Brother_Karl]

As we all know, substituting government control for market control - abeit under rules applied evenhandedly - has been a colossal success where attempted.

Pete

You deny that the USA has always had government control over the market?

[BlueStreak]

You deny that the USA has always had government control over the market?

Excellent question, Karl.

Dave

[piece-itpete]

Absolutely not! At least, to a degree. But the big issue now is massive, stifling overshoot and cronyish patronage looking payoffs.

Pete

[Brother_Karl]

Absolutely not! At least, to a degree. But the big issue now is massive, stifling overshoot and cronyish patronage looking payoffs.

Thats a view. But just because you dont want government to shore up business does not automatically mean that you dont think the government should have tighter regulation on business to prevent this kind of economic crisis from happening again. The two issues are entirely seperate.

I do so hate it when people imply that you either accept extremely light regulation or turn in to Stalinist Russia- as if there is no middle ground in between.

[d-ray657]

Thats a view. But just because you dont want government to shore up business does not automatically mean that you dont think the government should have tighter regulation on business to prevent this kind of economic crisis from happening again. The two issues are entirely seperate.

I do so hate it when people imply that you either accept extremely light regulation or turn in to Stalinist Russia- as if there is no middle ground in between.

Now we want honest people on this forum. You must have lied about your age, Karl. These posts do not come from a nineteen year old.:D

On the other hand, at nineteen you are free from all of the cynicism that colors the view of some of the "more seasoned" observers here. We really do welcome your perspective - even when you disagree with us.

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

You deny that the USA has always had government control over the market?

What "market" are we referring to here? The stock market? The credit market? The "free market" (which I agree doesn't truly exist)? The overall financial markets?

[piece-itpete]

Agreed Karl, but no western democracy has anything resembling 'light regulation'.

Pete

[merrylander]

Agreed Karl, but no western democracy has anything resembling 'light regulation'.

Pete

Pure BS Pete, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in Canada regulates the mortgage market. Getting a mortgage there simply required me to go to my bank, point out the house I wanted to buy and wait about a week. They did the research, checked for liens, they already knew my credit rating as I had been with them for years. They approved the mortgage, we signed a single document, paid $600 and we had a new home. No mortgage brokers, no title companies, you stay with the same lender for the life of the mortgage unless you think you can do better, but that would be unlikely. The mortgages there are 5/25 length is 25 years, interest renegotiated every 5 years so they don't have to guess what will happen 30 years down the road. So much simpler than here.

The real problem here is that Americans absolutely refuse to learn from anyone else, they have this blind spot that tells them they are just the best in the whole world and that no one can teach them a damn thing.

Maybe Dorothy Parker was right "You can always tell a Harvard man, you just can't tell him very much."

PS: Derivatives and securitization would likely get you a jail sentence there, no banks needed a bailout. The only good thing to come from this whole mess is the the $CDN has risen to parity, giving me a raise in my pension.:D

[piece-itpete]

That is one very narrow sphere Rob. Overall.....

It's like thieves and locks. Better lock, better thief. It's the way it is.

Also, when a law is so vague and hideously complicated beyond reason a bureaucrat can do whatever he wants, he's a tinpot dictator, and more the businesses effected can't plan because they don't know what to expect.

So instead of writing even more laws (past those narrow laws to close an obvious gap) why dont' we have real, section by section reform of the ones we do have.

Pete

[Brother_Karl]

On the other hand, at nineteen you are free from all of the cynicism that colors the view of some of the "more seasoned" observers here.

I am cynical too. I abstained from voting and spoilt my ballot paper in the 2010 UK General Election. Sorry to dissapoint ;)

What "market" are we referring to here? The stock market? The credit market? The "free market" (which I agree doesn't truly exist)? The overall financial markets?

As you can see, I was responding to Piece-itpete who used that term. I assumed he meant big private business trading in general. It doesnt really matter though, as we are all agreed that the US government has always had a part to play in whatever 'markets' exist in the USA.

Agreed Karl, but no western democracy has anything resembling 'light regulation'.

It depends what perspective you look at it from. In relative terms, the USA is pretty light in its regulation.

[merrylander]

That is one very narrow sphere Rob. Overall.....

It's like thieves and locks. Better lock, better thief. It's the way it is.

Also, when a law is so vague and hideously complicated beyond reason a bureaucrat can do whatever he wants, he's a tinpot dictator, and more the businesses effected can't plan because they don't know what to expect.

So instead of writing even more laws (past those narrow laws to close an obvious gap) why dont' we have real, section by section reform of the ones we do have.

Pete

It is representative of most financial regulation here, when they killed Glass Stegal and then Dubya appointed Chris Cox to run the SEC I think there must have been a misspelling and he thought he was told to ruin the SEC.

Better locks? then why does the system there work so well, seems like the thieves decided it was not worth the effort.

Laws get complex here I imagine because the businesses hire really clever folk who always seem to find loopholes, somebody's sig on the other site says "You can't make things foolproof because fools are so ingenious."

Look greed still abounds, if you let people do as they wish it will be screw everybody and the devil take the hindmost. I am sorry to say it but my fellow man is not a very nice person in general.

Ponzi schemes litter the landscape, it seems to be the Ponzi of the month these days. No regulation at all would have people stealing each other blind. I am afraid that I do not have that sort of faith in my fellow man. Imagine the bloodshed on our highways if we removed all regulaions and disbanded the highway police, markets are no different, in fact they are worse. When you are robbing someone that is just a faceless stockholder it is so easy.

[d-ray657]

It is representative of most financial regulation here, when they killed Glass Stegal and then Dubya appointed Chris Cox to run the SEC I think there must have been a misspelling and he thought he was told to ruin the SEC.

Better locks? then why does the system there work so well, seems like the thieves decided it was not worth the effort.

Laws get complex here I imagine because the businesses hire really clever folk who always seem to find loopholes, somebody's sig on the other site says "You can't make things foolproof because fools are so ingenious."

Look greed still abounds, if you let people do as they wish it will be screw everybody and the devil take the hindmost. I am sorry to say it but my fellow man is not a very nice person in general.

Ponzi schemes litter the landscape, it seems to be the Ponzi of the month these days. No regulation at all would have people stealing each other blind. I am afraid that I do not have that sort of faith in my fellow man. Imagine the bloodshed on our highways if we removed all regulaions and disbanded the highway police, markets are no different, in fact they are worse. When you are robbing someone that is just a faceless stockholder it is so easy.

I believe it was Hobbes who said that life without the social contract is "nasty, cruel, brutish and short." When you have people who disregard the social contract - which is essentially the golden rule - you have a dysfunctional society.

Regards,

D-Ray

[d-ray657]

Brother Karl, I believe that you were being an idealist rather than a cynic. I voted for third party candidates in my first two presidential elections. I am often disappointed with the choices we have in elections - for example I would like to see a bona fide labor party.

At times I really do envy your parliamentary form of government. Our elections often bring out the worst in parties and candidates, and they drag on for far too long. I would prefer to only have a two or three month run-up to the elections, and then get on with the process of governing. It appears that the parliamentary election process also gives third parties a much greater chance to have a say in the governance.

Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

It depends what perspective you look at it from. In relative terms, the USA is pretty light in its regulation.

Not according to our far right-wing pundits, to which we affectionately refer as "Wingnuts".
In their view the United States has become a "Totalitarian Socialist State", and only the likes of Palin and Glenn Beck can save us.:rolleyes:

I know, it's a completely nonsensical notion, but you'd be amazed how many people actually believe this idiocy.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

I believe it was Hobbes who said that life without the social contract is "nasty, cruel, brutish and short." When you have people who disregard the social contract - which is essentially the golden rule - you have a dysfunctional society.

Regards,

D-Ray

"Survival of the fittest.", "Law of the jungle.", "What doesn't kill me makes me stronger."; What side of the aisle do we generally hear this sort of Nietzscheian rubbish eminate from, Don?:rolleyes:

Dave

[d-ray657]

"Survival of the fittest.", "Law of the jungle.", "What doesn't kill me makes me stronger."; What side of the aisle do we generally hear this sort of Nietzscheian rubbish eminate from, Don?:rolleyes:

Dave

Good point, Dave, but that's not surprising (You making a good point). I guess the social contract is for pansies. :eek: Beautiful irony, isn't it, that the party that rejects evolution argues for survival of the fittest. :rolleyes:

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

"...the party that rejects evolution..."? You folks have some interesting ideas about "the party" and who it is comprised of.

[noonereal]

"...the party that rejects evolution..."? You folks have some interesting ideas about "the party" and who it is comprised of.

the party of sarah and teen pregnancy glorified! :p

[Brother_Karl]

It appears that the parliamentary election process also gives third parties a much greater chance to have a say in the governance.

No, thats not true. If you want to include more than 2 parties its better to change electoral systems. I suggest changing to Proportional Representation.

[BlueStreak]

"...the party that rejects evolution..."? You folks have some interesting ideas about "the party" and who it is comprised of.

Okay, so the GOP is diverse, not all on the right have exactly the same ideas, "you're making generalizations", yada, yada, yada........

Tell me, when you hear someone rejecting evolution, where is it usually coming from? The Daily Koz? Huffington Post? Bill Maher? I think not.

Dave

[whell]

Okay, so the GOP is diverse, not all on the right have exactly the same ideas, "you're making generalizations", yada, yada, yada........

Tell me, when you hear someone rejecting evolution, where is it usually coming from? The Daily Koz? Huffington Post? Bill Maher? I think not.

Dave

No doubt a view held by more Repubs than Dems, but not exclusive to either party.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/republicans-democrats-differ-creationism.aspx

[BlueStreak]

True. And this was the point--predominance, not generality.

Dave

[noonereal]

No doubt a view held by more Repubs than Dems, but not exclusive to either party.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/republicans-democrats-differ-creationism.aspx

To be honest whell we did not need a poll to establish this. Thanks for the effort however.
To me it seems tedious.

[merrylander]

We did quite well in Canada with third parties, mainly Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats (socialists). When I lived in Ottawa I would bump into a few of the New Dems occasionally, decent chaps. But that pretty much applied to the lot of them. Then the Reform party (GOP wannabees) merged with the Prgressive Conservative party and dropped the Progressive part and as far as I can tell rom a distance they are doing their level best to screw things up.

[piece-itpete]

Funny, if business is the topic the golden rule is dead. When we're discussing the government, which has force behind it, they can do no wrong.

Unfortunately for fringe parties it's highly unlikely proportional representation will ever get a foothold here, because it would water down the power of the states that adopted it. Of course, winner take all has served us extremely well.

Pete

[merrylander]

Funny, if business is the topic the golden rule is dead. When we're discussing the government, which has force behind it, they can do no wrong.

Unfortunately for fringe parties it's highly unlikely proportional representation will ever get a foothold here, because it would water down the power of the states that adopted it. Of course, winner take all has served us extremely well.

Pete

Depends on which version, like "Them as has the gold gets to make the rules" seems to be working.

Au contraire mon ami, le gouvernement fait toute les chose FUBAR durant 2000 et 2008.:rolleyes:

[BlueStreak]

Funny, if business is the topic the golden rule is dead. When we're discussing the government, which has force behind it, they can do no wrong.

Unfortunately for fringe parties it's highly unlikely proportional representation will ever get a foothold here, because it would water down the power of the states that adopted it. Of course, winner take all has served us extremely well.

Pete

Business has no force behind it? "Business" is just a gentle lamb at the mercy of our evil democratically elected officials? I don't buy it, Pete. Not for a New York second.

Dave

[piece-itpete]

Rob, that there's fancy talk! Must be a dadgum furrinir.

:D

Pete

[piece-itpete]

Blue, no, business can have force behind it - if the gov't lets it.

The gov't has no such restriction.

Pete

[merrylander]

Blue, no, business can have force behind it - if the gov't lets it.

The gov't has no such restriction.

Pete

So business pays K Street, K Street in turn pieces off some congress critters and business does what it damn pleases.

Check the SCOTUS records I am sure there is more that one isntance where 'government' did not get do do what it wanted.;)

[d-ray657]

Blue, no, business can have force behind it - if the gov't lets it.

The gov't has no such restriction.

Pete

The people who run the government have to stand for re-election. There is no democracy in corporate America. Even to the extent that shareholders get to vote, it is one dollar one vote. In most instances (unless the people had the foresight to elect a union), one appeals a discharge decision to the person who fired them, or the one who signed off on the decision in the first place. A person who has invested years in the success of a company, and has built up things of value, like seniority, vacation and retirement can have all of that taken away for no good reason. There is no due process of law in the corporate fiefdom.

Regards,

D-Ray