Hey, don't be knocking Chevy because they don't make what you want, or what you have decided everyone else should drive whether they like it or not.:p

Great innovators are not driven by greed. Yes, they want to be justly compensated later. But when working with those driven to innovative, greed is obviously a least significant factor. Accomplishment is the driving force.

Use Einstein as an example. Or Bill Gates. Or Bill and Dave (Hewlett and Packard). In every case, challenge and accomplishment was the overriding objective.

In studies, what was the number one reason for working? Satisfaction. Income was number three. World's greatest innovators are driven first and foremost by the challenge and resulting accomplishment.

Why are the most successful major companies lead by some of the lower paid executives? How to find a company most likely to be in trouble? Its executives are the highest paid. They are greedy rather than accomplished. Therefore they neither do nor promote innovation. Those most driven by greed tend to be the greatest enemies of innovation.

A Chevy costs more to build than a comparable Mercedes. Chevy's higher manufacturing costs are directly traceable to crappy MBA designs. But then we who first demand numbers knew this even more than 10 years ago. One has to be completely ignorant to want a Chevy - for a long list of reasons including reliabilty, costs, and a desire to be unpatriotic.

Chevy even advertised itself: The heartattack of America. Then some spin doctor liar changed it to heartbeat.

Oh horseshit.:headshake

No. Horsepower. Liters of it.

Yes. And a nation of self-absorbed, insecure, seriously fucked-up people who can't think for themselves is responsible for creating the advertising culture.

or maybe not. Because maybe America isn't a nation of self-absorbed, insecure, seriously fucked-up people who can't think for themselves. My God you have a bleak view of your society. Or perhaps you are apart from them? Do you not include yourself in that? Is it just everybody else who is fucked up and unable to think?

Sorry. That came across more aggressively than was my intent. But really, society is more than just a purchasing public.



@ Redux: I didn't argue against restraints ion advertising. I am all for advertising standards and governmental control in order to prevent people being conned outright. I just disagree with the idea that advertising is either the devil, or responsible for society's ills. It is indicative of many societal problems and concerns. It may well contribute to some very unsavoury aspects of our cultrure (such as gender constructions which sexualise girls at younger and younger ages). But that isn't advertising per se, it is how we use that tool, the desires which it draws on and propogates that contain the darkness.

Dana, there is a LOT that I don't like right now about my country. These are things that I have noticed getting worse for many years. I really do believe that advertising is partly responsible for some of the fucked up things I talk about. Is advertising the devil? Of course not, and I don't have a problem with companies advertising their products. But I am not blind to the problems that are caused by it either. And yes, I do think a majority of the people are as I described. Really though, it isn't their fault. They are asleep.

The thing is, we were warned about it back in the 60s, but we have allowed capitalism to morph into this nasty thing that we have today.

Advertising is, by its very nature, engaged in a kind of arms race with consumers. At first adverts were simple and bold (and freely able to lie, but that's besides the point) but we (the consumers) became more sophisticated. Adverts had to be creative and find new ways to reach us because we were too sophisticated for the old style of ads. We watched the sophisticated flashy new ads and we got more sophisticated. They ramped up their game and we learned about their new tricks. We became more active in our consumption: making demands, being difficult customers. We openly engaged in the advertising dialogue. We chose to interact with it at a much deeper level. It has grown ever more sophisticated, but so have we.


There is something a little elitist about your assumptions regarding the majority of your compatriots.

Elitist? Moi? Wow. Well, I am a liberal, so I suppose it isn't surprising that someone would call me that.

I observe, and then I make deductions based on those observations. I mean really, look at what sells- which magazines, which TV shows. Turn on the TV and watch some reality programming. Those are real people, even though the shows are scripted. Geez. Jerry Springer. The Bachelor. Britney Spears. Paris Hilton. Ann Coulter et al. Even the news media is not a serious entity anymore. I am surrounded by this culture, and the older I get, the more I hate it and the less hope I have for future generations. I know I am cynical, like, extremely cynical. But that cynicism is there for a reason. My observations have been proven right over and over and over.

In all fairness I will say this, the American people, while self-absorbed and insecure, really are a great people. We pull together when times are hard. I know a lot of people who would give me the shirt off their back, even if it was their last one. So while I believe the things I said are true, I also believe we are very giving and sincere as a people. I want to believe the best about people, I want to see the best IN people, and I try to do that, but I also see all the greed, and corruption, and I get angry, and when I get angry, I become very judgemental. Really, on an individual basis, I am not nearly so judgemental as I am about society as a whole. And ftr, I am guilty of those things as well. And I hate it when I catch myself being that way. I will say, when I don't watch TV or look at magazines, I become a lot less judgemental. When I'm not bombarded by advertising, I feel a lot less stressed.

Dante Hicks: You hate people!
Randal Graves: But, I love gatherings, isn't it ironic?

:eyebrow:

Not at all aggressive. Quite honest because you express it in a tone that makes your statement more honest.

Society did not change. Percentage of people who blindly believe only what they are told has been (should be) constant. What changed? We never had extremists inspiring the naive to believe half truths and sound bytes using the same techniques that Hitler used. We never had so many Rush Limbaughs promoting outright lies and myths. American radio now sounds similar to the Radio Moscow broadcasts I once listened to in the 1960s.

What has changed? America always had profitable companies such as Geritol, Luden's cough drops, and cigarettes promoted for health. What we now have are extremists (people who work for a political agenda) telling the naive that sound bytes alone make one a political and economic expert. That is what has changed. Look at how many still are so ignorant as to believe tax cuts create long term economic growth.

Once upon a time, Democrats and Republicans argued by day and drank together by night. Today, America has too many extremists and a shortage of centrists (the intelligent people). Difficult is for centrists (ie Specter of PA, Snow of Maine, etc) to have the influence that once dominated American politics. Made so difficult because so many so hate American as to listen to and believe the Rush Limbaugh types.

Once upon a time, those who did not learn before having an opinion need not aggressively express opinions. Today, soundbytes make the lesser educated Americans into experts. After all, Rush Limbaught told them; so it must be true. That is what has changed.

Cough/singlebullet theory/cough

Interesting concept

Funny how you are now a centrist, since when? I notice that you constantly call out one right wing wacko and NEVER mention those on the far left who do exactly the same thing. Why is that?

AIG's annuity and life insurance just got bumped out of the single largest distribution network they've had for more than a decade. Two years ago that distributor produced $.70 of every dollar in annuity sales AIG produced. Tell me that won't leave a mark.

Because the left wing wackos don't post in the Cellar.;)

Everything I've seen says AIG's insurance arm is still sound and profitable. Only their excursion into securities was/is fucked up. But the headlines have people afraid of the name. Maybe that's why AIG insurance is now 21st Century.

Bullshit.

Mostly true. AIG's insurane and annuity divisions were never in trouble. They were profitable and doing quite well in fact. The problem is that with all of the the bad press with the name it is harder to get people to put money into their products even when they are sound. That creates the snowball effect of depleting their reserves which causes the rating agencies and analysts to downgrade their credit rating, which in turn causes producers to shy away from their products. Their single largest distributor just pushed them out of the system meaning not one of their 10,000+ advisors can use the products anymore.

While AIG's insurance arm was still sound and profitable... they won't be soon.

Does that mean I am no longer considered a left wing wacko? *grins*

NO! You are the resident commie. Unfortunately you post too rationally.
;)

You hide your wacko-ness pretty well, so it fools some folks. being a manc tart also confuses the issue.

Have you ever noticed how a lot of commercials make men look really dumb? :D Angry whooper. LOL

yeah...specially take away food.

See there is truth in advertising

I'm dumb as fuck. I've made a career out of it.

The middle-class white male is the only permitted target of mockery and ridicule left. You see it in ads all the time.

As a middle-class white male I am cool with this because I do get all the perks from being the mainstream.

Yep. Let 'em laugh. I have STUFF.

Plus, I don't get beat up when I get pulled over.

Recently a teenager was pulled over and the cops made him lie face down on the road in cuffs.

He got run over.

He was white middle class male.

Teenagers don't count they're expendable, because we can make more just like them.

Yup and I am personally gonna file a discrimination suit against, well against somebody. I want equal abuse onto everyone or else.

He shouldn't have hated America.

Treasury objects to AIG bonus payments

I have nothing to say - I'm too pissed off.

Feeling a little used, are we?

The NY Times is now asking an obvious question on 14 Mar 2009: Wondering? How can people trained to stifle innovation and trained to concepts advocated by the mafia only cause wonder? Once Leigh University was nicknamed the Engineers. Lehigh is diminishing their expensive engineering school and expanding their MBA education. MBAs also cost less to educate - cost controls. So Lehigh changed their name from "Engineers" to "Mountain Hawks". Actually knowing how things work is no longer glorious, honored, or financially rewarding. The purpose of a company is profit ... just like the mafia. How many called 'justified with facts' criticisms of MBAs a rant? They were only doing as trained.

I am wondering why the treasury is faking being surprised.

So they can blame Bush - Duh!

:)

You say that like it's a good thing...

Just because you see things as a left-right dichotomy doesn't mean they do.

Maybe they're just owned, too. There's no guarantee than ANY group of politicians even remotely gives a fuck about his/her constituents...in fact, every piece of evidence suggests otherwise. Both parties are equally guilty, and we've made certain there will never be a viable third option.

No, it seems far more likely that the republic has failed, not because these bastards can get away with literally anything, but because we let them.

Congratulations, America, we've finally shat on Washington's grave.

No TGRR, you miss my point - getting elected lately had become more of "the other guy/woman/party is worse." They know that attention American's attention spans are short and the D's will beat that drum right through 2010 and beyond. Just like the R's will continue to beat the spend/spend spend rhetoric. They spend their time trying to stay in power more so than doing right by the people that put them there in the first place - both sides.

These days, "elections" are simply when they put up two Punch and Judy dolls for the rubes to throw rotten fruit at. Then we pick one of them to be president, and pretend that we somehow made a big difference.

The whole system, the republic itself, has failed. But we can still stick magnets on our SUVs and pretend that America is still the greatest nation on Earth, right? HAW HAW!

Bitterly yours,
TGRR

ARRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

NO, THEY AREN'T LEGALLY BINDING! OK, I'm not a lawyer, but if we hadn't bailed them out, they wouldn't fucking be there! there would be NO MONEY, PERIOD. Just go through and fucking FIRE EVERYONE that isn't willing to live by the rules everyone else is being forced to live by! We OWN 80% of that company! and these assholes are the ones who caused the meltdown of the company in the first place! :mad2:

ARRRGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!
someone please come over and stop me from tearing all my hair out!
:mad2:

Yes, our attention spans are short because of all the brilliant technology we've created that's supposed to be so great (I'm referring to the societal advances smackdown thread in Homebase) but really, on a grand scale, aren't. We can't see the forest for the trees.

magnets that are made in China... woot.

Yes it is. That money was frozen in trust in 2007, to be paid to the people that stayed with AIG. It's legally binding contract of delayed payment.

Contracts are made to be broken, and since THAT particular dept caused the downfall of that particular company, and since the company would have gone bankrupt IF WE hadn't rescued them, and there would have been NO BONUSES in a bankruptcy, then I would think a court of law would find that particular aspect of said contract null and void. Really.

Actually one subsidiary of the large organization that is AIG was in trouble. most other divisions have really only been hurt because of the uninformed masses believing the evening news causing stock prices to plummet and hurting sales across the board in all AIG product lines.

But, back to the point. You think that because the taxpayer owns about 80% of AIG the prudent course of action would be to cancel out on the contractual agreements in place? Let's follow that reasoning. If I'm an employee and I have fulfilled my end of the bargain and the company doesn't pay me as agreed, why exactly would I stay on board? If I leave because the company defaulted on a contract they agreed to, what quality of individual do you think would step up to fill that position? What happens when good employees jump ship in large numbers?

So as an investor I'd like you to answer those questions. Actually it would be easier if you just answered one question. If you are a major investor in a company do you think it is better A) follow policies likely to bring about a successful future for the company, or B) hinder whatever chance at future profitability the company has because you are pissed at the past actions of a limited number of people?

I think I may understand a little better you aversion to successful and wealthy people. You don't understand the basic concepts that allowed them to achieve their successes so you apparently think it is better just to drop them to your level. Nice.

Maybe, but from what I read the money was held in trust and could not be deemed an asset of AIG, therefore unaffected by bankruptcy. The justice department would have to work on that one, but they've already said since AIG didn't go bankrupt they are legally obligated to distribute that money.

Jesus christ! You can't honestly be on the side of these people, can you? #1, if you helped cause the downfall of the company, why should I care if you leave? #2, if you helped cause the meltdown of the entire global economic system, why exactly do you deserve bonus, no matter what your contract says? #3, do you even know how many former Wall Street execs are looking for work right now? It's unlikely that those people would leave, and if they did, so what? There are hundreds waiting to take their place!

Now, to answer your questions, A) I must have a much different definition of success than you do, and B) explain to me exactly why it is so important to keep people who were part of the problem in the first place?

For your last remarks, pffftttt. I have been debating people like you for the past two years, saying we were in a recession, and they all said I was stupid and didn't understand basic economics. Who's laughing now? I proved them wrong. People always underestimate my intelligence, and somehow, I usually end up on top. If you are a financial advisor or someone else in that racket, then I'll take my common sense over your M-B-A anyday.

"legally obligated" ... so change the law ... company getting bailout means no bonuses. "Bonus", to me, entails you only get it if things are going well.

I know, I'm a lefty pinko wanker.

Me too Zen.

Yes, yes, yes!

I am not surprised. - I had to exchange data with their IT department a few years back and I found they were the most incompetent bunch I'd encountered ever. Repeatedly failed to produce a plain text file according to specifications. And called themselves IT experts too!

There are a fuck of a lot of financial advisors in the world, they didn't all cause the financial meltdown. Most are just people trying to do their jobs like every fucker else. Do you think the majority of stock brokers and finance industry workers have been any less fucked by the higher echelons of the industry than we have?

No, I'm not on their side. I tink some people who made really bad decisions are going to get paid a lot of money. BUT if they fulfilled their end of a legal agreement it would be wrong not to pay them the agreed upon fee. You may argue the agreement was foolish and I would agree. You may argue they don't deserve the money and I would agree. You may argue that a lot of people deserve to lose their jobs and I would agree. You may argue that they are to blame for all the ills of the world and in some cases I might agree. That is all just dressing though. The point is we are invested in a company. We should want to see the company succeed so we get our money back. Companies that have chosen not to pay agreed upon bonuses when requirements were fulfilled will not be a target destination for top notch employees. When the bad deciders;) are shown the door good employees must be found to replace them. Don't cut your throat just for the sake of punishing some asshats.

And for the record, you haven't been debating people like me for two years about a recession. A quick scan of my market comments over the last few years would quickly prove the inaccuracy of your statement. And yes, I do make my money as a financial advisor. I'm ok at it or at least my clients who are comfortably retired and unconcerned about the economy seem to think.

You're right. I apologize for my little tirade. However, many of the people in finance are making excuses for what happened, and I'm sick of it. lookout's reasoning is flawed. 1) He is arguing that we can't just break contracts that were already in place simply because we bailed out the company and now own most of it. 2) He is arguing that those employees are good employees and they would quit, and who would fill their shoes?

In answer to that, yet again, 1) other companies we bailed out were forced to renegotiate the contracts that were in place. Those people at AIG wouldn't HAVE a job if we had not bailed them out over and over. It's what, 4 times now? No, their jobs would be GONE, and so would their bonuses, so that kind of puts a huge dent in their position. 2) That particular branch is the branch that caused AIG to FAIL. Those people should not be VALUED employees. IMO, they should be investigated and possibly prosecuted for their actions. There are a LOT of people from Wall Street etc. out of work looking for jobs. It would be very easy to replace those people, IF we even should. Aig is slowly being "unwound," whatever that means, and if that particular branch is the one that caused all the problems, maybe it should just be GONE. Fire everyone, and close that department. If people are fired, are they entiteld to bonuses? Why do they get bonuses for driving a huge company like that into the ground?

In addition, that branch is located in London. So why are American taxpayers bailing them out? Why isn't London paying those bonuses and contributing to the bailout of AIG? AIG has also given tens of billions of our money to foreign banks. Are any of OUR banks getting money from foreign governments? I really would like to know the answer to that.

When companies go bankrupt, they are forced to restructure. Bad employees are replaced with good ones. While everyone in that division of AIG might not have contributed to the downfall of the company, obviously some of them did. When we bailed out the auto companies, the unions and workers and executives were forced to make concessions. Many of our banks were too. They even sold some of their private planes. So what makes AIG different? Please explain that to me. It's not.

Yes, markets may not have indicated we were in a recession over the past two years, but if you looked at what was happening to the middle class, and if you looked at other clues, it was very apparent we were heading toward financial disaster. I wouldn't say collapse, because that would be a lie, I didn't see that coming, but it was very apparent we were in trouble. While the people I was debating may not have been financial advisors (I don't know if they were or not), they all disparaged my intelligence on economic issues, and in general. Well, ultimately, I was right and they were wrong. I am not trying to imply that I know everything because I don't. I have never even taken a course in economics, but I am not stupid. I am actually pretty bright. And in those cases, I apparently knew more than they did, not because I am an economic genius, but because I simply observed what was happening to people around me and around the country, and I made deductions based on those observations.

Just a little suggestion - read the fucking posts a little more carefully before you regurgitate your arguments. I'm not saying they're good employees. I'm not saying they should keep their jobs. I think they should mostly be shown the door. The point is that you will have to fill those positions. Prospective replacements will obviously consider things such as company stability, increased government and media scrutiny, and compensation... now you want to further hamper the recruitment process by making it known the company doesn't follow through on the contracts if it seems unpopular at the time. Good luck finding good people for those positions.

sugarpop I don't believe you are stupid but I do believe you are extremely misguided. that's cool, it is america and we each have a right to our opinions. you can look back at your internet discussions as proof that your common sense is supreme, but saying something bad is coming repeatedly will inevitably cause you to be right. That's just the way it works.

I called the downturn quite a while back as did most people in the industry. Seeing a recession on the horizon doesn't mean you can or should avoid it. My personal view is strong companies should survive and weak companies should die. AIG either should have stood or fallen on it's own. GM, Chrysler, Citi, BAC, are all in the same boat for me. It would have been brutal and bloody, but it would have had a clear end. As it is, we have an inefficient and politically motivated government tampering with the markets to keep weak companies alive. In the long run that is not a good thing. TW may be an absolute nutter but he has been correct all along about GM. They should tank because of their poor management. Chrysler was in the same boat years ago, but they got good management, came up with a viable plan and sought help from the government. It worked. That is completely different from what we are seeing today. Public opinion and political positioning will do absolutely nothing useful for these companies or our economy.

You said, "...If I'm an employee and I have fulfilled my end of the bargain and the company doesn't pay me as agreed, why exactly would I stay on board? If I leave because the company defaulted on a contract they agreed to, what quality of individual do you think would step up to fill that position? What happens when good employees jump ship in large numbers?...

My argument is, since that is the division that caused AIG to fail, and caused us (so far) to pay 170 BILLION dollars to keep them afloat, why exactly are they "good employees" and why should we want to keep them on baord?

I said we were in a recession, they said we weren't. What is so hard to understand about that? How is that misguided? I said things were bad and getting worse, they disagreed. I wasn't just saying that to say it, I said it based on observations. I don't think the market is an accurate guide to what is happening with lower and middle class people, because most of those people don't play the stock market, or they don't have a big effect on it, and speculators and other big investors artificially inflate and deflate prices and in effect control things they shouldn't, like gas prices last summer, and energy prices, etc. Wages have been stagnant for the majority of the population, while they have skyrocketed for executives. The wage disparity in this country is obscene and looks more that of a dictatorship or a third world country. People have steadily been losing benefits. Health care is out of control. Many hospitals have been closing over the past few years. All our manufacturing jobs have gone away and been replaced by much less lucrative "service" jobs. We don't MAKE anything in this country anymore. Follow the signs. There is no way any of that is sustainable.

I hate to tell you, but the government has been bailing out companies for decades. This is nothing new. The only thing new about it, is this recession is much deeper, and hit much faster, than most people thought it would. Apparently, a LOT of people really were asleep at the wheel, in government AND in business.

And the markets apparently NEED to be tampered with. Wall Street, and business in general, will not regulate itself. That has been proven over and over and over.

I agree weak companies should not be bailed out. Apparently though, these companies are too big to fail. If AIG had gone under, according to most of the people I've heard talk about it on CNBC and other places, then the recession would have been a depression or at least much worse than it is now, because of how entangled it is in worldwide finances with so many different corporations.

Maybe the government would have been better off dividing all that money up and giving it to the people.

FWIW - - -


Then why did it take til now for them to do something?

I also love using italics when I hear somebody say something on TV and then I repeat it on the internet.

If those bonuses are in any way fraudulent or there is any possible loophole in the contract allowing the non-payment then by all means don't pay it. Any individuals who made policy or took action resulting in serious losses should already have been terminated and shouldn't be around to receive a bonus anyway. Individuals who are there and fulfilled their end of the contract (ill considered though they may be) must receive their compensation.

Well, for one thing, taking on the banking system hammer and tongs ain't an easy proposition.

Not making excuses, so much as offering an explanation. I'd prefer more guts in our leadership, personally.