Wait, we're talking about congress now??? :eyebrow:

No congress(wo)men got their jobs the old fashioned way, they bought them.

From page 6...

A chief executive officer of a Standard & Poor's 500 company was paid, on average, $10.4 million in total compensation in 2008, according to preliminary data from The Corporate Library.

Excessive executive compensation has taken center stage since the government bailout of banks that began in September 2008. Americans have expressed outrage as CEOs and other executives responsible for the financial crisis have pocketed millions of dollars from bonuses and golden parachutes. CEO perks alone grew in 2008 to an average of $336,248—or nine times the median salary of a full-time worker. Meanwhile, the economy tanked for working people while many companies were bailed out with more than $700 billion in taxpayer money, as well as low-interest loans and guarantees.
http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/

http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch...ceou/index.cfm

Oh no, it's a lot more than a few thousand.

I watched a program on Frontline the other night about Enron. By the gods those guys were corrupt to the bone! I swear, speculating should just be illegal as hell.

Yea, that is what I said. Very few people compared to the total pop of US workers.

What is speculating, Sugarpop?

Speculating involves people selling stocks based on what they will be worth in the future, not what their actual current value is. That is how Enron was able to make money when in reality they were losing money. That is one of the things that caused the crash we are experiencing right now. It is one way some investors bet against a company or commodity, thereby artificially inflating or deflating the actual price and wreaking all kinds of havok upon the rest of us. the same thing happened last year with oil.

That's why so many are now buying Ford stock.

It is not the speculating. It was intentional fraud. Enron accounting is alive in other companies.

Investment is speculation. You invest because the company may be providing innovation to mankind. Enron was not about speculating. Enron was about intentional fraud because profits - not the product - are only important.

Enron story is classic when people think the purpose of any company is only its profits. Enron and their peers even created a mythical CA energy crisis - and of course got away with it. That also justifies Enron accounting.

So what you are saying is that you buy stocks with no concern for what they'll be at some point in the future?

Nooo, you invest to make money for yourself. The likelihood of profit is just greater in well run companies who also happen to be innovative. Don't mistake motive for method.

Edward Jones helps us. Ours went up significantly in the last month.

It's amazing how good that guy is from the grave.

I'm just waiting for some instant lessons on the proper pro-american method of investing. I'm sure someone will come along with a few clever one liners implying we'd all be wealthy and happy if we were smart enough to invest "the right way" like them.

Eh. I can't be that egotistical about it. The market is going to go where it is going to go. I am going to keep investing and just hope in the end, 20 years from now, it will be up and I will be comfortable.

You've got 20 years, sit back and relax. The Jones system is designed for that kind of investing. I started out there so I know it very very well.

Which is why finance people must be heavily regulated; why finance people are so easily corrupted. If reward was the only purpose as lookout123 says, then Bill Gates should buy all Olympic gold metals and be the world's best athlete.

Meanwhile, in the real world, only people who deserve profits are those who contribute to the advancement of mankind – who make better products that an economy needs. When finance people are honest, that is what happens.

No profits? That message says the product / company is operating against mankind – working to corrupt the economy. Profits only say one might be advancing mankind. Eventually even the spread sheets from Enron style companies show how much they have subverted mankind because only profits were important.

If a company is earning a profit instead of advancing the product; that is the mafia. Obviously, finance people rarely grasp the concept because their training and nature is to be corrupt at any opportunity. Greed is good. Screw the people, economy, mankind, and the world. That simple principle commonly found in Wall Street where innovation and economic advancement is not the purpose. Where innovation is something messy that just gets in the way of profits.

American soldiers were found dead. Slumped over their broken down and jammed M-16s. Why? That was good. By using cheaper ammunition, profits were made. Lookout123’s principles. Profits are the purpose. Which is why those deaths were routinely covered up until whistle blowers were finally discovered. Those dead American soldiers are a direct result of lookout123's principles. Even openly advocated by the George Jr administration: ie Haliburton, K-Street, and long list of world record corruption.

Since profits are the purpose of any company, George Jr's adminstration even refused to prosecute Enron. In complete agreement with the principles advocated by lookout123.

and true to form ladies and gentlemen, I present *drumroll* TW!

Oh, good God.

I'm not saying people don't invest hoping stock will go up in the future, of course they do. But speculators and short sellers and the like MANIPULATE THE MARKET to artificially make prices go up or down so they can make a lot of money in the short run, then they pull out and everything goes all wonky and collapses. THAT is what I'm talking about. They use unethical practicies that should be outlawed, because they are the cause of millions of people losing their savings, their retirement funds, companies going bankrupt, etc. They have caused several crashes, and now they have caused a global crash. They need to be stopped, period.

If Obama had not pumped so much money into the economy so quickly we would probably still be on a downward spiral and in a depression, but of course he gets reamed for doing it, sooooo...

Or weak companies would have collapsed causing a very bloody but necessary culling of the herd. Now all we've done is create different problems from the ones people were crying about in the fall and winter. Greenspan slashed the rates and encouraged homeownership for the unqualified which helped bring us out of recession... i think i've heard someone say that wasn't the right thing to do. don't worry, i'm sure Obama thought everything through just fine.

Can you tell me what exactly they do in something other than outraged soundbyte terminology?

lookout123 conveniently ignores a common factor in those nearly bankrupt companies. A widespread belief that the company's purpose is its profits. Those who most want profits (screw the products) are same that most need bankruptcy. lookout123 simply forgets that part. It could not be true. Otherwise concepts taught to stock brokers and business school graduates must be wrong!

How did 1979 Chrysler and 1981 Ford get saved? Executives who knew their purpose was profits (did exactly what Wall Street said) got removed. New executives were people who come from where the work gets done - know products are the purpose. Both companies went from near bankruptcy to record profits by simply ignoring profits and making better products. But that is not what stock brokers say. "Greed is good", says lookout123.

Many American jobs may have been saved simply by forcing companies to admit to Enron accounting. Enron accounting because profits are the only purpose. lookout123 never criticized Enron accounting for good reason.

Unfortunately, not enough Enron trained accountant and other business school graduates got the shaft they deserve. We know what created this recession. People so corrupt as to even say tax cuts (welfare) to the rich will increase profits. Money games by people so corrupt as to say the purpose of a company is profits.

lookout123 even said companies can earn profits without producing anything – and that is good. lookout123 has just approved of the mafia. So what is the difference between a stock broker or finance guy – and the mafia? Less than some want to admit. Profits can be earned by making no products - because corruption is the purpose of business.

You're a fucking moron. oh i should probably finish that... you're a fucking moron if you believe they became profitable by ignoring profits. good management understands that real profits come from creating products people want, at a pricepoint they can afford, with costs being significantly less than revenues.
I haven't criticized Enron because they aren't a part of this discussion. They may be one of your obsessions but that doesn't make them relevant to every discussion.
Sure, it could be that. Or we could also acknowledge the inarguable fact that recessions are an inevitable and necessary part of the economic cycle. They come and go regardless of political party or hair styles. Ever notice how wacko extremists tend to place blame at the feet of their enemies regardless of the facts?Could you cite that post for me? I seem to have misplaced it.Oooh, I know I know! the mafia tend to kill fools whereas I just ridicule them on the internet.
You've beat that drum long enough now would you care to provide some support for your incorrect ideas or should we just assume you're speaking out your ass again?

fixed that for ya.

sorry, my greed fueled incompetence got the better of me there.

Well, according to almost every economist I've heard interviewed, they agree we would be in much worse shape. Of course all of them don't agree about different aspects of all the different plans, but they pretty much all agree he (and Bush also) acted quickly and with a lot of money, which is what needed to happen. You saw what happened with teh collapse of just one bank. Imagine that x about 50 of the biggest financial institutions in the world. It would have been chaos.

Look, I have read a LOT about this, and I have watched a LOT about this, but granted I don't completely understand every aspect of it. I can certainly post clips of how "those in the know" describe it, but I thought you would appreciate me speaking in my own words. If you want something deeper, I'll have to use links or cut and paste.

You know, I feel like you are just trying to trip me up, not because I'm wrong, but because you think I'm too stupid to understand what I'm talking about. Well, I've got news for you. A lot of those really smart people who were doing it didn't completely understand it either, because if they did, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Following are just a few places where I have gleaned information about what is going on, and things that are related and have happened in the past, like the price of oil last year, or what happened during the Great Depression and how it was different, and the actions we took then vs what we haven't done this time, and how that might adversely affect us. It is all connected. I can post more, if you'd like lookout. I also get a lot of information from PBS and PBR shows like Democracy Now and Frontline and Bill Moyers, or from various magazines, like Fortune, Mother Jones, Time or Adbusters, and I sometimes read papers like the Washington Post, or New York Times, I like people like Paul Krugman, Arrianna Huffington and Noam Chomsky, and I sometimes read Salon or other online sources. I watch a lot of msnbc and cnbc and cnn as well. So, I am actually getting information from a whole lot of different sources.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...e_big_takeover

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meltdown/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ws/regulation/

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04...anscript1.html

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02...anscript3.html

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/finance/

http://www.cnbc.com/id/28892719

http://www.cnbc.com/id/26334704

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29476319

I watched a couple of shows on (I think) the History Channel as well, but I can't find them.

I didn't realize the guy that invented/marketed the Hula-Hoop and made a gazillion dollars, was advancing mankind. :smack:

:lol: Yep, you've got all points covered, from the mildly left to the radical left.

Thanks UT. That is my point of contention with Sugarpop. You can read a lot of sources and find they all the same thing, that's great. What you have to consider is whether they say the same thing because they are correct or because they are all incorrect together.

In my world I describe the phenomenon like this: I get clients who sho up and tell me how they are very safely invested because they are very diversified with no more than 5% of their money in any one mutual fund... the problem is that those funds own almost the same thing so they aren't really diversified at all.

Good points - they probably get their information from the same/similar biased sources, just like the opposing view.

When they are all telling you what you WANT to believe, hear or agree with its difficult not to get all worked up.

I try to watch, read, listen to multiple platforms from different leanings and then take the extremist views out, knowing that the truth is usually somewhere between the two.

Oh good grief. Those are not all left sources. Some of them are, but most of them are completely unbiased and right in the middle. And ftr, when I was trying to figure out what happened, I went to sources like Forbes, Fortune and the Wall Street Journal as well. Those are financial magazines. And CNBC is a financial network.

Tell me lookout, what is wrong with any one of those sources that I listed? NOTHING.

How could you know?

How could you know they aren't?

By reading/watching a broader set of sources, it makes it easier to see where everybody really lands.

Well, if you rely on Fox News and the Weekly Standard and Bill Kristol and publications/people like that, then almost every source that is in the middle is going to look extremely left.

People on the right constantly whine about the left lean of the media, but it simply is not true. I know, because I am a leftie, and many of the news sources are too far to the right for my tastes.

Are you really hot, Sug?

:eek: Really? I would have never guessed. :eek:

So you like to listen John Stewart and Colbert as have interesting and accurate comentary on the news? They are far from the middle. They are as left as Rush is right. BTW I listen to none of them.

You mean the guys on COMEDY Central?

Is there really a difference between them and Faux or msnbc?
Oh yeah there is - the comedy central guys are intentionally funny.

So which are more flaming liberals? Then - or Colin Powel? It was decreed by mainstream Republican party leaders: Colin Powel is a flaming liberal. Who is more lefty liberal?

haha....so true.

They are all entertainers.

I try to watch a little of each station/channel. However, there are some people that I almost immediately turn off - O'Rielly, Olberman, Beck, Hannity, Maddow & Matthews come immediately to mind. They all spin stories so fast to fit their preconceived positions or they'll completely ignore a story that doesn't support them.

John Stewart and Stephen Colbert are comedians, silly man. And Rush is an entertainer. He is no more a journalist than I am.

And I know you watch Bill O'Reilly. :p

Rachel Maddow is not a spin artist. She is actually quite good. She admits when she is wrong or makes a mistake. Chris Matthews is good too. I admit though that Olberman is extreme. I still watch him though. I find him very entertaining. And Joe Scarborough? I like Mika better. :D I think CNN is the most unbiased news source on TV.

yea, sometimes. not so much anymore. But he is a commentator. I use to agree with about 80% of what he said. now it is more like about 70 or 65% if I had to guess. But I enjoy listening to his commentary about the news.

That I'll agree with the rest is all BS - Maddow is as biased as they come. No different than the rest.

Where's Walter Cronkite when ya need him? :(

Ballmer Says Tax Would Move Microsoft Jobs Offshore
A pretty good read. I can't wait to hear about the meeting Obama has with these guys. Should be interesting.

A more likely senerio would be for the companies to just move lock-stock-and-barrel and no longer be a US company. In the long run, if it is painful enough for them to stay, it would be cheaper for them to become a company of Dubi.

Perhaps they will just "move" their headquarters to, say Dubai or some other tax friendly nation. I wonder what the ramifications would be on that scenario.

The state of Delaware has a lot of companies "headquartered" there for similar reasons. They were getting a lot of tax revenue by luring companies there. I think the state is now taking a huge revenue hit due to the economy.

Why wouldn't they just do that now? It's cheaper, but not cheaper enough?

It's because there's a skill limit to what you can outsource, plain and simple, and most companies who significantly outsourced learned this the hard way in the last 5 years. The innovation still happens here. If the other countries had it, they'd be competing against us with their own companies, not trying to siphon off our low-skill jobs. When's the last time we outsourced anything to, say, Japan? We don't, because their workers are just as expensive as ours, because their overall skill level is commensurate with ours. Ballmer's just using PR scare tactics to get out of paying higher corporate taxes.

All they need to do is move the headquaters and re-flag the company. Any aspect of the company could still remain here.

All I was saying is that they can incorporate the company overseas. Nothing really changes but the paperwork and the tax liability. I don't profess to be an expert. That is why I posed the question in the first place. I'm not talking about outsourcing jobs, just the tax liability, so to speak.

[tailposting]

This is why I am an internationalist. The present system of nations gives global corporations the opportunity to play national governments off against each other in a low-tax bidding-war.

[/tailposting]

:runaway:

No worries, I was only getting kind of ranty at Steve Ballmer (who I happen to think is a tool,) not you.

Why haven't they already done it?

Some have - Some have different "companies" in many countries.

My guess would be that it has not become financially painful enough yet. But I have no doubt that when it does they will move.

...and then the taxes received from those business will, instead of increasing with the raised tax rate, will become virtually zero. After which the liability of the companies remaining becomes even greater and their rates increase further and the cycle continues - hypothetically.

The higher the tax rate goes the more money will be spent on finding bigger and better loopholes. It is a never ending cycle where the only goal is for the politicians to keep enough people hoodwinked so they stay in power.

A flat tax with ZERO if's and's or but's is the only way to stop the cycle, so it will remain a neverending cycle.

Reality - over 50% of American companies pay no taxes including some of the largest. These 'we will move if taxes increase' is not the threat. Taxes are higher in other countries where they might want to relocate.

The reason for moving is most often to avoid US laws such as bribery. To permit corruption and to even diminish shareholder control is more often a reason to move overseas. American corporate taxes are some of the lowest in the world once we add all the exemptions and other 'secret' benefits.