you musta missed my comment #1. far as i know there is no 'key executive' union requiring delphi to pay millions in bonuses to 600 of its members for running the corporation into bankruptcy.

I wish folks such as yourself had the opportunity to taste the reality of those running American industry. There are basically four types of corporate execs.... The entrepreneur builder from zero, those that take the helm to make wholesale organizational changes allowing the company to reach the next land mark point, and those that manage them corporate America once stabilized. Then there the last category which is considered special. They're brought into a struggling company as a tactical solution in hopes of structuring a turn-around or keeping losses minimized for as long as possible until a overall strategic plan can be determined.

If company "A" is loosing 100M per year, it could easily get worse with costs as they are today. A percentage bonus has to be paid to get someone willing to step up. Sometimes it means moving profits from one segment to another in hopes of keeping the doors open longer, fending off closure or downsizing knowing it's imminent at some point. It's an ugly task requiring special skills and few want the charge....regardless of level.

Sure, there's poor judgment and wastage results but neither is the real perpetrator behind the likes of GM or Delphi when they start down the slippery slope of self-implosion. It's related to supply and demand issues and internal cost structures like the massive costs attributed to unions and 185,200 employees total. And, you reference 600... with international operations in Canada, Mexico, Europe, Middle East, Africa, Asia-Pacific and South America.

Keep in mind, payroll/union costs have become fixed requiring payment regardless of market pressures or operational costs. The bonus' paid out to those 600 willing to ride down the slope knowing their going to loose their jobs as well as others is nothing comparatively. Imagine eliminating all 600 you seem to blame, what do you think would happen to 184,600 employees then?

You're making my point of displaced value: the millions generated could be better directed toward more useful needs in a social system. You're simply accepting things as they are, rather than setting up a system that does the most good. Entertainment and sports are hogging too much of the pie, regardless of the consumer's indifference to things that matter most.

Your statement above speaks for socialism.... Is that your intent?

" You're making my point of displaced value: the millions generated could be better directed toward more useful needs in a social system. You're simply accepting things as they are, rather than setting up a system that does the most good. Entertainment and sports are hogging too much of the pie, regardless of the consumer's indifference to things that matter most."

*boggle*

This is like someone who stuffs their kid full of candy and then can't understand why they are fat. They are hogging too much of the pie because we are making them that much of the pie. So not only do you want to tell people who make the money how much they can make, but you want to make sure we don't voluntarily make them rich? They aren't holding a gun to the heads of people who buy tickets, and jackets, and caps, and everything else...

There's two ways of thinking about it, and you are taking the fascist stance. People as a whole can evolve to the point they'd rather put their money to better use, or we can create taskmasters to make up for our lack of empathy and hope they are more evolved when they start imposing that behavior on us. It has never, in the history of mankind, ever worked. It isn't working now, anywhere

Why? Because it demands something of us that we aren't designed for. We aren't ants. We are mammals, and not even herd animals, we are pack animals. The idea you are espousing is going to be disgusting to most people at a gut level for that reason. You might be able to get them to revolt against the rich, but you'll NEVER get them to not seek riches themselves.

We are genetically *about* bettering ourselves as much as possible. They'll take from the rich, sure, but you'll just have to steal it back from the social crusaders, and then someone else will have to steal it from you. Redistributing wealth simply becomes siezing wealth. One alpha male is replaced by another.

You'd just shift the means from business to bureaucracy.

You know, it just struck me. Steve is just taking the horror-show concept of imminent domain, and making it apply to our money. If the "society" can somehow better profit from the money we earn, then the state has a right to seize it and do what it wants to with it.

How ugly. How can you possibly rail against wire taps and government excess on one blog, and then pretend that this wouldn't be the last nail in the coffin. You'd just have a system wherein the Trumps of the world would become bureaucrats instead of businessmen, and social "justice" would be handing out poverty at the barrel of a gun.

You know, it just struck me. Steve is just taking the horror-show concept of imminent domain, and making it apply to our money. If the "society" can somehow better profit from the money we earn, then the state has a right to seize it and do what it wants to with it.

Good point BakerStreet!

You know, it just struck me. Steve is just taking the horror-show concept of imminent domain, and making it apply to our money. If the "society" can somehow better profit from the money we earn, then the state has a right to seize it and do what it wants to with it.

That is what socialism and communism is.  The government owns everything, and you are just a user of their resources.

The greed of these unions, combined with our excessive regulation of the industry combined with governmental demands for more and more safety features to make up for the half-plastic pieces of shit they have to build these days in order to meet minimum mileage and air pollution standards are what's caused this industry to struggle, not the fact that their CEO's fly around on private jets.

Your ideas are terrible. Repulsive, even

I like what you have to say...

That is what socialism and communism is. The government owns everything, and you are just a user of their resources.

But in pure communism and socialism the government is the people. So the people just use what they already, collectively own.

Ubob, in pure communism and socialism "equality" is forced on the people by the government without the say of "the people". The people aren't given choices.

The premise of this article is flawed because it assumes that wealth is a zero-sum game.  How much the wealthy make has little to nothing to do with how poor the poor are.

 

have the guts to call it what it is. "socialized health care" or "universal health care", if there is a difference at all, please, enlighten me. Does spelling it different make it more palatable to you?

Almost sixty years ago Truman called for "socialized medicine" and was labeled a pinko. But in today's terms he meant "universal health care." Had he used this term, he still would have been shot down.

You'd just shift the means from business to bureaucracy.

Wrong. I'm suggesting better priorities in a utilitarian way. I'm surprised you don't object to elaborate stadiums and insist on better schools. The free market doesn't have to be extravagant with non-essentials, far better they acknowledge some decent action in basic needs.

Saying that "the rich" don't care about anyone but themselves is the same as saying "the poor" are all a bunch of lazy criminals.

I didn't say they don't care. And where did you get "rich"--too vague--from L'il Whip? I refer to "most affluent" "top executives" "very wealthy" to solidify my point that we had better do something about real values.

How much the wealthy make has little to nothing to do with how poor the poor are.

It's not supposed to, but when it is more important for an executive to throw lavish parties at stockholder expense and shortchanging their workers, that is zero for the company and its effectiveness. As a business man you wouldn't do it, so why defend those who carelessly target investment expenditure on nonsense?

You know, it just struck me. Steve is just taking the horror-show concept of imminent domain, and making it apply to our money. If the "society" can somehow better profit from the money we earn, then the state has a right to seize it and do what it wants to with it.

An unwarranted hyperbole! You know better than that. It is not my intent to pick your pocket. You know perfectly well that my intent was to have readers respond to "displaced values"--nothing more. It's odd that it is politically correct to excoriate governmental reckless expenditures but the laissez faire boys can do whatever the hell they want in frivolity as long it is not geared to reinvesting in infrastructure and better jobs.

I didn't say they don't care. And where did you get "rich"--too vague--from L'il Whip? I refer to "most affluent" "top executives" "very wealthy" to solidify my point that we had better do something about real values.

Spelling means a lot to you doesn't it. What's the difference between spelling it R-I-C-H or V-E-R-Y W-E-A-L-T-H-Y? ROFL!

But in pure communism and socialism the government is the people. So the people just use what they already, collectively own.

IN IDEAL worlds, that is true.  Since man lives in an imperfect one, it never will be.  However, the Government still will own it all.

" An unwarranted hyperbole! You know better than that. It is not my intent to pick your pocket. You know perfectly well that my intent was to have readers respond to "displaced values"--nothing more. It's odd that it is politically correct to excoriate governmental reckless expenditures but the laissez faire boys can do whatever the hell they want in frivolity as long it is not geared to reinvesting in infrastructure and better jobs."

Whose values are those, again? I thought our anti-conservative taskmasters taught us to always start questioning folks who considered their values to be mandatable...

You know I agree with a lot of how you think. Of course we should spend more time feeding the poor than buying jewelery for cretinous sports stars. The question is, should we be MADE to do so? If people want to keep donating money to the wealthy, how do you construct a system that fixes that without putting the power of abusing wealth directly in the hands of the government?

That powerhouses like GM and Ford are on the decline owing to the government’s irresponsibility in not providing universal health care in which foreign makers luxuriate is another sign that the nation is unwilling to come to grips with reality

Ahem...let me rephrase that. "Private companies are suffering because the government isn't (financially) providing medical benefits for their workers. Other countries have better heath care so the buisnesses are not crippled by upholding contract. America is stupid."

That's the dumbest line of bullshit. If the government paid for universal heath care, taxes would go up....then it woudl be the government's fault for high taxation. you don't get something for nothing, someone somewhere has to pay for it. Quit blaming the government, even without the handouts that you DON'T deserve, everyone in America still has the potential to live 100s of times better than before.

Raising the standard of living of the poor cannot be done without reducing the ridiculously high standards of the very wealthy

Wonderful. That is the true definition of socialism.....nobody can have anything unless they have enough to share with everyone.....THAT's not going to motivate anyone to work industriously or strive for anything....everyone would be reduced to acting like the idiots in Little Whips blog....

It's not supposed to, but when it is more important for an executive to throw lavish parties at stockholder expense and shortchanging their workers, that is zero for the company and its effectiveness. As a business man you wouldn't do it, so why defend those who carelessly target investment expenditure on nonsense?

I spend lots of money on nonsense.  I've spent a couple grand on parties before. People who are wealthy do much the same kinds of things that people who aren't wealthy. They just do it on a larger scale.

Wealth also buys  convenience.  My cell phone died. It's under warranty so I could get a new one for free in a couple weeks. I spent $500 on it.  But I need a cell phone tomorrow for CES (trade show I'm leaving for in about 12 hours).  So I bought another one.  I realize most people wouldn't have the luxury of blowing another couple hundred bucks (I bought a cheaper one) rather than being inconvenienced (I could have borrowed my wife's or someone else's for instance while I waited for a replacement).

Some guy spending a million on a party doesn't harm the poor at all.   At least it feeds the economy.  Would it have been better if the person had spent those millions on a wildlife preserve that doesn't help the poor at all?

Wealth is not zero-sum.  It's created.  Those who create it do so for many reasons.  But in the process of creating that wealth, they spend some of it and that wealth then moves around to other people. 

A person who spends $10 million on a yaught is no different than the government spending $10 million on something. It's just a matter of who decides where that money is going to go. 

I'd rather the person who earned the $10 million spend the money on a gold plated bath tub than see that same money taken by the government and spent building a bridge out in the middle of nowhere by some unscrupulous politician. 

An unwarranted hyperbole! You know better than that. It is not my intent to pick your pocket. You know perfectly well that my intent was to have readers respond to "displaced values"--nothing more. It's odd that it is politically correct to excoriate governmental reckless expenditures but the laissez faire boys can do whatever the hell they want in frivolity as long it is not geared to reinvesting in infrastructure and better jobs.

That's because the government is spending our money. How people who earn their money spend it is none of my business.

Ahem...let me rephrase that. "Private companies are suffering because the government isn't (financially) providing medical benefits for their workers. Other countries have better heath care so the buisnesses are not crippled by upholding contract. America is stupid." That's the dumbest line of bullshit. If the government paid for universal heath care, taxes would go up....then it woudl be the government's fault for high taxation. you don't get something for nothing, someone somewhere has to pay for it. Quit blaming the government, even without the handouts that you DON'T deserve, everyone in America still has the potential to live 100s of times better than before.

WOW!  That gets you a cookie!

The question is, should we be MADE to do so?

Not in a democracy; still, through dialogue and persuasion, some might change for the better and recognize that there is more appropriate ways to invest in business and in spending. Sure, it sounds unrealistic, but the rampant consumption and investment in frivolity juxtaposed to serious needs in the country is going to lead to painful results down the road. I agree that putting more funds in the hands of the government is not the solution--it is time for big business to prioritize summum bonum .

I'd rather the person who earned the $10 million spend the money on a gold plated bath tub than see that same money taken by the government and spent building a bridge out in the middle of nowhere by some unscrupulous politician.

I'm with you there, except for the gold tub--far better for plumbers to install hundreds of regular tubs in spreading the wealth around. Fatty pork is obscene; lean pork has value when designed to create jobs or other useful purpose. 

Would it have been better if the person had spent those millions on a wildlife preserve that doesn't help the poor at all?

It helps everybody to breathe clean air; there is such a thing as benedfits into the future and its  posterity, rather than relishing the present.

Wealth also buys convenience.

 No one is denying what everyone aims for.

 

That's the dumbest line of bullshit.

Thanks, but I still think that with foreign governments subsidizing its corporations with health care, they place our corporate realm at a competitive disadvantage. As for small businesses, why should the good guy that furnishes health care for his employees be at a disadvantage in conjuntion with the business across the street who doesn't? That gets you a cookie?[/quote] Not for me, it doesn't.

Spelling means a lot to you doesn't it.

Not spelling but clear definition: I was referring to the vague term "rich" used on an other blog that's defined as anything from treating oneself to cheeseburger or breaking out the champagne on New Years, not diamonds in nose, tongue and ear of athletes for the purpose of conspicuous showmanship of wealth. It is utterly mind-boggling how defensive and philosophic one can be in defending the truly "rich."

I thought that given the comments regarding healthcare and infrastructure, it would be interesting to read some comments relating to those from the chief economist responsible for the Global Competitiveness Report 2005-2006, which provides strong support for Steven's comments (the following is an excerpt of the interview):

The Nordic countries have traditionally done very well in the GCR rankings. What accounts for their consistently strong performance?

I think it is a combination of many factors that, taken together, create extremely healthy business environments. First, unlike some of the larger industrial countries, macroeconomic management has been quite admirable; the authorities in all of these countries are strongly committed to sound public finances. They are running budget surpluses to be able to meet pension and other obligations associated with rapidly ageing populations. Successive governments have managed to create a climate of transparency and honesty in public management that greatly contributes to business confidence. Integrity and efficiency in the use of public resources means there is money for investing in education, in public health, in state-of-the-art infrastructure, all of which contributes to boost productivity. Highly trained labor forces, in turn, adopt new technologies with enthusiasm or, as happens often in the Nordics, are themselves in the forefront of technological innovations.

In many ways the Nordics have entered virtuous circles where various factors reinforce each other to make them among the most competitive economies in the world, with world class institutions and some of the highest levels of per capita income in the world.

How do the Nordic countries ensure that their competitiveness is not undermined by high taxes and large safety nets?

While the business communities in the Nordic countries, when asked, point to high tax rates as a potential problem area, there is no evidence that these are adversely affecting the ability of these countries to compete effectively in world markets, or to deliver to their respective populations extremely high living standards.

High tax rates are problematic when the money collected is not directed to efficiency-enhancing activities or is otherwise misused in some way in what the IMF calls, perhaps euphemistically, “unproductive expenditures.” If, however, the high tax rates generate resources that are then used to deliver world-class educational establishments, an effective social safety net, and a highly motivated and skilled labor force, then competitiveness is boosted, not undermined.

I'm not sure if stevendedalus is saying that the government should force his wealth-redistribution value system on all citizens, or if he's saying that the government should stay out of it and that private citizens should exercise their right to free speech to try to convince people to adopt their value system.

If it's the former, I'm all against it. If it's the latter, I'm all for it.