Is it necessary to change corporate culture in America?

[88bmwJeff]

As I sit here reading about the impending doom we are all facing due to the potential demise of more large corporations, it leaves me wondering, is it possible to change the corporate culture that lead to our current situation?

Top management of companies seem to be more concerned with their salaries and bonuses, than the employees that work for them or the product/service they sell. In comparison to foreign companies, top management pay is far above the competition (Am I wrong here?). And, some of them have provided poor leadership and decisions. Can we (the US) have long term economic stability without some fundamental change with regards to top management? If so, what changes can be implemented?

Do some of you even think it's necessary for some change to occur in order to have long term economic growth?

[BeemerMike]

As I sit here reading about the impending doom we are all facing due to the potential demise of more large corporations, it leaves me wondering, is it possible to change the corporate culture that lead to our current situation?

I guess that depends on whether it is actually true that our corporate culture is really the primary driver that lead to our current situation. I do not believe that is a given. There is a lot of evidence and opinion that bad government policies (and not just during the last 8 years) are the biggest contributors to the problems today.

Top management of companies seem to be more concerned with their salaries and bonuses, than the employees that work for them or the product/service they sell. In comparison to foreign companies, top management pay is far above the competition (Am I wrong here?). And, some of them have provided poor leadership and decisions. Can we (the US) have long term economic stability without some fundamental change with regards to top management? If so, what changes can be implemented?

Yes, I believe it is true that in general U.S. corporate top management make much more than their European counterparts, but then the European economies and corporations are not doing any better (and mostly worse) than the U.S. Some large U.S. corporations are doing quite well, thank you. I think you have to look at each individual company to determine what the problems really are, and not try to generalize too much.

Do some of you even think it's necessary for some change to occur in order to have long term economic growth?

Difficult question. I think a person's answer probably is driven mostly by where along the free-market capitalism vs. government-directed economy seriatim they are.

[j-budimlya]

there has been a lot of "change" in the world economy in the last 10 years.....throw in a war or two......and ask about the use of government "incentives" of all sorts to minipulate the economy in lots of ways....mostly non-sustainable.....and you get a large "adjustment" as the result.....

Hey, look at the bright side....oil is way cheaper.....and since oil's price rise was blamed for so many troubles on the way up......the fix should be right around the corner with its price fall.....

Yeah, I'm a wishful thinker......

[PGlaves]

Until corporate management and governance is enabled to plan for the best outcomes for a company on a five or ten year time horizon instead of a 3 month time horizon to keep stock values up and stock holders happy this quarter, we won't see much change.

Real management and company building doesn't happen in a 3 month time cycle, and what maximizes net after tax return on investment in the current quarter is not likely to produce the best long term reinvestment strategy.

Lest you think I made this up, ask Warren Buffett.

[j-budimlya]

Until corporate management and governance is enabled to plan for the best outcomes for a company on a five or ten year time horizon instead of a 3 month time horizon to keep stock values up and stock holders happy this quarter, we won't see much change.

Real management and company building doesn't happen in a 3 month time cycle, and what maximizes net after tax return on investment in the current quarter is not likely to produce the best long term reinvestment strategy.

Lest you think I made this up, ask Warren Buffett.

While some of this is true.....Warren is now inveesting in public companies.....likes to invest long term.....but not always.

[PGlaves]

While some of this is true.....Warren is now inveesting in public companies.....likes to invest long term.....but not always.

He is bright enough to grab a bargain when it is available.

And he likes to get a big enough share to get them to do it his way.

[88bmwJeff]

I guess that depends on whether it is actually true that our corporate culture is really the primary driver that lead to our current situation. I do not believe that is a given. There is a lot of evidence and opinion that bad government policies (and not just during the last 8 years) are the biggest contributors to the problems today.

Although our government policies may have contributed to our current predicament, the people in control of these companies bear a bigger responsibility. It may not be illegal to lend money to anyone, but making sure they can pay it back should be prudent business practice. This did not happen, which is why WaMu, National City, and the likes are bankrupt. IMO, this has to do with corporate culture to earn a quick buck rather than make prudent long-term growth plans.

[BeemerMike]

Until corporate management and governance is enabled to plan for the best outcomes for a company on a five or ten year time horizon instead of a 3 month time horizon to keep stock values up and stock holders happy this quarter, we won't see much change.

Some companies today ARE managed this way . . . sometimes to the consternation and frustration of others who want them to fritter away piles of money chasing the energy fad of the day. Those companies are weathering this storm much better than others. :whistle

[BeemerMike]

Although our government policies may have contributed to our current predicament, the people in control of these companies bear a bigger responsibility. It may not be illegal to lend money to anyone, but making sure they can pay it back should be prudent business practice. This did not happen, which is why WaMu, National City, and the likes are bankrupt. IMO, this has to do with corporate culture to earn a quick buck rather than make prudent long-term growth plans.

Let me suggest you do some research into what the Justice Department was doing in the late-1990's under the Community Reinvestment Act to "encourage" lenders to make loans to people who really could not qualify (remember "red-lining"), and also what Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were doing (with Congressional encouragement) in the 2000's to take the risk away from these loans to marginal borrowers (and also property "flippers"), which of course made it more lucrative for lenders to make these riskier loans. Of course, you don't really take the risk away . . . it only seems so.

I have no doubt that some of the lenders were greedy about this (but not all - look at who is buying up whom), but they got a lot of encouragement from the government to do so. It is important to understand the whole picture so that we do not repeat the same mistakes in the future.

[PGlaves]

Some companies today ARE managed this way . . . sometimes to the consternation and frustration of others who want them to fritter away piles of money chasing the energy fad of the day. Those companies are weathering this storm much better than others. :whistle

Yes Mike, some are: most aren't.

Part of what they teach in business school and class action law class about the fiduciary duty to the stockholders to maximize the present value of the company.

[j-budimlya]

Let me suggest you do some research into what the Justice Department was doing in the late-1990's under the Community Reinvestment Act to "encourage" lenders to make loans to people who really could not qualify (remember "red-lining"), and also what Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were doing (with Congressional encouragement) in the 2000's to take the risk away from these loans to marginal borrowers (and also property "flippers"), which of course made it more lucrative for lenders to make these riskier loans. Of course, you don't really take the risk away . . . it only seems so.

I have no doubt that some of the lenders were greedy about this (but not all - look at who is buying up whom), but they got a lot of encouragement from the government to do so. It is important to understand the whole picture so that we do not repeat the same mistakes in the future.

Greed and Power are funny things......its so easy to drink a little, like the effect, and learn how drink lot's more.....:drink

It happens in local and national politics.....just like it happens in small and large businesses.....we all have been tempted in one way or another over our lives. we tend to have this kind of conversation about the really big obviously stupid results, but in our own ways.....almost all of us have had at least a sip or two :stick over the years.....me too. Of course, just not enough to be rich or retire early(in my case) but enough to know the "feeling". So, its not too hard to understand how this happens.

INteresting to see that the "smartest and best", the Harvard Trust with a net worth of something like $50 billion....got hit pretty hard by this market fall off. I guess the folks in Cambridge aren't that smart.:D

[Voni]

Is it necessary to change corporate culture in America?

In a word, yes!

They really don't get it.

Big Three auto CEOs flew private jets to ask for taxpayer money
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/19/autos.ceo.jets/index.html

Voni

[indycar]

Let me suggest you do some research into what the Justice Department was doing in the late-1990's under the Community Reinvestment Act to "encourage" lenders to make loans to people who really could not qualify (remember "red-lining"), and also what Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were doing (with Congressional encouragement) in the 2000's to take the risk away from these loans to marginal borrowers (and also property "flippers"), which of course made it more lucrative for lenders to make these riskier loans. Of course, you don't really take the risk away . . . it only seems so.

I have no doubt that some of the lenders were greedy about this (but not all - look at who is buying up whom), but they got a lot of encouragement from the government to do so. It is important to understand the whole picture so that we do not repeat the same mistakes in the future.

Well, yea. But this is not the cause of our problems. Home ownership is a good thing, and I think what was driving this policy more then anything was that home ownership stimulates the economy. And, despite what some might want folks to believe, this is not a partisan issue. Both Bubba and Dubya were encouraging this. And for many (the vast majority) of new home owners - it was worked well - while many talking heads would like one to believe otherwise. And as pointed out, an LOT of bankers/brokers made out like bandits. Think the banking industry wasn't licking their chops and deploying their powerful lobby?

But inherent in politics is the want to be reelected, and this seems to trump pretty much everything else when it comes to decisions. This leads to the short-sighted policies (also followed by many corporations in the US) or crisis management.

Let's not overlook the pathetically lax oversight/enforcement of anti-trust laws. Banking, media, telecoms and others are having a hayday - each becoming in effect - 'to big to allow to fail'

In a sense, it seems to me we have been trying to milk along a struggling economy for quite some time, there's no doubt the housing boom was helping accomplish this. How often did you and I hear the administration point to the housing market or the Dow and declare the economy healthy? Of course we all know, those in and of themselves are only a small part of the economic picture, and I would submit that most of us have known to a greater or lessor degree that the 'emperor has no clothes' - we have seen job, wage and benefit loss throughout our community.

[James.A]

Until the U.S. government adopts a lassiez-faire policy toward capitalism and allows markets to self-regulate, we will continue to see the law of un-intended consequences create distortions.

[BeemerMike]

Greed and Power are funny things......its so easy to drink a little, like the effect, and learn how drink lot's more.....:drink

Like my daddy said, "If you build a trough and fill it with free slop, don't be surprised if some of the hogs come and eat it." ;)

[BeemerMike]

Until the U.S. government adopts a lassiez-faire policy toward capitalism and allows markets to self-regulate, we will continue to see the law of un-intended consequences create distortions.

I personally do not believe we will (or should) ever have complete laissez-faire capitalism in the U.S., because I think the end result would be a society that is just too cutthroat for most people's sense of what our society should be. However, I also believe that our goal should be to stay as close to laissez-faire as we can, instead of trying to move far in the other direction.

Recent history (say, the last 100 years) has clearly shown that government-directed economies are just not as productive and efficient as capitalistic economies. In government-directed economies the economic pie may be more equally distributed among society, but the total pie is also smaller. And therein lies the conundrum.

I think the political debate we will have in the next few years will fundamentally involve how far away from laissez-faire capitalism and toward a government-directed economy we should move the U.S., although I doubt the debate will be framed in those terms.

[BeemerMike]

But this is not the cause of our problems. Home ownership is a good thing, and I think what was driving this policy more then anything was that home ownership stimulates the economy. And, despite what some might want folks to believe, this is not a partisan issue.

Home ownership IS a good thing . . . right up until the time a significant number of "owners" start defaulting on their loans because they weren't really qualified for the loan in the first place. Then, as we have seen, it can be a really bad thing.

Whether or not this is a partisan issue sort of depends who was pushing the policies that caused the problem, and why were they pushing them. It MAY have been solely to stimulate the economy, or it may have been for some other reasons. A lot of differences of opinion on this.

[BeemerMike]

Part of what they teach in business school and class action law class about the fiduciary duty to the stockholders to maximize the present value of the company.

Paul,

No doubt. Sounds like the business schools need to change what they teach.

[lightning]

[QUOTE=BeemerMike;390993]Home ownership IS a good thing . . . right up until the time a significant number of "owners" start defaulting on their loans because they weren't really qualified for the loan in the first place. Then, as we have seen, it can be a really bad thing.

Outlawing redlining did not do away with the banking industry's obligation to make "good" loans. Most of the loans going bad were "boobytrapped" loans. They were meant to end up in foreclosure. The only problem for the criminals who made these loans was that housing prices dropped.

We have had liars and thieves in charge of this country long enough. Yes, our management culture needs to change.

[BeemerMike]

Outlawing redlining did not do away with the banking industry's obligation to make "good" loans.

Not wanting to start any argument, but I just suggest that you need to do a little more research into what the Justice Department was doing in the late-1990's under the Community Reinvestment Act and the anti-discrimination laws to "encourage" lenders to make loans to people who could not meet the lenders' loan qualification criteria for making "good" loans.

[lightning]

Not wanting to start any argument, but I just suggest that you need to do a little more research into what the Justice Department was doing in the late-1990's under the Community Reinvestment Act and the anti-discrimination laws to "encourage" lenders to make loans to people who could not meet the lenders' loan qualification criteria for making "good" loans.

No argument necessary. The facts are that people who had never participated in the advanced portion of our monetary system were sold exploding mortgages.

[Mika]

In all these discussions I am reminded of the Biblical admonition to remove the beam from your own eye before removing the sliver in someone else’s.


Yes corporate culture needs to change.

I am a firm believer in the laws of unintended consequences; however, I am less sanguine about lezzie-faire capitalism and the ability of any form of market to self regulate.

Government bodies at all levels regularly demonstrate that bad laws taxes and regulations can be parented by any political perspective and can play out either by what is done or what is not done.

The market part of all the discussions analysis and calls for various changes both economic and political that is missing for me is us. Individuals can not change corporate culture beyond the corporation that they are a part of. Individuals can not perform their role in the electorate or body politic if they do not look beyond the headline d’jour and try and understand the underlying issues.

In any television business show and in so much of what I read there are vast quantities of information. What I am regularly dumfounded by is the total inability of people involved in these shows or interviewed for articles to answer the question – Okay how does this impact the average citizen and what should they do?

If the Warren Buffets of the world offer a model of any kind for me it is found in their taking the time to understand themselves, warts and all; then going out and investigating and investing on that understanding.

[BeemerMike]

The facts are that people who had never participated in the advanced portion of our monetary system were sold exploding mortgages.

And why do you think this did not happen before the late-1990's?

[lightning]

Because the "funny money" (mortgage-backed derivatives) was just being expanded and accelerated?

[Mika]

Fewer people with MBAs? :bolt

[BeemerMike]

Because the "funny money" (mortgage-backed derivatives) was just being expanded and accelerated?

Please read this 1999 article (pre-Bush) from the New York Times (hardly a bastion of Republican/conservative defenders) that provides a contemporary analysis of what was going on, and obviously not written during the heat of the current meltdown:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F9582 60&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

And also this more recent article in the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122298982558700341.html

A little more "overall" perspective on the history, from both a "liberal" source and from a "conservative" source.

[88bmwJeff]

Recent history (say, the last 100 years) has clearly shown that government-directed economies are just not as productive and efficient as capitalistic economies. In government-directed economies the economic pie may be more equally distributed among society, but the total pie is also smaller. And therein lies the conundrum.

I'm unaware of any government-direct economy that wasn't also a dictatorship. Perhaps one exists, but I'm unaware of it. I would love to see how a socialist economy would work in an environment that was not oppressed by the government as well. I'm not saying we (the US) should move that direction. I'm just curious how well that country would function.

[BeemerMike]

I'm unaware of any government-direct economy that wasn't also a dictatorship.

Well, the people of Venezuela have freely elected and re-elected Hugo Chavez. Of course, we'll see how long those free elections last after the Venezuelan economy continues to shrink for awhile.

[88bmwJeff]

Please read this 1999 article (pre-Bush) from the New York Times (hardly a bastion of Republican/conservative defenders) that provides a contemporary analysis of what was going on, and obviously not written during the heat of the current meltdown:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F9582 60&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

And also this more recent article in the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122298982558700341.html

A little more "overall" perspective on the history, from both a "liberal" source and from a "conservative" source.

I read both articles, and this is not new information to me. The NY Times article stated

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

The way I read this is that the blame goes partly to the politicians and to the corporate culture.

I do not discount your statement that politicians hold some of the blame. I get the sense that your thought is that most of the blame rests with the politicians, and that I disagree with.

The "mess" we are in is more complex than just the housing market falling apart. Another piece of the puzzle is that Americans had been living of the equity of their homes, which dry up a few years ago when home values started leveling off. Now that values are declining, people no longer have the same access to money they once had. Consequently, we are seeing a contraction of the retail sector.

[88bmwJeff]

Well, the people of Venezuela have freely elected and re-elected Hugo Chavez. Of course, we'll see how long those free elections last after the Venezuelan economy continues to shrink for awhile.


Thanks for the education.

[lightning]

Here's a fresh one showing how it was done properly.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/169160

[The_Veg]

Welcome to the NEW robber-baron era. Economic disparity grows by leaps and bounds, business has too much influence on government, and us little people matter less and less.

[BeemerMike]

The way I read this is that the blame goes partly to the politicians and to the corporate culture.

I do not discount your statement that politicians hold some of the blame. I get the sense that your thought is that most of the blame rests with the politicians, and that I disagree with.

I am not always sure what people mean when they say "corporate culture", but I agree that part of the blame lies with politicians and the government and part of the blame lies with the lending companies (as I said in an earlier post).

The problem we face for the future is that it seems a lot of people believe that ALL of the blame lies with the "greedy corporations" and NONE of the blame lies with the politicians and the government. As a result, they tend to support MORE government involvement, without really critically examining what the government plans to do and what effects it will have. That gets us into the "unintended consequences" danger zone.

[PGlaves]

I am not always sure what people mean when they say "corporate culture", but I agree that part of the blame lies with politicians and the government and part of the blame lies with the lending companies (as I said in an earlier post).

The problem we face for the future is that it seems a lot of people believe that ALL of the blame lies with the "greedy corporations" and NONE of the blame lies with the politicians and the government. As a result, they tend to support MORE government involvement, without really critically examining what the government plans to do and what effects it will have. That gets us into the "unintended consequences" danger zone.

There is - and probably always will be - a certain tension between those who view the private sector's excesses as bad and those who view the government's regulatory role as bad. And in the best of times this tension results is compromises that result in a healthy, albeit regulated, economy and a socially desirable structure of incomes and wealth, education, health care, and other socially desirable goods and services.

And at other times the pendulum swings and we go one way or the other toward an extreme. And each time, after a while the pendulum swings back. In the process, each swing gives one position or the other the rhetorical ammunition ready to use to try to swing the pendulum again. Because as a nation our extremes - to the left or to the right - have never come close to producing the results the advocates of either has promised. And each side, of course, always argues that the failure is because they weren't given a chance for a long enough period of time.

That is the way it has been, is, and is likely to be in the future.

Tick, tock, tick, tock.

[DarkCloud]

Tooth and Tail Ratio

You need to move people from the tail into the tooth.

Its easy to do. Friday night at the factory, have security cancel all employees badges except the production workers badges except the payroll clerk. Then as emergency requires recall only essential administrative workers unless their work can be outsourced to consultants or outside contractors. Just like the security, janitorial, etc., that have been outsourced.

Need more jobs, impose an import tariff on all countries that don't have balanced trade with ours. This is scary, if you take prescriptions check and see how many are made in the USA? Imagine all the jobs that could be created there.

Ever consider how fast a blue collar worker would last if he had to network, have a meeting to discuss, set up a committee to research, have a consultant do their job, or attend a seminar/convention?

I'd like a tax on all employers that don't pay living wages. It could be added at the time of purchase. Housing, food stamps, medical care, all the benefits the tax payer picks up for the employers. Lets give everybody equal footing.

JON

[Bob_M]

The"genius of the marketplace" has conspired with government to validate war profiteering. When John Steinbeck (commie or humanist?) wrote East of Eden it was such a sin to profit from war that the story's patriarch disowned his adult son who had invested in bean futures prior to WWI. Now several large corporations and "security" firms relish the fog of war for the riches they can skim there. The ethic is profit at any cost.

Corporate culture needs to change. I remember when Stanley (hinges and tools) planned to move their corporate HQ to Bermuda (or somewhere ofshore) so they would not have to pay taxes, and they were shamed into staying. (for a while anyway) Somehow more corporations need to be made to feel like they are members of society and that their participation is important to things beyond profits at any cost.

[BeemerMike]

There is - and probably always will be - a certain tension between those who view the private sector's excesses as bad and those who view the government's regulatory role as bad.

True (although I don't think it is really the private sector "excesses", which I think most people would view as bad, that are the issue; it is more those that believe the private sector is bad) . . . and unfortunately we, as a society and as small groups, do not seem to be able to discuss this and related issues in a rational, logical manner without quickly devolving into a name-calling food fight. :cry

[john1691]

I'd like a tax on all employers that don't pay living wages. It could be added at the time of purchase. Housing, food stamps, medical care, all the benefits the tax payer picks up for the employers. Lets give everybody equal footing.

JON

Who decides what a "living wage" is? Is there a sliding scale, based on education level? What about age? Do I have to pay the same to a teenager who scans groceries as I do a single mom? What about white collar jobs? Shouldn't they also then be equal footing? I mean, if a lawer has to go to college and then get a licence to practice law, and a plumber has to go to trade school, work as a jouneyman and get a license to work, shouldn't they earn the same? Why aren't doctors and nurses paid the same?

I'm also wondering how housing, foodstamps and medical care are "benefits the tax payer picks up for the employer"? Why would it be the employer's responcibility to provide anything? The business is there to make the owner money, a bi-product of that is the opportunity for employment. If an individual has a skill that the employer needs, they come to an agreement as to what work will be done, and at what wage. If the wage isn't high enough, or the benefits not to their liking, they are free to pursue work elsewhere. If the employer can't find workers, they will eventually either raise their wages, or add benefits. If the worker can't find any job that pays a wage they are willing to work at, they need to improve their skills, learn new skills, or move to an area with more options. The business is not there to supply jobs/wages/benefits, it was started to make the owner a profit.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights don't promise high wages, vacation days, health insurance (health insurance wasn't even around until the '50's) cell phones, cable TV, iPods, Wii, central A/C, multiple color TV in Hi-Def. The "poor" in our country have a higher standard of living than my grandparents had, and they thought of themselves as middle class. Stop the free handout to people who can work but don't. Stop the free daycare, breakfast, lunch and supper for kids whose parents don't/wont work. Stop the corporate handouts for baseball stadiums and who knows what. Stop the farm handouts for not growing on certain acres or growing this crop or that. Stop the elderly handouts for people who use Social Security Insurance for a retirement plan, that isn't what it was created for. Start a true flat tax, based on gross income, no deductions, just a simple percentage of actual income. Get back to having the government govern, not "buy" votes from every interest group out there with their hands out.

But then, I must be an evil right-winger, not caring about fellow man, right? Then how is it that I give a higher percentage of my income to charity than our President and Vice President elect, combined? Goverment is not the answer.

[BeemerMike]

The business is not there to supply jobs/wages/benefits, it was started to make the owner a profit.

:lurk Well, it will be interesting to see whether or not we have consensus agreement on this statement. ;)

[Mika]

:lurk Well, it will be interesting to see whether or not we have consensus agreement on this statement. ;)

: ha Consensus? Here! :ha

The profit motif isn’t to hard to limit the number of fights over, it is how you get there and what you need to include to do business over the long haul.

:lurk

[Mika]

:lurk Well, it will be interesting to see whether or not we have consensus agreement on this statement. ;)

:ha Consensus? Here! :ha

The profit motif isn’t to hard to limit the number of fights over, it is how you get there and what you need to include to do business over the long haul.

:lurk

[BeemerMike]

The profit motif isn’t to hard to limit the number of fights over, it is how you get there and what you need to include to do business over the long haul.

Really? Three words . . .

Windfall

Profits

Tax

"We're not saying you did anything wrong (otherwise, we would prosecute you), but we just think you made too much money doing it . . . so we're taking some of the money away from you. Keep up the good work!" ;)

[Mika]

Really? Three words . . .

Windfall

Profits

Tax

"We're not saying you did anything wrong (otherwise, we would prosecute you), but we just think you made too much money doing it . . . so we're taking some of the money away from you. Keep up the good work!" ;)

:rofl…Like I said, consensus…here…:rofl

The reason a business is formed is you think you can make a buck i.e. profit doing it. If that is not the underlying goal of a business you’re running a charitable organization no matter how the IRS classes you.

What needs to go into the expense mix to create the product sell and make that buck is the first place consensus breaks down and fights break out. The second is having made the buck how do you protect it.

That businesses are started to make a profit is easy for most of us to agree on after that its Katie bar the door.

[88bmwJeff]

I'd like a tax on all employers that don't pay living wages. It could be added at the time of purchase. Housing, food stamps, medical care, all the benefits the tax payer picks up for the employers. Lets give everybody equal footing. JON

While I think corporate executives are paid too much, and perhaps they don't pay some of their working folk enough either, taxing companies is not a good option. Taxes on companies is just a hidden tax on consumers, since they pass it on to the consumer. So in the end, increasing taxes on companies only increases the costs of the goods we purchase.

[PGlaves]

we, as a society and as small groups, do not seem to be able to discuss this and related issues in a rational, logical manner without quickly devolving into a name-calling food fight. :cry

Well, George H.W. Bush (senior) once declared he was the President, and didn't have to eat his broccoli anymore. That was a start. I hate cooked cauliflower.

Food fight! :eat

[john1691]

Here we are having a grown up conversation, and right away Paul has to get ugly by bringing vegetables into it! :laugh

[lightning]

Who decides what a "living wage" is? Is there a sliding scale, based on education level? What about age? Do I have to pay the same to a teenager who scans groceries as I do a single mom? What about white collar jobs? Shouldn't they also then be equal footing? I mean, if a lawer has to go to college and then get a licence to practice law, and a plumber has to go to trade school, work as a jouneyman and get a license to work, shouldn't they earn the same? Why aren't doctors and nurses paid the same?

I'm also wondering how housing, foodstamps and medical care are "benefits the tax payer picks up for the employer"? Why would it be the employer's responcibility to provide anything? The business is there to make the owner money, a bi-product of that is the opportunity for employment. If an individual has a skill that the employer needs, they come to an agreement as to what work will be done, and at what wage. If the wage isn't high enough, or the benefits not to their liking, they are free to pursue work elsewhere. If the employer can't find workers, they will eventually either raise their wages, or add benefits. If the worker can't find any job that pays a wage they are willing to work at, they need to improve their skills, learn new skills, or move to an area with more options. The business is not there to supply jobs/wages/benefits, it was started to make the owner a profit.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights don't promise high wages, vacation days, health insurance (health insurance wasn't even around until the '50's) cell phones, cable TV, iPods, Wii, central A/C, multiple color TV in Hi-Def. The "poor" in our country have a higher standard of living than my grandparents had, and they thought of themselves as middle class. Stop the free handout to people who can work but don't. Stop the free daycare, breakfast, lunch and supper for kids whose parents don't/wont work. Stop the corporate handouts for baseball stadiums and who knows what. Stop the farm handouts for not growing on certain acres or growing this crop or that. Stop the elderly handouts for people who use Social Security Insurance for a retirement plan, that isn't what it was created for. Start a true flat tax, based on gross income, no deductions, just a simple percentage of actual income. Get back to having the government govern, not "buy" votes from every interest group out there with their hands out.

But then, I must be an evil right-winger, not caring about fellow man, right? Then how is it that I give a higher percentage of my income to charity than our President and Vice President elect, combined? Goverment is not the answer.


Can I have your RS if you get tired of it?

[john1691]

Can I have your RS if you get tired of it?

I assume you are asking that question because of my comment on percentage of giving. But since you ask, I am tired of it, and would be willing to sell it to you, seeing as I am in business :D , and therefore out to make a profit (never seems to work with the bikes though). If you happen to be in the neighborhood, or willing to travel, I'll let you borrow it and go riding with you.

However, if you are a registered non-profit, with a history of doing good in the community, and have an overhead vs. end user benefit ratio of at least 10/90, preferrably 5/95, I would consider making a donation. Or, if you need construction help, I would consider giving up my vacation to come work on your project, like Katrina relief or Habitat, you just have to feed me. :eat :drink

[PGlaves]

Try this:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/columnists.nsf/billmcclellan/story/34318E27CD6799AC862575080015AEEA?OpenDocument

[lkchris]

As I sit here reading about the impending doom we are all facing due to the potential demise of more large corporations, it leaves me wondering, is it possible to change the corporate culture that lead to our current situation?

Clearly you haven't worked in government, where in comparison nothing gets done.

Plus, all your politician friends have been saying for years they can create jobs and manage the economy. Why is this not their fault?

It wasn't "corporations" that passed the bills ok ing mortagages for those who couldn't pay.

More paying attention would be a good thing.

The bottom line is ... welcome to the Obama economy.

[PGlaves]

The bottom line is ... welcome to the Obama economy.

Uhm, did I miss the inauguration or something. I thought GWB the younger was still the President. Must have been a longer nap than I thought.

[lightning]

Try this:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/columnists.nsf/billmcclellan/story/34318E27CD6799AC862575080015AEEA?OpenDocument

That's a good article. I would personally like to see the folks behind the boobytrapped mortgages and mortgage-backed derivatives in prison.

[r11rs94]

While I think corporate executives are paid too much, and perhaps they don't pay some of their working folk enough either, taxing companies is not a good option. Taxes on companies is just a hidden tax on consumers, since they pass it on to the consumer. So in the end, increasing taxes on companies only increases the costs of the goods we purchase.

:dunno Thats why we should stop taxing business all together, and earned income. Lets instead tax people on what they buy. You want that million dollar yacht, or hundred thousand car, or twenty two thousand dollar BMW GS then fine, purchase it and pay the consumer tax. Let business and workers keep what they earn. To easy I guess.

[James.A]

Excuse me! What do we currently have in the U.S.? Tight regulations of the market? Where exactly do you live? California?
Actually, I live in Illinois. It is a high tax state. Not as high as CA or NY but certainly in the top 10.

I absolutely loved it when the media would get Ron Paul on a quiz segment. Any pundit from any end of the bias spectrum would ask him a question, and you would see him pause for a moment while he applied libertarian thinking to the question before he offered a response. How rare and precious, a THINKING politician.

The great failure of pure libertarianism is that it fails to recognize the internationalist role that U.S. foriegn policy must play in advancing the national interest of the United States of America. It was in our interest to defeat fascism in the 1940's. It was in our interest to oppose and subdue Soviet Communism during the "Cold War". Those were desireable goals that wouldn't be allowed for in PURE libertarianism.

Tightly regulated markets? Not in the Marxist, central planning sense, but consider this as an example. Subsidy and mandate for ethanol as a motor fuel creates an otherwise non-existent demand for grain rescources that might otherwise be used to service the food chain. The result is higher prices for the raw materials used in food production. This is a (free) market response to a demand that is created by a non-free market mandate. ( mandatory and subsidised and tarrif protected utilization of a finite rescource) The un-intended consequence is higher food prices or less competition amongst food producers as producers quit the market in the face of limited resources and higher prices. This is but one example of regulation distorting market function. Apply this analysis to any other class of goods or services, and the result would be the same.

Any market that is subject to government interference, through subsidy, taxation or regulatory control, is equally distorted beyond the pure function of supply and demand and therefore unable to self regulate.

[aaaaaa]

Thick as a brick. Let your hair grow out to unclog your brain. I don't care if it's 23 degrees tomorrow AM, I'm going for a ride to get some air. I'm going to cheat and take the oilhead RT and wear heated socks. What was this thread about?
robert

[Oldhway]

Thick as a brick. Let your hair grow out to unclog your brain. I don't care if it's 23 degrees tomorrow AM, I'm going for a ride to get some air. I'm going to cheat and take the oilhead RT and wear heated socks. What was this thread about?
robert

Not really sure but I commend the membership for handling it in a very civil and intelligent manner.:thumb

Almost self regulating like:bolt

[lightning]

Thick as a brick. Let your hair grow out to unclog your brain. I don't care if it's 23 degrees tomorrow AM, I'm going for a ride to get some air. I'm going to cheat and take the oilhead RT and wear heated socks. What was this thread about?
robert

I'm with you. I went down to the Iron Pony in Columbus today and got some winter overalls and new gloves. It's supposed to be 40 degrees and sunny here tomorrow.

:thumb

[R80RTJohnny]

Ultimately it will come down to the People. The People enjoy a dual role as both consumer of goods and as electors of representatives (decision makers).

What "Will" is stronger? That of consumer (do CEO's need corporate jets, millions in salary and stock option) or as as citizens (should my taxes - personal, consumer and others) be used to bail out companies with a hand out. Where will the citizen draw the line?

Does the corporate culture in Amerca need to change. Only the People will tell.

[88bmwJeff]

QUOTE=lkchris;391796]Clearly you haven't worked in government, where in comparison nothing gets done.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, many large companies have as much if not more red tape than the Government. Take the health insurance industry. It's taken our insurance company almost about six months to respond to a claim, and then they deny it because the "accounting code" is incorrect. Now our health provider used a form provided by our insurance company. Besides how hard is it to fill in the proper accounting? The only way they knew it was the wrong one was to have the correct one. They are either going to repay us or not, but to send the whole thing back is just a complete waste of time.

How about his for comparison? In CA, individuals who pay into the State Disability Insurance (SDI) are allowed to take six weeks paid leave to care for a family member. Note, this is not paid by the employer. The state was very quick in getting the forms and check out to me. All in all, it took less than a month to get the forms send them in, and receive the check.

This is only two examples and there are plenty of examples of how the private sector is more efficient than the public sector. But, it’s incorrect to assume that the private sector will always have a better, cheaper and quicker solution than the government.



Plus, all your politician friends have been saying for years they can create jobs and manage the economy. Why is this not their fault?

It wasn't "corporations" that passed the bills ok ing mortgages for those who couldn't pay.

No, but it was those “corporations” that made the loans. So who’s at fault here? BOTH the politicians AND the corporations.


FWIW, I posed the question they way I did because most people probably agree change in Washington would be a good thing; therefore, it wasn’t necessary. I wanted to concentrate on the private sector, and in no way have I implied the politicians didn’t’ have a roll in our current situation. That’s just a different topic.

[Rpbump]

Americans need to wean themselves from government programs and the government needs to let big business fail/succeed without interference. The massive debt we are saddling our children and grandchildren with cannot go unchecked. Ride Safe :usa

[James.A]

Americans need to wean themselves from government programs and the government needs to let big business fail/succeed without interference. The massive debt we are saddling our children and grandchildren with cannot go unchecked. Ride Safe :usa

Brilliant!

[James.A]

In the next several days, I will offer my ideas for how the corporate culture needs to change to restore a somewhat more muted and restrained concept of corporate governance. Stay tuned.....

[BeemerMike]

In the next several days, I will offer my ideas for how the corporate culture needs to change to restore a somewhat more muted and restrained concept of corporate governance. Stay tuned.....

I can hardly wait to get back from my Thanksgiving trip to see what is posted. It will especially interesting to see what role/responsibility/blame you feel the government has in all of this (if any), and what you think the interelationship is. :lurk

[James.A]

In a pure, perfect world the government would play NO role in corporate governance. Any enterprise should stand or fall on the basis of performance relative to its customers and their willingness to continue to pay real money for the goods or services provided. Now then, I think there should be a strict, low limit (2 maybe) to how many boards of directors any individual can sit on. This would limit conflicts of interest and compel directors to focus on the operations of the companies they are obligated to administer. Executive compensation should be aligned with publicly reported, audited profits, and not on stock price. (eliminate stock options) Sustained profitablity is more desireable than fleeting fluctuations in stock price and executive compensation should be de-coupled from stock price entirely. Again, a board of directors is the only entity that is rightly enabled to adopt these kind of terms. No government has the standing, in my mind, to impose this sort of governance on a any company. By the same criteria, the government, (you and I) should have no obligation to support any corporation that has failed to create value and generate profits.

[kantuckid]

I was a caddy from the 5th grade(big kid that lied about his age) on into college and can tell you who cheated @ golf the most-Car dealers(read owners of dealerships), insurance execs,company big bosses(now called CEO'S & the like) and real estate guys! Doctors nor dentists didn't seem to cheat, but liked to talk about their patients-pretty interesting stuff for a kid to hear!I guess they still cheat?
On the mortgage issue, it sticks in my craw that that my personal experience has been that in the late 1960's I was a foreman in a meat packing plant ,making plenty of money and was turned down for a mortgage to buy a conservative house(I just went and built one out of pocket) -because I was single. I had 1/2 down! for the house and a great credit rating so go figure? In 1980 after 2 years of personal labor building my current home, I applied for a mortgage(converting a construction loan) and we had a farm 50% payed for and were looking for $40,000 for the farm and house(house probably 200k value now) and I/we were being offered 17.5% interest and nobody would sell me insurance(for fear I would burn it). It was a challenging time, to say the least. Now we fast forward to now, when my sister-in-law can live in a 1/2 million $ house(she sells real estate-shes very pretty and doesn't know s**t about a house ) and she doesn't have a pot to piss in! You go in her garage and she doesn't seem to own a broom much less a mower , etc.. It doesn't take an economist to figure it out as to why we are in a fix. Car dealers are saying they don't have credit to finance deals-who, the ones that the ads say don't need good credit or money down and that can be upside down to the tune of more than their trade is worth?
Our society has turned in recent years on a house of cards that just could not/cannot continue! When my wife was a social worker in the early 1970's she would get calls from stores, etc., that had given credit to her welfare clients that had no job and some had never had a job! The ads now say they WANT to make sales to that kind of person? Will it get back to the good old times soon? Yesterdays paper says"Obama Administration Prepares Massive Economic Package, so I guess theres hope!

[BeemerMike]

Will it get back to the good old times soon? Yesterdays paper says"Obama Administration Prepares Massive Economic Package, so I guess theres hope!

Hmmmmm . . . not sure how those two sentences relate to each other. What are the "good old times" that you refer to, and how will the "Massive Economic Package" get us back there (and, for that matter, what IS the Massive Economic Package?)?

[pffog]

Hey good things coming with the new Car Czar, being guided by our top quality elected officials.

Introducing the new offering from Congressional motors!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAqPMJFaEdY

[sjbmw]

4 pages of symptoms, and no one states the disease itself.

As long as the Federal Reserve system exists, the boom bust cycle of the economy will continue, and with every bust, our wealth is confiscated, and the pain will be even greater.

All that changes is the names of the players the current go round. This time, it's the "evil" corporations. But no one wants to address a system that is germane to debt, feeds debt, survives on debt, and controls all matter of finance to perpetuate debt.

We as a nation have failed to heed the warnings, and believe the distractions being put upon us.


"All the perplexities, confusion and distresses in America arise not from defects
in the Constitution or confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, as much from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation." - John Adams.


"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies . . . If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] . . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered . . . The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson -- The Debate Over The Recharter Of The Bank Bill, (1809)


http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/gnazzo/2005/1129.html

What we are experiencing today is not a mystery, it's easy to figure out, easy to predict, and the media and the schools are not going to educate anyone to the reality. The next bubble to burst will be in US treasuries, and that will be the end of the dollar. Everyone holding dollars will find their wealth gone in a puff of digital smoke. This is the nature of the machine itself. Since the Federal Reserve cartel is in the process of cornering the gold market, and now owns all those foreclosed homes (we paid them for the privilege of owning them), they will have massive amounts of gold, land (ever wonder why a broke US government is buying Wilderness areas? COLLATERAL) and the people will be holding the worthless paper.