Corporate Greed

[pocketfullofshells]

No - I do not care about economic inequality. It is a meaningless arbitrary measure. Why are you worse off if a billionaire gets richer? If that same billionaire takes all his money and moves it overseas the measure of inequality would suddenly look a little more equitable - but has anything changed - is anyone any better off?

Let's take Exxon for example. That bastion of 'big greedy oil" that just expands on the backs of the poor people they exploit right? If only Exxon would do something to benefit the country and stop being so greedy just to make themselves "richer" right?

Let's slow down and examine reality. According to the American Petroleum Institute, private and public pension funds – managing assets on behalf of more than 60 million U.S. households in 145 million accounts – own nearly a third of all shares in U.S. oil and gas companies. Mutual funds and individual retirement plans account for nearly 40 percent more. So who benefits when Exxon succeeds? The odds are you do. You want to crusade for higher taxes and taking more from companies like Exxon - you need to be honest with yourself and recognize you are not crusading against billionaires - you are demanding what amounts to lower returns for over 145 million Americans via their retirement funds - all in the name of "fairness."

Take a look at what happens to nations with massive economicy inequality. see you you care then. Its normaly not good, and often bloody.

and yes, actually when 90% off new wealth goes to top 1 percent rather then the working class...that effects me. And yes it effects me when money thats being paid out to CEO's and stock holders, does not go back to the workers...Because 1 I am one of the workers, and 2 my income is dependent on the working class having enough money to spend, so I get commissions. I don't make most of my income off the super Rich .

 

[BigRob]

Take a look at what happens to nations with massive economicy inequality. see you you care then. Its normaly not good, and often bloody.

In other words if what is rightfully owned by me doesn't get transferred at an adequate pace to everyone else then things might get "bloody"? And I am supposed to feel like I have an extreme position? You are advocating for outright theft and "bloodying" people in the name of "fairness" - without ever being able to actually explain why income inequality is anything other than an arbitrary measure.

Your position is as dangerously absurd as it is comical.

and yes, actually when 90% off new wealth goes to top 1 percent rather then the working class...that effects me. And yes it effects me when money thats being paid out to CEO's and stock holders, does not go back to the workers...Because 1 I am one of the workers, and 2 my income is dependent on the working class having enough money to spend, so I get commissions. I don't make most of my income off the super Rich .

Do workers not own stock? The data suggests that over half the people in this country have investments of some kind. That said your comment only further exposes your absurd position. You are advocating redistribution on the premise that you would like to earn more money.

 

[dogtowner]

P likes to ignore why workers make less. It's those nasty rich guys being greedy as admitting that people are making themselves less valuable that trips him up.
While he likes the idea of globalization he fails to realize that American exceptional ism made for an unusually wealthy middle class. The workers got lazy while the rest of the world got busy and now they want daddy to raise their allowance just because.
Don't work that way P

 

[MJAlex]

I don't see the issue as corporations trying to maximize profits. That's called business. What gets shady are the CEOs that rake in $4000 an hour. Yes, they have to be the leaders of the corporation, and that has to be compensated to an extent, but most companies under pay and over charge, making it worse off for employees and customers. If the CEOs are rolling in cash, why can't they make the situation better for those underneath them?

 

[dogtowner]

I don't see the issue as corporations trying to maximize profits. That's called business. What gets shady are the CEOs that rake in $4000 an hour. Yes, they have to be the leaders of the corporation, and that has to be compensated to an extent, but most companies under pay and over charge, making it worse off for employees and customers. If the CEOs are rolling in cash, why can't they make the situation better for those underneath them?

If they overcharge they don't sell and ceo is booted.
If they overpay they can't pay the bills and ceo is booted. But ceo doesnt and everyone wins.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

In other words if what is rightfully owned by me doesn't get transferred at an adequate pace to everyone else then things might get "bloody"? And I am supposed to feel like I have an extreme position? You are advocating for outright theft and "bloodying" people in the name of "fairness" - without ever being able to actually explain why income inequality is anything other than an arbitrary measure.

Your position is as dangerously absurd as it is comical.



Do workers not own stock? The data suggests that over half the people in this country have investments of some kind. That said your comment only further exposes your absurd position. You are advocating redistribution on the premise that you would like to earn more money.

It does not matter what I advocate or not, its a simple fact that that is exactly what tends to happen.

 

[Senter]

Someone want to explain to me why a company seeking to maximize their profits is a bad thing?

How did health insurance companies maximize their profits before Obamacare? They found ways to deny coverage AFTER you had paid into their plan for years and then had a big claim. They let you pay into their plan and then one day when you had a claim they looked for flimsy excuses to call the problem a pre-existing condition. They took your money until the day came when you had a large claim and they scoured your original application to find the slightest deviation and called it a flawed or bogus or dishonest application and denied the claim. Great, huh?

Then there's the case of Exxon-Mobil research in 1977 proving that continued burning of fossil fuels would be likely to cause global warming but the y quickly buried the study and lied about it to keep making maximum profits.

Then there was the tobacco industry lies saying tobacco was not addictive and was harmless when they knew it wasn't, and also laced cigarettes with additives to further addict the smoker, all to maximize profits.

Now we have Monsanto paying government to permit spraying herbicides on crops days before harvest and trying to make sure their seed is the only seed out there through lawsuits that crush farmers who don't buy their seed, ... all to maximize profits.

And we have our prison system being converted to private for-profit businesses that maximize their profits on the basis of maximizing prison populations, and have been found working out "beneficial arrangements" with judges and elected politicians in order to get more cases judged "guilty" and sent to their prisons, and to increase sentences . . . --all to maximize profits.

If we just look at specific cases like these we miss the whole point. The point is that unregulated business, inadequately regulated business, and even industries handed over to private for-profit businesses when there's a conflict of interest, all lead to cheating, lying, harm to the public, fleecing of the public, ... all in the name of profit in far too many cases.

 

[Senter]

If they overcharge they don't sell and ceo is booted.
If they overpay they can't pay the bills and ceo is booted. But ceo doesnt and everyone wins.

Do you know what "interlocking directorates" are?