Waiting for UAW shoe to drop?

[PilotPete]

Regarding the gap. I didn't look at past 100 years but in my life time, this is what I see:

D,

I don’t want another post removed because I said something that someone else construed as “political”, so I’ll say this carefully.

”Poverty”, “Middle Class” and “Upper Class” are generic terms without a universally accepted definition. As you change the numbers for those terms, you can adjust the charts to create all sorts of equity or inequity. According to the census bureau, in the 1960’s you were looking at 17-22% of the US population below what they defined as the poverty level. In 2019, it was 10.5%.

Sponsored

 

[flowerlandfilms]

A CEO can easily be rewarded highly for improving "performance" by making the stock go up.
For examples, CEO ruthlessly sells off all the companies assets.
The stock goes up, CEO is hailed as a hero and leaves with a golden parachute.
Meanwhile the long term prospects of the company have been severely hampered and inevitably it goes bust.
How was the CEO helping that company to "perform"?
He wasn't, he was giving a short term boost to the stock and then buggering off, leaving the company and it's remaining shareholders holding the bag.
It's a mindset, which is taught at some business schools, that the shares of a company are it's product and you should do anything and everything to make the shares go up, to make the customers (that's the shareholders, not the actual customers of the company) happy.
It's braindead but if there is money to be made people will do it.
And it all comes as a result of confusing a companies "value" for a companies "worth".
And incentivising and compensating the boosting of the incorrect one.

 

[Love2Cyber]

A CEO can easily be rewarded highly for improving "performance" by making the stock go up.
For examples, CEO ruthlessly sells off all the companies assets.
The stock goes up, CEO is hailed as a hero and leaves with a golden parachute.
Meanwhile the long term prospects of the company have been severely hampered and inevitably it goes bust.
How was the CEO helping that company to "perform"?
He wasn't, he was giving a short term boost to the stock and then buggering off, leaving the company and it's remaining shareholders holding the bag.
It's a mindset, which is taught at some business schools, that the shares of a company are it's product and you should do anything and everything to make the shares go up, to make the customers (that's the shareholders, not the actual customers of the company) happy.
It's braindead but if there is money to be made people will do it.
And it all comes as a result of confusing a companies "value" for a companies "worth".
And incentivising and compensating the boosting of the incorrect one.

O...K... Understand what a Board of Directors is? Let me help you out... They decide on who the CEO is (btw - it is a he or a she...you seem to imply they are all male). The BOD is largely comprised of major shareholders who seek to improve the value of the company and their positions. No - not for the next 6 months - but for the long-term. They decide on the CEO's compensation structure, and they also influence and sign off on major policy positions - including things like divestitures and acquisitions. So no - unless the CEO owns the company, they won't be able to "ruthlessly sell" the company assets to manipulate stock prices.

Stupid me for responding to this...

 

[flowerlandfilms]

O...K... Understand what a Board of Directors is? Let me help you out... They decide on who the CEO is (btw - it is a he or a she...you seem to imply they are all male). The BOD is largely comprised of major shareholders who seek to improve the value of the company and their positions. No - not for the next 6 months - but for the long-term. They decide on the CEO's compensation structure, and they also influence and sign off on major policy positions - including things like divestitures and acquisitions. So no - unless the CEO owns the company, they won't be able to "ruthlessly sell" the company assets to manipulate stock prices.

Stupid me for responding to this...

Unless the board also wants short term gains?
What I described is literally taught at business schools as optimum strategy.
Your incredulousness at the mere suggestion of the existence of short-termism is baffling.

 

[Neo]

...The free market wasn't?

-Crissa

free market is the only path...

 

[JBee]

What is a free market?

Nothing is free.

The root of free is "freedom" meaning "free of dominion" or bondage, unlike "kingdom", where the "king has dominion". This applies to leaders and followers as well. There are both leaders and followers, and there can't be leaders without followers, or followers without leaders.

Fact is that all ownership, of any value or thing or even person, is transient at best, if at all "personal ownership" really exists. "Ours" might be a better description, but without discounting the value of "me".

At some point in the future, if we can achieve high levels of product and service automation in a economy, the resulting "excess" will make personal ownership a redundant method of resource allocation. Everyone will have "enough", provided we don't enslave ourselves to our more basic instincts.

The other issue with a "free-market" is that with the centralised control of fiat currency, there really is no freedom to choose, if all money is lent into existence by fractional reserve banking, only to those things that can be proven to make a profit. Money is making the decisions for us, and it is not us that is making a decision on how to spend the money.

This is self-evident in balance sheets that ignore social or environmental impacts.

The best way to counter this is to reduce the use of fiat currency so that it does not determine our destiny, in that it no longer determines the resource allocation of the planet, and rather that we disassociate monetary value, from the things that really do have value, and act accordingly.

Sponsored