I worked for a few CEO types and believe me, they were not the visionary types but more the spoiled child types. I couldn't understand how they got to the top. We need to stop holding them on a pedestal like Blake Carrington on Dynasty and Victor Newman on Y&R. The truth is that these people are greedy. Cut. Cut. Cut. Everything except their compensation. That should NOT be admired. In the end, that kills the company because no one wants to buy their polyester pants instead of the 100% cotton jeans we used to get. The person at the top should not make such a grossly larger sum than the other employees. Capitalism has just as many flaws as socialism when allowed to operate unrestrained. We need to audit everything.
Before the government started picking the winners, we did have an audit system... it was called the market. But... ya know, lawyers lawyered, accounting became more incentive, more lawyers get employed to skirt other lawyers and the rituals bring forth nepotism and cronyism continue. Every shred of monetary policy that enabled the access to debt by these companies that scaled their way into non-competitive capture of whole industries... these are the corporations that secured themselves in a place that makes competition expensive and renders innovation and disruption less threatening. It didn’t used to be this way. But between our rule making and the impositions made against business were actual red tape made against ourselves and our own necessity.
Fast simple version… STOCK BUY-BACKS allow CEOs to use corporate money to buy the company’s own stock. That reduces supply and (theoretically) increases demand of the stock, which in turn makes stock prices rise… temporarily. CEO’s bonuses are tied to stock prices, so CEOs profit while depleting the cash the company has to invest in R&D or other worthwhile long term investments. In other words, CEOs are raping their own companies for personal gain while fucking the economy and long-term investors. Yet somehow, this is legal.
I don't get why would it hurt long term investors. If I own a piece of apple, let's say, and its price goes up due to buy backs, I get richer as well. Another thing is they are corporations and supposedly they exist in a competition. IF, say, apple spends most of its profit on sotkc buy backs and, say, Samsung uses it for R&D, Samsung will out compete apple in the long term and run it out of business. But this doesn't necessarily happen. Dell bought out all their stock and now is a private company and it seems they're doing fine. It's like one other commentator wrote, the real reason why it creates an asset bubble is free money given to corporations by central banks, so they don't need to issue stock and bonds to raise capital.
Not quite: The CEOs are creating illusory gains in order for personal gain; the companies themselves are largely unaffected. It's true that investors are getting screwed, because they are paying something for nothing. But since the investors set the terms of CEO compensation, it's up to them to fix the exploit. This doesn't necessarily _cause_ damage to the economy, but it does prolong the suffering by not investing into the real economy. What's more, this leads to an odd situation where the metrics look end up looking both good _and_ bad.
John Doe i just think its a logical fallacy to blaim companies for the CEO pay. corporations are private entities with the only goal to make money for the shareholders. they have no moral duty to uphold the economy of any given country. the problem with buybacks is the investment climate that the central banks have created doesnt motivate corporations to invest in r&d or real economy. since the financial crisis the central banks worldwide have injected humongous amount of new cash into the markets completely distorting primarily bond markets creating a giant asset bubble. with the negative to zero rates worldwide, money is practically free for banks and corporations to use, and being primarily the vehicles of profit maximization corporations issue bonds and buy back their stock, driving the stock market further up. these kinda things have been happening since the dawn of capitalism. its a very crazy idea to think that corporations would somehow have any moral and social considerations. it is us the people and the governments that supposedly represent us who should control activities of corporate entities for the common good of societies. unfortunately corporations and banks have long time ago bought and coopted the governments and use them to maxizebtheir profits at the expense of the people at large. but tue rapacious predatory nature of such capitalism inevitably leads to crises. you cannot expand eternally, every boom ends with a bust, its been happening ever since the tulip bubble in holand. always same story. the whole story of capitalism is a story of bubbles, expansions beyond any sustainable limit and onevitable implosions during which the owners of capital only squeeze more from the general populations
Companies like selling to the Americans but don't want to pay them so they can afford to buy there products, so far it has worked out because everyone uses credit to buy stuff about 70% of the things bought is with credit, manufacturing and middle class is what keeps an economy going lose either one its game over credit can only go so far
Productivity is being deliberately held back. Nearly ALL software requires you to take longer to accomplish the same task adding clicks and the difficulty of how the processes are aligned. WELCOME to the age of mass control on an infinite level. WE ARE being directed and data mined in this way.
The obsession with liquidity and perverse short term incentives have morphed into an often self destructive culture. Limited liability (aka the dumbest idea in the world) is a convention of law, and a -privilege -, I do not say remove it entirely, liquidity has it's place but then any privilege which cannot practically be eradicated must then be paid for. The way to do that would be to balance the incentives on long term and short term in vestments by lowering/removing cap gains tax on long term investment models such as building societies structures,, and keeping/raise them on stocks. That way firms will naturally tend towards longer term investment but if they want more liquidity, they can still have it at a cost.
The culture now is one of instant gratification. Executives and share-holders don't want long-term investments anymore, they want short-term gain, even at the expense of the companies long-term growth/sustainability. Even a previously innovative company like Apple has regressed into this horrible business dynamic. Tim Cook is not a visionary like Steve Jobs. He's an uninspired manager and book-keeper who is more focused on keeping Apple's money offshore to evade taxes, than in innovating. He has no new ideas and will be the one that starts the decline of Apple because he's following the bad example of the other glorified managers called CEOs.
Critical Thinking I don’t think apple is a good example because they have many secret prototypes to further innovate for the next century, and they don’t need to innovate because their marketing/software is what makes them money and makes them grow, people will buy an iPhone over an android simply because the software operating system is better in the court of public opinion and they have a patent on that software
![ทุกครั้งที่หลับตา (Lucid Dream) - AYLA's [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4i1OBAQyv58/mqdefault.jpg)
I worked for a few CEO types and believe me, they were not the visionary types but more the spoiled child types. I couldn't understand how they got to the top. We need to stop holding them on a pedestal like Blake Carrington on Dynasty and Victor Newman on Y&R. The truth is that these people are greedy. Cut. Cut. Cut. Everything except their compensation. That should NOT be admired. In the end, that kills the company because no one wants to buy their polyester pants instead of the 100% cotton jeans we used to get. The person at the top should not make such a grossly larger sum than the other employees. Capitalism has just as many flaws as socialism when allowed to operate unrestrained. We need to audit everything.
Before the government started picking the winners, we did have an audit system... it was called the market. But... ya know, lawyers lawyered, accounting became more incentive, more lawyers get employed to skirt other lawyers and the rituals bring forth nepotism and cronyism continue. Every shred of monetary policy that enabled the access to debt by these companies that scaled their way into non-competitive capture of whole industries... these are the corporations that secured themselves in a place that makes competition expensive and renders innovation and disruption less threatening.
It didn’t used to be this way. But between our rule making and the impositions made against business were actual red tape made against ourselves and our own necessity.
Fast simple version…
STOCK BUY-BACKS allow CEOs to use corporate money to buy the company’s own stock. That reduces supply and (theoretically) increases demand of the stock, which in turn makes stock prices rise… temporarily.
CEO’s bonuses are tied to stock prices, so CEOs profit while depleting the cash the company has to invest in R&D or other worthwhile long term investments.
In other words, CEOs are raping their own companies for personal gain while fucking the economy and long-term investors. Yet somehow, this is legal.
I don't get why would it hurt long term investors. If I own a piece of apple, let's say, and its price goes up due to buy backs, I get richer as well. Another thing is they are corporations and supposedly they exist in a competition. IF, say, apple spends most of its profit on sotkc buy backs and, say, Samsung uses it for R&D, Samsung will out compete apple in the long term and run it out of business. But this doesn't necessarily happen. Dell bought out all their stock and now is a private company and it seems they're doing fine. It's like one other commentator wrote, the real reason why it creates an asset bubble is free money given to corporations by central banks, so they don't need to issue stock and bonds to raise capital.
I merely presented a short version for those too busy or impatient to listen to the entire video.
Not quite: The CEOs are creating illusory gains in order for personal gain; the companies themselves are largely unaffected.
It's true that investors are getting screwed, because they are paying something for nothing. But since the investors set the terms of CEO compensation, it's up to them to fix the exploit.
This doesn't necessarily _cause_ damage to the economy, but it does prolong the suffering by not investing into the real economy. What's more, this leads to an odd situation where the metrics look end up looking both good _and_ bad.
John Doe i just think its a logical fallacy to blaim companies for the CEO pay. corporations are private entities with the only goal to make money for the shareholders. they have no moral duty to uphold the economy of any given country. the problem with buybacks is the investment climate that the central banks have created doesnt motivate corporations to invest in r&d or real economy. since the financial crisis the central banks worldwide have injected humongous amount of new cash into the markets completely distorting primarily bond markets creating a giant asset bubble. with the negative to zero rates worldwide, money is practically free for banks and corporations to use, and being primarily the vehicles of profit maximization corporations issue bonds and buy back their stock, driving the stock market further up. these kinda things have been happening since the dawn of capitalism. its a very crazy idea to think that corporations would somehow have any moral and social considerations. it is us the people and the governments that supposedly represent us who should control activities of corporate entities for the common good of societies. unfortunately corporations and banks have long time ago bought and coopted the governments and use them to maxizebtheir profits at the expense of the people at large. but tue rapacious predatory nature of such capitalism inevitably leads to crises. you cannot expand eternally, every boom ends with a bust, its been happening ever since the tulip bubble in holand. always same story. the whole story of capitalism is a story of bubbles, expansions beyond any sustainable limit and onevitable implosions during which the owners of capital only squeeze more from the general populations
altaimountain
TLDR. You will notice that nowhere in my post did I use the word "should".
Companies like selling to the Americans but don't want to pay them so they can afford to buy there products, so far it has worked out because everyone uses credit to buy stuff about 70% of the things bought is with credit, manufacturing and middle class is what keeps an economy going lose either one its game over credit can only go so far
Productivity is being deliberately held back. Nearly ALL software requires you to take longer to accomplish the same task adding clicks and the difficulty of how the processes are aligned. WELCOME to the age of mass control on an infinite level. WE ARE being directed and data mined in this way.
Weren't they illegal before the early 80'? When a company had to actually grow from supply and demand, people actually buying goods and services?
Carl Ichan said this stuff a long time ago
The obsession with liquidity and perverse short term incentives have morphed into an often self destructive culture.
Limited liability (aka the dumbest idea in the world) is a convention of law, and a -privilege -, I do not say remove it entirely, liquidity has it's place but then any privilege which cannot practically be eradicated must then be paid for.
The way to do that would be to balance the incentives on long term and short term in vestments by lowering/removing cap gains tax on long term investment models such as building societies structures,, and keeping/raise them on stocks. That way firms will naturally tend towards longer term investment but if they want more liquidity, they can still have it at a cost.
good idea
The culture now is one of instant gratification. Executives and share-holders don't want long-term investments anymore, they want short-term gain, even at the expense of the companies long-term growth/sustainability. Even a previously innovative company like Apple has regressed into this horrible business dynamic. Tim Cook is not a visionary like Steve Jobs. He's an uninspired manager and book-keeper who is more focused on keeping Apple's money offshore to evade taxes, than in innovating. He has no new ideas and will be the one that starts the decline of Apple because he's following the bad example of the other glorified managers called CEOs.
Critical Thinking I don’t think apple is a good example because they have many secret prototypes to further innovate for the next century, and they don’t need to innovate because their marketing/software is what makes them money and makes them grow, people will buy an iPhone over an android simply because the software operating system is better in the court of public opinion and they have a patent on that software