The US Economy

[Boozy]

As for CEO pay, that's usually subject to the board of directors. How they can justify getting paid that much, is up to the board. However, for some companies...those that were built from scratch, I don't know about you, but if I'm the one putting up my own cash (i.e., taking all the risk), shouldn't I be compensated for it, and be entitled to what's left? Why should I be penalized?

I don't have a problem with a company's board deciding how to divvy up profits. If they want to give a large chunk of the profits to the CEO, fine. That makes sense.

The problem here is where those profits are coming from. And if any amount of those profits comes from subsidies provided by the US taxpayer, we've got a problem.

The whole point of a subsidy is to help a companies whose products are vital to the growth of the economy sell that product cheaply to consumers. The subsidies are supposed to be passed along to the consumer in the form of savings. Taxpayers wouldn't mind their hard-earned dollars going towards oil companies, because they know they're getting it back at the pump.

But that isn't what's happening here. Frankly, I would think its hard for these execs to justify posting huge profits and still taking government assistance.

CEOs deserve profits that they have worked hard to earn honestly. But the relationship between Big Oil and this administration is anything but honest.

With that said, the price of gas is more of a supply and demand issue. Arguably, government subsidies have lowered the price of gas for Americans. Gas in the US is still among the cheapest in the world.

I personally believe that until gas gets to unmanageable prices, people will continue to buy SUVs, emissions will continue to go up, and there will be no drive to find alternative fuels.

The world may start to run out of oil as soon as 2040, and there are currently no viable energy alternatives. I'd like to see gas prices get to the point where there will be political pressure for real action.

[AFPheonix]

As for CEO pay, that's usually subject to the board of directors. How they can justify getting paid that much, is up to the board. However, for some companies...those that were built from scratch, I don't know about you, but if I'm the one putting up my own cash (i.e., taking all the risk), shouldn't I be compensated for it, and be entitled to what's left? Why should I be penalized?

That's not necessarily contentious, but when you have CEOs and CFOs like the ones at United who give themselves big fat bonuses after they've insisted that their pilots and other workers take pay cuts for the good of the company, that doesn't go down well for anyone, customers included.

[Boozy]

That's not necessarily contentious, but when you have CEOs and CFOs like the ones at United who give themselves big fat bonuses after they've insisted that their pilots and other workers take pay cuts for the good of the company, that doesn't go down well for anyone, customers included.

Ah yes, the airlines. Yet another industry subsisting on corporate welfare.

When I found out how much pilots for US airlines made, I swore I would never step foot on an American airplane again. These people are responsible for the safety of thousands of people every day, and some of them are on food stamps.

And these CEOs don't even have enough integrity to feel ashamed about what they're doing.

[rahmota]

There's simply not enough refineries here

Actually thats because the oil companies have idled several refineries. they keep taking different ones offline claiming one thign or another and manipulate the sytem to keep production down. If they would operate the existing plants, reopen some they closed back in the 80and 90s, there would be suffcient capacity.

As for demand if there was increased taxes on high consumption toys like the Viper or Hummers or other yuppie mobiles on the order of 400% then demand would drop. There is no reason why a vehcile cannot get 25+ mpg. Heck I have 3 vehciles with V8 engines and the worst economy I get is 23 mpg on them. Looking at the Hummer H2 the best it can hope for is 15 average.

Also increased bio-fuels production. Increased flex-fuel vehicle produciton. increased hybrid production. And making these vehicles AFFORDABLE for people to be able to switch out.

Also, if we make everyone's pay equal, what's the point in trying to move up, or to get ahead? I think eventually, that'll do some real damage--look at the failed companies in Eastern Europe and the former USSR. They had some serious problems--

There are quite a few other reasons to move upor get ahead. And it depends a lot on your definition of get ahead. if you define it as having more money than your neighbors of course you'll not like having fair an equitable wages for everyone. If you define it as having more honor, more responsibility, more accomplishments then fairand eqitable wagges are not goign to be a problem. Its heer simle human greed that we need to evolve past that is the problem.

And I'll give an alternative having a minimum and a maximum wage with a scale between. That wouold be set to be fair and equitable yet still give people who operate on the greed factor to be motivated enough to keep trying.

And like AFP said the problem here in the US is that most of the corporations have CEOs who are voting themselves huge freaking bonuses, packing golden parachutes while the front line employees are on food stamps tryign to figure out if alpo or kennel rations are better flavored. The disparity between the two can be a lot more disheartening than having all pay equal. If the company is in trouble then pay cuts should come from the top where most of the real deadwood is located and not the bottom like the greedy bastards are doing to people.

Profit is the money left over after all the blls have been paid. Maybe if the oil companies where to use this excessive profits they have been getting to repay the customers they've robbed or pay their employees then there wouldnt be a reason for people to get peeved at them. As it stands now I think any company that makes 40 billion in profits is obviously doing somethign wrong and that money should be siezed and distributed. Giving that 40 billion to the public would be a great stimulus to the economy.

but if I'm the one putting up my own cash (i.e., taking all the risk), shouldn't I be compensated for it, and be entitled to what's left? Why should I be penalized?

I have no problem with small businesses getting paid fairly for their work. Being a small businessman I can fully empathize. This isnt the problem or the case with most of the megacorps. These guys have not used one cent of their own money for these companies. They are taking more than their fair share of things for doing less work and less risk than a person on the front lines. A small business should not be penalized. A megacorp ceo who is taking more than their fair hare while their front line employees starve should be penalized.

And speakign of pay and front lines did you know that the captain of a US Navy Destroyer makes less than most middle management in America? That a commanding officer in the US Army makes less than most ceos? That many of the armed forces personnel are on public assistence?

have utterly no problem with government control of big businesses. Individual lives yes. Big buisness and megacorps need to be reigned in. People can do the right thing because it is the right thing or they can do the right thing because they are forced to. Since mega corps refuse to do the right thign because it is the right thing they must be forced to do the right thing.

[Rapscallion]

Forty billion amongst three hundred and fifty million people, the rough population of the US. About $114 dollars each, right?

The economy would be helped, I guess, but it wouldn't make such an individual difference.

Rapscallion

[Seshat]

I'd like to see companies being socially (and if necessary, legally) required to act for the benefit of all stakeholders. From some things I've read, that's the case in Europe.

Stakeholders are:
* shareholders and/or other people who fund the company's setup and/or expansions
* staff. all staff, including the casual labourer who cleans the offices at night. Not just the upper management.
* suppliers.
* customers.
* neighbours. No Bhopal cyanide leaks, please.
* future users of the world: eg, no left-over tailings dams that will eventually burst their walls when they're left untended.


I think a lot of the USA's problems would magically go away if somehow all corporations were magically changed to care about all stakeholders, not just the shareholders and the senior staff.

Not all the problems, sure. But a lot of them.

[rahmota]

Raps: Hey a hundred bucks is still a hundred bucks. It beats a poke in the eye. And considering how much the corporations take from the people it would be okay to me. Also since the "economic stimulus bill" is being handjobbed in congress its not like there much being done already for economic stimulus.

Tax rebates do not really do much for the really poor who generally do not make enough to honestly pay taxes in the end run anyhow.

Seshat: I would love to see a company do all that. But you try and enforce or enact any legislation to make a company do any of that in the US and you get screamed at, called traitorous dog, and people act like you grew a toothbrush moustache and are using puppies to club kittens to death.

Everythign comes down to the almighty dollar in this country. human lives are worthless, the future is worthless, the economy is worthless doing the right thing is worth less than worthless compared to making that extra dollar of profit.

Your comment on magically changing american corporations is about right. barring a total collapse of the american economy and civilization it probably would take magic to do it. And even then it probably would take the combined might of Harry Potter, Gandalf, Dumbledore and Elrond to do it.

[Seshat]

I can't back this prediction up at all, it's just instinct and looking-in-from-the-outside, but:

If the US (and any other country/culture, yes including Australia) allows corporations to run riot and be only concerned about the shareholders, rather than at least some stakeholders; the US (or other country) is going to end up failing. Probably spectacularly.

I don't know what the solution is, but I think someone is going to need to have the political will and political backing to pass those laws, and get them policed. The US has done some tougher stuff in its short history - reining in the railway barons was pretty rough, and neither passing nor repealing Prohibition were easy tasks either. Not to mention the Mob, equal rights for women, equal rights for blacks. You're a strong people and a strong culture when you choose to be. Are you up to it again?

[AFPheonix]

We're going to have to be, if we want to continue making history instead of fading into the background.

This is, I think, where a split in the Republican Party would be a good thing, because something of this scale is going to need government support. Nothing else is big enough or strong enough to do some trust busting.

Social liberal/ fiscal conservatives really have no party anymore. If they mobilize, split from the party and create their own, I think they could be a force to reckon with, and could cause some true change.
Especially if they team up with Democrats, and if Democrats can mobilize around one cause without dicking around.

[Seshat]

"If a young man is not liberal, he has no heart. If an old man is not conservative, he has no brain." - paraphrased, when I went looking for the attribution, I found a variety of phrasings and attributions.

I'm socially liberal, fiscally conservative, and yes, it's very difficult to find an appropriate party over here. Though both our Democrats and our Greens are developing fiscally conservative traits. As they get more experience in government, they're learning to mesh idealism with practicality. I'm pleased.

As for the US: Good luck!

[Boozy]

Social liberal/ fiscal conservatives really have no party anymore.

I keep hearing Americans say this, and I'm confused by it.

What about the Clinton administration wasn't fiscally conservative? In 1992, economists were predicting economic collapse (as they are now). Years of Republican mismanagement and deficits had taken their toll. Clinton balanced the budget and turned things around, leading to 8 years of growth and (comparative) prosperity.

Republicans suck at running the economy, mostly because they can't get their heads around the fact that supply-side economics doesn't work.

[rahmota]

Seshat: You are correct about the possibility of failure. All great empires fall eventually. Be it from internal bloating and mismanagement or outside pressures. The Greeks, The Romans, The Byzantines, The Turks, The Monglas, The British Empire, The Soviets. All major huge nations held together for long long times in the case of the Romans to comparatively a blink in the eye of history to the case of the Soviets. Is this whats goign on with Pax America? I dont know either. I do know that thigns are not pretty once again and before its all over and done with one way or another things will probably get worse.

You're a strong people and a strong culture when you choose to be. Are you up to it again?

That is the question. Whether tis Nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or to take arms and oppose them? Sad to say I dont know if this country has a unified enough front to do that or if thigns would fly apart into a thousand little mini-empires each with their own little agenda and dogma.

AFP: Social Liberal/ Fiscal Conservatives are kinda fish out of water with the way thigns currently are. Not quite republican enough on the social attitudes not quite democratic enough for the democrats.

Boozy: And what I mean by that is that Democrats are usually considered to be the spenders of "innapproprite" monies on social welfare programs. unlike the Republicans who spend moeny appropriately on big business stuff.

And yeha by comparison Clinton was very fiscally conservative. Something a lot of conservative Republicans dont like to focus on. They claim that Clinton was responsible for 9/11 by stripping the military of its budgets, that america was weakened by all the social spending and NAFTA and all the stuff that happened under his watch. Clinton wasn't the greatest president this courty has ever had but he certainly wasnt the worst.

[Boozy]

And yeha by comparison Clinton was very fiscally conservative. Something a lot of conservative Republicans dont like to focus on. They claim that Clinton was responsible for 9/11 by stripping the military of its budgets, that america was weakened by all the social spending and NAFTA and all the stuff that happened under his watch.

So they didn't bother reading the 9/11 Commission reports, then?

[daleduke17]

695 Billion Dollars is how much has been spent on the war so far as of 02/01/08. I know many people would say that the US needs to stay in Iraq and all that, but, almost 700 million dollars could be spent very easily on domestic issues.

That could have been 14 Billion dollars to each state. That is roughly 137 Million to each county in Illinois (That's the only state I know the number of counties for off the top of my head) if the feds would have given it out that way. That could have redone a LOT of roads, given training for a LOT of people or even hired quite a bit of people in different areas (law enforcement, DHS, etc).

Or, it could have gone to a number of different things. Thing is, the US will blank check anything to the war, or to different countries for pretty much anything, but won't do more than the bare basics to assist the citizens of this nation. I35W should have been a sign of that. That bridge was up to the feds to maintain and it wasn't. That is one example.

[AFPheonix]

All of our infrastructure needs working on. Unfortunately, redoing power grids, sewers, highways and bridges just isn't very sexy.
In the meantime, the DOD budget eats up around half of our total expenditures.
I think axing a few shitty pet projects like laser defense systems and dangerous aircraft like the Osprey could free up some funds for other things.