Blogcritics Comments on The Negative Consequences Arrive

Comment by moonraven on The Negative Consequences Arrive

Sat, 3 Nov 2007 13:42:57 EDT

Nalle: Any statement that is not an attack on Bush is HIGH TREASON and should be punished according to the law regarding same. Starting with professional rednecks in Texas.

Comment by troll on The Negative Consequences Arrive

Sat, 3 Nov 2007 09:00:08 EDT

bliffle - interesting analysis...but imo your attempt to bring the argument down to the level of individual real accountable people falls short 'profit' 'revenue' 'return on investment' are all terms denoting quantifiable aspects of the same underlying growth phenomenon...all useful for economic analysis and attempts to explain the behavior of corporate officers and investors 'power' as you use it is a socio/psychological notion lacking the formalization necessary to make it similarly useful...demystify it and then let's talk again

Comment by Maurice� on The Negative Consequences Arrive

Sat, 3 Nov 2007 08:55:54 EDT

Zedd #38 Baby, my wife loves me! She is in Mexico for the week and I am at home. She left the cat in charge. handyguy #37 groovy link! It is great to get a solid no nonsense answer like that. bliffle# 41 all of the world is crazy except for you, man. Hope my post #25 helped. gonzo #43 ever the cool cat. Preach it, brother.

Comment by gonzo marx on The Negative Consequences Arrive

Sat, 3 Nov 2007 04:09:58 EDT

ummm, bliffle...check my Comment again...i merely mentioned a single Variable of Cost nothing even remotely connected to yer little screed here... just correcting for the Record Excelsior?

Comment by Clavos on The Negative Consequences Arrive

Sat, 3 Nov 2007 04:05:47 EDT

Jesus, you've obviously gotten into the hallucinogens again, bliffle. What a steaming pile of crap that "analysis" of corporations and their executives was! You have a vivid (but truly bizarre) imagination... I spent thirty years as an executive in a large corporation and never saw anything even remotely resembling what you describe. Is there a full moon tonight??

Comment by bliffle on The Negative Consequences Arrive

Sat, 3 Nov 2007 02:28:54 EDT

Maurice, Gonzo, et al, demonstrate their naivete WRT business by regarding 'profit' as a corporate desiderata. Nothing could be farther from the truth. No entrepeneur believes such a self-destructive fallacy. Mere profit signals the impending collapse of the company and the severing of the Executive lifeline, which is revenue, not profit. All the forms of executive compensation scale to revenue, not profit. Whether bonuses, stock options, even the size of the office and the length of the company car, they all scale to revenue. My friend G said to me "I haven't met an executive in 10 years who considers profit anything but a nuisance. The real objective is to break even at ever higher levels". He told me that 20 years ago and it is more in evidence every day. The astute executive doesn't look to company profits for his reward (tho he always demands such a perk in his compensation package) because it's a small reward because, as must be, profits are a smaller number than revenues. And it's easier to justify taking 10% of revenue than 100% of profits when they are the same bottom line number to him. A board of directors that would scream bloody murder at forking over 100% of the company profits but willingly give 10% of revenues. The entrepeneur is gravely endangered by profits because those retained earnings are a noose around his neck. It makes him expendable, and since his cost is high to the BOD and the shareholders he WILL be expended. He has served his purpose and can be replaced by a drone, and there are plenty of drones around at a fraction of his cost. On the other hand, if he maintains the company PL in a precarious (seeming) condition they will always need him to save the day by increasing sales (or decreasing costs) thus holding out, once again, the hope of profit to the BOD. He employs the carrot to manipulate the Founders and Shareholders, who are often superannuated and suckered by dreams of security. But the entrepeneur will not let them be secure, for then he is expendable. His reward for making his BOD secure is that his own head becomes insecure on his shoulders as he is marched to the Guillotine. No, the goal of the businessman is power, not profit. The only use he has for profit is to increase his power. He needs a machine behind which he can hide ("the corporate veil") while operating the levers. "It's the machines fault. I built it to spec and look what it did" he says. Maybe we should change the plans for future machines, but we can't hold the current operator responsible. And that is why the modern corporation has become a frankensteins monster. A conscienceless hulk lurching thru the village killing children , demolishing property and eventually bringing the terrorized and angry villagers bearing torches. That's called Revolution. Get out the Guillotine, again. Heads will roll.

Comment by Dave Nalle on The Negative Consequences Arrive

Sat, 3 Nov 2007 01:27:25 EDT

Haven't we already been over the fallacy in the Buffet taxation example? Dave

Comment by Sariade on The Negative Consequences Arrive

Sat, 3 Nov 2007 00:55:19 EDT

Maurice, If Corporations were to treat their workers like human beings rather than drones to be used and discarded, there would be no need for unions. But that is an impossibility for an entity who's sole raison d'etre is profit. Only a psychopath behaves 100% in a way that benefits only itself. The way the average corporation treats it's employees relative to the work received from them is criminal. Why should a CEO make 800 times more than a an entry-level employee? BTW, Warren Buffet appears to disagree with your assertion that the corporate world is being strangled by high taxation. There certainly seems to be enough cash to pay those big bonuses. "Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary" Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner. Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (�26 billion), said: "The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you're in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent." Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

Comment by Zedd on The Negative Consequences Arrive

Fri, 2 Nov 2007 20:05:30 EDT

Maurice, You are so easy. Your wife is a lucky lady! Now will you lend me a dime?

Comment by handyguy on The Negative Consequences Arrive

Fri, 2 Nov 2007 16:33:10 EDT

Forgive me for this long quote from a brilliant NY Times column earlier this week. It contains several bits of truth that the ideologues [on both sides] ought to consider. The title of this article, which everyone should read, is "Plain Truth About Taxes and Cuts" by David Leonhardt. The taxes that the federal government took in last year equaled 18.4 percent of the gross domestic product, almost exactly the average since 1980. ...moderate shifts in taxes don't dictate economic growth. Mr. Bush's father and Bill Clinton raised taxes -- and the economy grew for almost the entire decade of the 1990s. The current administration has cut taxes -- and the economy has grown for almost all of this decade. This country really does have a high corporate tax rate, but it also has so many loopholes that companies can often avoid paying the tax. A much smarter policy, economists say, would include a lower rate with fewer loopholes. ...A family in that top 1 percent of earners paid a total federal tax rate -- including everything from payroll taxes to income taxes to capital gains taxes -- of 30 percent in 2004. That was down from 41 percent a decade before. Since the 1950s, tax rates on high-income families have generally been falling. The top earners pay a bigger share of the government tab than in the past because their incomes have risen so sharply -- even more sharply than their tax bills. Mr. Bush has predicted that the deficit will disappear by 2012. But that prediction depends on the fiction that the alternative minimum tax will be allowed to grow ever larger in coming years. The Democratic presidential candidates, meanwhile, are promising to pay for their new programs in part by getting rid of some of Mr. Bush's tax cuts. But those tax cuts are already scheduled to expire under current law. The official budget numbers have already taken their demise into account. White House officials are absolutely correct when they note that the current budget deficit isn't especially large. But it will soar in coming years, as baby boomers stop working (and stop paying very much in taxes) and instead move onto the Social Security and Medicare rolls If nothing changes over the next couple of decades, the United States will build up a debt burden to resemble Argentina's...

Comment by cybervigilantes on The Negative Consequences Arrive

Fri, 2 Nov 2007 12:14:28 EDT

An understanding of ponerology is essential protection in understanding why these negative consequences have arrived. see Ponerology and the ponerology blog for more information

Comment by Maurice� on The Negative Consequences Arrive

Fri, 2 Nov 2007 10:22:42 EDT

troll - LOL! ever the correctionalist minimalist!

Comment by troll on The Negative Consequences Arrive

Fri, 2 Nov 2007 09:53:32 EDT

the problem isn't greed - rather it's the form of economic rationality that derives from the capitalist organizing principle: maximized profit

Comment by Maurice on The Negative Consequences Arrive

Fri, 2 Nov 2007 09:35:49 EDT

Zedd #29 The current devaluation of the dollar is as you said "greed and predatory lending". I still stand by my statement that unions have caused the death of manufacturing in this country. The example I provided was Zenith but there are current examples. The movie industry has been struggling for several years now. The writers guild has decided to go on strike. Will that help or hurt the industry? Chrysler laid off 13k in Feburary and now anounced layoffs of another 10k. If you were a member the UAW and they wanted to strike would you feel good about that? I will concede that high taxes have also convinced manufacturing to go overseas. Not to mention healthcare costs (thanks gonzo!).

Comment by Clavos on The Negative Consequences Arrive

Thu, 1 Nov 2007 20:29:31 EDT

Paraphrasing Mr. Twain's famous witty remark: "The reports of our economy's death are an exaggeration."

Comment by Dave Nalle on The Negative Consequences Arrive

Thu, 1 Nov 2007 19:25:14 EDT

Not to quash your glee, but defending the truth and defending Bush aren't necessarily the same thing. Clavos in these instances appears to just be setting the record straight, but for the Bush deranged any statement that isn't an attack on Bush is seen as a defense. Dave

Comment by Zedd on The Negative Consequences Arrive

Thu, 1 Nov 2007 19:18:38 EDT

Clavos Got any more questions or requests??? he hehe he hehe heee. "Show me one word I've written in defense of Bush." - Clavos Umm, OK: "Bush has never been formally charged with desertion. Besides, even if he had, it's still non sequitur." - Clavos Well I guess it wasn't really ONE word. Sorry Clav. You are right. he he he heeeee! oh my goodness! oooooh aaahhhh he he he heeeeeeee....

Comment by Zedd on The Negative Consequences Arrive

Thu, 1 Nov 2007 19:14:06 EDT

Maurice, Common brother. Unions did not cause the crisis that we are facing. It is pure greed, predatory lending and I want it now. Surely you will agree with me?

Comment by moonraven on The Negative Consequences Arrive

Thu, 1 Nov 2007 13:56:16 EDT

[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] Although UN General Assembly votes of this kind are non-binding, the motive for my post was to underline the TOPIC OF THIS THREAD--which is that the US had no supporters on the planet. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

Comment by gonzo marx on The Negative Consequences Arrive

Thu, 1 Nov 2007 12:33:56 EDT

ummm...a large part of why Corps move overseas revolves around healthcare and it's spiraling costs...a good reason for a single payer system that doesn't involve the employer , perhaps? it is this exact thing that keeps many of our competitor nations a bit ahead of U.S. just a Thought.... oh yeah..and for JoM definition of a neocon - a Republican who believes the Matrix is real! Excelsior?

Comment by REMF on The Negative Consequences Arrive

Thu, 1 Nov 2007 10:45:36 EDT

"Show me one word I've written in defense of Bush." - Clavos Umm, OK: "Bush has never been formally charged with desertion. Besides, even if he had, it's still non sequitur." - Clavos

Comment by Maurice on The Negative Consequences Arrive

Thu, 1 Nov 2007 09:50:23 EDT

bliffle - thanks for the kind words. Just a few things to think about. I didn't vote for Bush and an not a fan. Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. You also drew some bizzare conclusions about corporations. US based corporations are heavily taxed and regulated. Federal and State taxes are crippling. Microns property tax alone is $120m per year. It is interesting that you make the bold claim that workers and citizens are paying the price. That is not true. The unions have killed many corporations. Remember the people crying at the gate of the Zenith plant when they closed it down? Those same people were striking 9 months before they closed that gate. High taxation and inflated union wages have caused manufacturing to disappear in this country. Not sure why you called the Republic of South Korea a Socialist economy. They patterned their government after ours with the 3 branches. The big difference is South Korea subsidizes their corporations while the US takes money from ours.

Comment by Silver Surfer on The Negative Consequences Arrive

Thu, 1 Nov 2007 08:22:55 EDT

I tend to agree with King-dollar Kudlow, although Reaganomics leaves me cold. The doomsters want us all to fall, but we aren't, and the US economy won't. All it is a correction that had to happen; the sub-prime crisis was nothing more than a catalyst, and it will benefit the US in the long term as the US boosts export markets, whilst marginally afflicting the economies of some developing countries (China and India in particular).

Comment by Clavos on The Negative Consequences Arrive

Thu, 1 Nov 2007 08:03:01 EDT

But if I were defending Bush, bliffle, I would have to ask, as does Lawrence Kudlow: "If things are so bad, why are they so good?"

Comment by Clavos on The Negative Consequences Arrive

Thu, 1 Nov 2007 07:53:06 EDT

Oh, and bliffle. Show me one word I've written in defense of Bush. I was writing about the health of the US economy, in which I've actively worked at above average jobs for the past forty years; and what I've seen during that time is overall steady improvement, with some hiccups along the way. And I didn't see Maurice defending Bush either. You're a very emotional, but very irrational commenter, bliffle. Your anger, evident in your scribbling, overrides whatever common sense you may have had at one time.