Big Business

[David S]

as well as imposing salary caps

I was pretty much with you until this.

I think that this will be good for the economy. The salary cap would not be too low, probably several million per year, but I think that keeping money in the market is a good thing.

If government can dictate how much CEOs can make, what stops it dictating how much you can make? Why do we want the government to tell us how much we can make? What section of the constitution gives it that power?

I dislike the idea that CEOs can set their own compensation, but I prefer to give the stockholders more say in that rather than the federal government.

[David S]

as well as imposing salary caps

I was pretty much with you until this.

I think that this will be good for the economy. The salary cap would not be too low, probably several million per year, but I think that keeping money in the market is a good thing.

If government can dictate how much CEOs can make, what stops it dictating how much you can make? Why do we want the government to tell us how much we can make? What section of the constitution gives it that power?

I dislike the idea that CEOs can set their own compensation, but I prefer to give the stockholders more say in that rather than the federal government.

Stockholders don't, however, pay attention, as long as the company makes money. Why would the government dictate how much I make? I would be against this, but if they can already do it to CEOs, they can do it to us, so the point is moot.

What section of the Constitution allows for minimum wage?

If the stockholders are happy why should you object?

As far as the minimum wage goes, no section of the constitution allows that.

[David S]

as well as imposing salary caps

I was pretty much with you until this.

I think that this will be good for the economy. The salary cap would not be too low, probably several million per year, but I think that keeping money in the market is a good thing.

If government can dictate how much CEOs can make, what stops it dictating how much you can make? Why do we want the government to tell us how much we can make? What section of the constitution gives it that power?

I dislike the idea that CEOs can set their own compensation, but I prefer to give the stockholders more say in that rather than the federal government.

Stockholders don't, however, pay attention, as long as the company makes money. Why would the government dictate how much I make? I would be against this, but if they can already do it to CEOs, they can do it to us, so the point is moot.

What section of the Constitution allows for minimum wage?

If the stockholders are happy why should you object?

As far as the minimum wage goes, no section of the constitution allows that.

Because the excessive money going into them goes out of the market, could be spent on those who barely make a living, and I do not believe corporations should just make money and ignore anything else.

Ok lets look at how things work in capitalism. The first duty of the CEO is to make money for the stockholders. That may sound selfish, but in fact it creates great benefits for society as a whole. The company must provide quality goods and services at reasonable prices or their competition will put them out of business. The company must  keep costs down while offering wages high enough to attract employees. That forces them to operate as efficiently as possible. Keeping costs down is a good thing for you and me as customers. Competing for employees is good for the employees. And finally while you might think of stockholders as a bunch of fat cats, in fact there are also average people like you and me who own stock in companies either directly, or indirectly through mutual funds, in brokerage accounts or IRA/401K accounts. So those profits benefit average people as well as rich ones. Best of all the capitalist system operates by itself without  need of government intervention. Compare our capitalist system with a pure government run system such as that which existed in the former USSR. Our system beats the pants off of the Soviet model in terms of the material well being of the people, not to mention the level of freedom.
If the CEO is running the company in such a way as to return profits to the stockholders that's a good thing and if the stockholders want to reward him with a high salary what's wrong with that?

[David S]

Unfavorable.  It has its benefits, but they exploit workers unfairly.

Can you give us an example of a something better? Big Business' generally pay better than small business'. Unskilled automotive workers are very well paid and get excellent benefits. I have nothing whatsoever against small business, but usually the local Mom and Pop store does not pay its employees all that well. Government jobs in the U.S. may pay well and have good benefits, but those jobs can only exist because of the taxes levied on the private sector. If you want a state run economy show me one that has provided the level of prosperity for its people that our capitalist system provides for us. I assure you there are none.

[David S]

Unfavorable, because they only got big because of government priviledges, like walmart using eminent domain to demolish churches and set stores there.

Walmart doens't get to invoke eminent domain. Only government can do that. You should be upset with government for misusing eminent domain. Under the constitution eminent domain is used to obtain land for public use, not for private business. So its government, not Walmart that acted improperly.

Also what type of business do you think we should have? Its fair enough to criticize big business, but what works better?

[David S]

Richius, you have very strong Libertarian views, at least on economic issues. I applaud that. Are there any more like you in Ontario?

[David S]

Unfavorable, because they only got big because of government priviledges, like walmart using eminent domain to demolish churches and set stores there.

Walmart doens't get to invoke eminent domain. Only government can do that. You should be upset with government for misusing eminent domain. Under the constitution eminent domain is used to obtain land for public use, not for private business. So its government, not Walmart that acted improperly.

Also what type of business do you think we should have? Its fair enough to criticize big business, but what works better?

And why do you think Government doues those 'favor$' to Wal-Mart??

Fact is, big business all suck on the tits of the government, weather it's using it to crunch their competitors, be it by giving themselves corporate welfare, or by increasing relulations so that new competitors can't arise, vide what the Detroid cartel of auto industry does, be it by hiding behind limited liability, be it by saving from bankruptcy due to government contratcs, be it by escaping stock market failures because of insider trading çaws, or any other thing you might want to add. Those laws don't just appear, tehy are fed by corporate money being given to legislators.

Wow. Where do you get your info? Have you noticed that there are Japanese cars, Korean cars and European cars on the road? Many years ago the big three may have been a cartel, but those days are long past. Foreign competition forced them to build better cars at lower prices. The auto industry is very competitive today. According to quicken.com GM made a profit of only 1.17% in the last year. Ford Made about 4% and DaimlerChrysler about 1.5%. That's just barely survival, and remember in some of the past years they lost money. Plus GM and Ford are carrying a mountain of debt. I'm told by friends at GM that they came close to going bellyup a few years ago. As far as liability goes there have been huge settlements against all automakers. GM got nailed for one in excess of a billion dollars a few years ago. Whether it was really their fault is not so clear.
Your complaints about payoff to government though not specific, are a greater criticism of government than business.
But you haven't answered the most important question; what would be better?

[David S]

Unfavorable, because they only got big because of government priviledges, like walmart using eminent domain to demolish churches and set stores there.

Walmart doens't get to invoke eminent domain. Only government can do that. You should be upset with government for misusing eminent domain. Under the constitution eminent domain is used to obtain land for public use, not for private business. So its government, not Walmart that acted improperly.

Also what type of business do you think we should have? Its fair enough to criticize big business, but what works better?

And why do you think Government doues those 'favor$' to Wal-Mart??

Fact is, big business all suck on the tits of the government, weather it's using it to crunch their competitors, be it by giving themselves corporate welfare, or by increasing relulations so that new competitors can't arise, vide what the Detroid cartel of auto industry does, be it by hiding behind limited liability, be it by saving from bankruptcy due to government contratcs, be it by escaping stock market failures because of insider trading çaws, or any other thing you might want to add. Those laws don't just appear, tehy are fed by corporate money being given to legislators.

Wow. Where do you get your info? Have you noticed that there are Japanese cars, Korean cars and European cars on the road? Many years ago the big three may have been a cartel, but those days are long past. Foreign competition forced them to build better cars at lower prices. The auto industry is very competitive today. According to quicken.com GM made a profit of only 1.17% in the last year. Ford Made about 4% and DaimlerChrysler about 1.5%. That's just barely survival, and remember in some of the past years they lost money. Plus GM and Ford are carrying a mountain of debt. I'm told by friends at GM that they came close to going bellyup a few years ago. As far as liability goes there have been huge settlements against all automakers. GM got nailed for one in excess of a billion dollars a few years ago. Whether it was really their fault is not so clear.
Your complaints about payoff to government though not specific, are a greater criticism of government than business.
But you haven't answered the most important question; what would be better?

If left naturally, big business don't hold on because they become inneficient. The ideal structure is a society of small/mid-sized business. An ocasional big business might emerge, but it wuld have to be exceptionally well-managed to be able to survive on a free market. Yes, nice, cars from brands with nice capitals and that were well-stablished on their origins before they hit America. Now tell me, how many new American car companies were able to sprung up on the last, say 50 years, that weren't driven by one of the 3 giants?

As far as big business becomming inefficient goes, that's a trend that happens to companies of any size. So what? If their competitors are better, the inefficient company will go out of business. That happens all the time. Small and medium compaines go out of buusiness too.

The investment required to start a new car company in the US would be staggering, in part because of government mandated standards for safety, fuel economy, and emissions. Beyond that, to make cost competitive cars you need mass production methods that require a huge financial outlay. There are few companies other than the existing automakers that have the expertise or the money to do it. Delorean tried it a few years back, but he didn't stay in business long.

[David S]

I hate big business.. all they do is take the workers money for them self. So they can be rich and there workers wont, so they have to work....

Maybe some do but many big business' pay their employees very well. Unskilled workers on the automotive assembly lines make great pay and their benefits are terrific. Do you think small companies pay better? If so which ones?

[David S]

I hate big business.. all they do is take the workers money for them self. So they can be rich and there workers wont, so they have to work....

Maybe some do but many big business' pay their employees very well. Unskilled workers on the automotive assembly lines make great pay and their benefits are terrific. Do you think small companies pay better? If so which ones?

I think he was being sarcastic.

I don't know Josh's philosophic base so I can't tell. Personally I just thought he was high. If hes kidding I'm glad.
BTW congratulations on your promotion to magistrate.