• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The economic recovery turns 2: Feel better yet?

xpiher said:
Yea, no body on the current repub roster looks more desirable
Click to expand...

Romney 20 years ago would have been my vote but man, he's unrecognizable now.
 
xpiher said:
Yea, no body on the current repub roster looks more desirable
Click to expand...

Romney has some good economic experience. The guy from Utah, the one lacking name recognition (can't remember his name just now) might be OK. The rest of them are little better than Larry, Curly, and Moe.
 
This thread is too much.

The role of a CEO is to improve the value of the company they work for. While profitability is certainly an important piece in gaining market capital, it is not as black or white as many make it out to be.

For example, a company that gives all of their profits to shareholders will not be nearly as valuable as if they were to retain it as cash (or owners' equity). This is an essential rule to financial modeling; markets will always discount dividends PRIOR to disbursement, ceteris paribus.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
This thread is too much.

The role of a CEO is to improve the value of the company they work for. While profitability is certainly an important piece in gaining market capital, it is not as black or white as many make it out to be.

For example, a company that gives all of their profits to shareholders will not be nearly as valuable as if they were to retain it as cash (or owners' equity). This is an essential rule to financial modeling; markets will always discount dividends PRIOR to disbursement, ceteris paribus.
Click to expand...

With that said, how many CEO's actually do this?
 
Ockham said:
HOPE and CHANGE baby!! Hope and Change....
Click to expand...

If we want hope we need change

If we hope to keep our change than we really need change
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/business/03pay.html

Resurgent executive pay has some corporate watchdogs worried that companies have already forgotten the lessons of the bust. Boards have promised to tie executive pay to company success, but by some measures pay is rising faster than performance. The median pay raise for chief executives last year — 23 percent — was roughly in line with the increase in net corporate profits. But it far exceeded the median gain in shareholders’ total return, which was 16 percent, as well as the median gain in revenue, which was 7 percent.
Click to expand...
 
DemonMyst said:
You are either dreaming or smoking some serious stuff if you believe that..

We have had the tax cuts for about 10 years now.. Where are the jobs??

Republicans haven't let the dems make any major changes.. The tax cuts at the cost of $320 billion a year are still there.. Stimulus wasn't as big as we wanted.. No public option to control healthcare costs.. And you shmucks look to dems to fix this..

Welcome to the republican economy..

Which is better for the economy?? Some moron putting his millions in the bank to do nothing?? Or lower class people getting a raise who will most definately spend it buy things they don't have??

If you need belp with that then your an idiot..

The 3% of the people that are rich do not stimulate or drive the economy.. The 97% that are not so rich do.. The sooner republicans realise that the better.. Help the poor and you help the economy.. Not that you all care.. You are trying to kill the economy to regain the white house.. The drun beat blaming the dems has already started.. Even though repubs have prevented the dems from actually fixing the economy..

Typed using my Evo Shift.. Sorry for typos..
Click to expand...

Again more of the same unthinking sh*t we hear from the talking heads … The Bush tax cuts were all set to expire … your high and mighty dems . . held the house .. the senate and the white house .. they controlled the government … For the tax cuts to expire … nothing had to be done .. no vote needed to be taken .. just sit back and do nothing .. . something libs are very good at …. but in this case .. “they” choose to extend said tax cuts .. Did Republican want to extend those same cuts .. of course they did .. but they were incapable of doing so.

It's time to stop blaming others … and take responsibility for the extension of those tax cuts .. Now I realize that liberals never want to take responsibility for anything when they feel they can blame others for their own action …

The public option … again didn't need one republican vote to pass … you had the 60 democrats in the senate ..(59 with 1 independent that caucused with dems) how is it that dems couldn't get their chit together to pass it ? The fact that your own liberal party couldn't get things done is no fault of the republicans

Well you are right that the middle class do more to drive the economy, you are wrong is dismissing that 3 percent so easily .. because you can like it or not .. but those 3 percent are the very people that create those middle class jobs that give the people the money to drive the economy.
It's clear they aren't using their money to create jobs .. I feel it would be better to get off the blame game … and find out what is holding them back from doing so, and fix those problems. Like it or not it's the wealthy that creates the jobs that allows all those middle class people to spend more … which in turn expands our economy and creates a need for even more jobs.

It's a circle that needs both to expand our economy ..
 
Last edited:
I disagree. Does that make me an optimist?
 
BDBoop said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/business/03pay.html
Click to expand...


Not sure if you understand the pieces of CEO pay. The article tries to explain that companies are paying more CASH and less in stock. That is a debate that keeps going back and forth. But remember that if companies had given stock in 2008 and 2009 when the market was down these folks would have made even more money. It is also hard to really calculates this stuff as profit on stock only becomes income when the CEO sells the stock and takes a gain. Again, the article talks to unrealized gains, but may not have explained what it means ( stock options below the current market price still held by the individual).

Now do CEOs make more than their value. In probably most instances, yes. There was no lesson learned by the recession. Not sure what the lesson would be for a company not in the financial sector. Their company got hammered when the economy froze, says nothing about CEO pay.

Not sure if you have worked with senior management of a large company to see how this stuff worked in reality. No article in a newspaper can really explain the nuances of this topic.
 
Thank you. I'm having a reaction to the fact that the money is there, yes? The economy is recovering. For some.
 
BDBoop said:
Thank you. I'm having a reaction to the fact that the money is there, yes? The economy is recovering. For some.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is true. How to get that better distributed is very hard to figure out. You have to remember that wages are not a zero sum game. So that if we pay CEOs less, others will get paid more. What the reality is if CEOs make less the corporation will make more. The key seems to be that capital is fungible. That is it can easily travel to whereever it will get the best return. So the real question seems to be how to make it more profitable for companies to keep their capital in the U.S. versus elsewhere.

Saying that, the issue is more complicated than just tax rates as some would say. Yes that goes into the calculation, but it one of many things people look at when deciding where to invest ( build factories, hire support teams etc).

So back to your point do CEOs use the power of their office to enrich themselves, yes. Does it impact what the average worker makes, bit in any meaningful way if at all.
 
xpiher said:
Capital isn't only gained by investment, its gained also by people spending money on the product/service you provide. Take my same example and apply it to a car company. Those people that got a 50k bonus now have enough money to buy the car they make and couldn't afford prior. Many would buy the car as a sign of loyalty and wealth.
Click to expand...

How do car makers get the money for an auto manufacturing plant? You think they can do that on profits alone? Do you realize how many years it would take to build up the money for that investment through profit alone?

The market doesn't determine CEO positions, thats the point. You can see if a CEO is good if the CEO makes the company more profitable, or keep profit around the same level despite dire economic conditions. If your company is hemerging money and you stay as CEO, you aren't staying because of the market.
Click to expand...

Bad CEO's are typically kicked out, by the way.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
The market for corporate CEO's is gamed in favor of the CEO's through compensation commitees. And any gamed market is not a reliable indicator of value
Click to expand...

Because companies are so much better off by paying CEO's more than they're worth, right? If the market did not demand those high salaries, then why do companies continue to pay them? Wouldn't the smarter company save a lot of money by not doing it?
 
Dittohead not! said:
yes, with a ten million dollar "golden parachute". Where can I get a temp job as a CEO again?
Click to expand...
The fact that you are asking where to get one is all the evidence anyone needs that you are not qualified. :doh

.
 
TOJ said:
Unless you are a shareholder, why is it any of your damn business.

.
Click to expand...

Hello? It's in the ****ing New York Times. If they don't want their information out there, maybe they should put a lid on it.
 
TOJ said:
The fact that you are asking where to get one is all the evidence anyone needs that you are not qualified. :doh

.
Click to expand...

I suppose you're right. Now, if I had an uncle, or perhaps a brother who knew the right person, I could maybe talk to them.
 
Tucker Case said:
I guess I'm just pessimistic because I think we're just as screwed regardless of who is in office.
Click to expand...

If so, then I 100% share you pessimism except there actually ARE tea party candidates who wouldn't do that - although they're referred to as "tea baggers" by the Democratic left wing of politics and are derided as inconsequential and "extremists".
 
Ockham said:
If so, then I 100% share you pessimism except there actually ARE tea party candidates who wouldn't do that - although they're referred to as "tea baggers" by the Democratic left wing of politics and are derided as inconsequential and "extremists".
Click to expand...

I don't think the president has enough power, regardless of what party they are in (tea party or otherwise), to make much of an impact on our everyday lives. Hell, I don't think the government has that much of an overall impact.

Not immediately, at least.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom