Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yes.I did recently watch a documentary called The Corporation, in which they mentioned the idea of executives being psychopaths.
The question is, why would companies want to weed out psychopaths? Their ability to focus on the bottom line to the exclusion of all other considerations makes them uniquely suited for the job the company and shareholders expect them to do.
Generally speaking this is because such proposals are based on one or more individual's values and beliefs as opposed to the group values and beliefs. When attempting to pass such a thing, group conformance kicks in and individuals are more likely to vote in such a way as to act in a way that they believe benefits the group as a whole - were you to ask those same people individually with their response anonymous, they are probably more likely to be willing to deviate from group consensus.Shareholders routinely try to pass proposals to fix aspects of a company that they think need improving, but they rarely get a majority vote.
There's some truth in that, but that's not the primary reason.Generally speaking this is because such proposals are based on one or more individual's values and beliefs as opposed to the group values and beliefs. When attempting to pass such a thing, group conformance kicks in and individuals are more likely to vote in such a way as to act in a way that they believe benefits the group as a whole - were you to ask those same people individually with their response anonymous, they are probably more likely to be willing to deviate from group consensus.
That and the fact that people like money.
Scapegoats! This is a system by design to favour the richest and entrench their wealth, and your lame analysis with a theme of "we're all investors" doesn't cut it in an age when the wealthiest 400 Americans have more wealth than the poorest half of the total population!There's some truth in that, but that's not the primary reason.
Most large companies are primarily owned by institutions. You can look up the percentages; most American blue-chip companies are more than half-owned by institutions. That can be retirement funds, insurance companies, investment funds, etc. Most people, rather than holding shares directly, hold index funds, mutual funds, exchange traded funds, work with financial advisers, and so forth. So they hold a basket of hundreds of companies. The institutions that manage these funds have the voting rights, and the majority of them don't bother to vote for shareholder proposals, and just regularly approve directors and compensation packages. So they don't care too much. So it's not really conformance; it's just abstaining from voting, and not caring.
But that's why I don't see why executives should be viewed as scapegoats, and that's why I say I don't know what people expect. That's how people set the system up, and they continue to operate it that way. If the tens of millions of households in the US that own equities, don't care, don't pay attention, don't know what they own, don't vote their shares, and just give their votes to someone else who abstains from voting, then responsibility lies with them as much as the executives.
It is a symptom of a civilization that is collapsing, and those with wealth and power are looting the store...just as they did when the Soviet Union collapsed 20 years ago. Top executives are rewarded for quarterly profit margins with big bonuses, and have no incentives to stay with the same company for more than a few years. And the more ruthless they are, the greater their rewards. If that's not a system that favours a psychopath, I don't know what is!Edit: So what I mean overall is that yes, many executives of corporations, especially in the finance world, have tendencies we'd associate with psychopaths, and we can blame them for actions. But overall, I think this is a symptom of a civilization that's asleep.
So, it's acceptable to you that wealth is being increasingly concentrated at the top, at a time of economic stagnation!This makes me remember with fondness that magical period of time when the rich and powerful used to give their fortunes away to paupers and skip around shooting rainbows out of their butts.
So, it's acceptable to you that wealth is being increasingly concentrated at the top, at a time of economic stagnation!
The numbers don't lie. All you got is empty rhetoric.Only if it's acceptable for you to use strawmen as a rhetorical device.
The numbers don't lie. All you got is empty rhetoric.
These political "only" areas aren't particularly meant for debate; they're for discussion. It's against the rules of the forum for heavy debate to occur here; we can discuss things civilly. You talk about my "lame" analysis and by posting those links you seem to make all sorts of assumptions about my politics or positions.Scapegoats! This is a system by design to favour the richest and entrench their wealth, and your lame analysis with a theme of "we're all investors" doesn't cut it in an age when the wealthiest 400 Americans have more wealth than the poorest half of the total population!Income inequality in the U.S. is currently the highest its been since the 1920s, with the 400 richest Americans (who are all billionaires) having as much wealth as the bottom 50 percent of Americans combined. And as it turns out, just one wealthy family has managed to amass a fortune equal to that of the combined net worth of the bottom 30 percent of Americans the Waltons, heirs to the Walmart fortune
The Walmart Heirs Have The Same Net Worth As The Bottom 30 Percent Of Americans | ThinkProgress
And why is it, do you think, history repeats itself so often? Time and time again, and not just in the modern era, but in many ancient eras too.It is a symptom of a civilization that is collapsing, and those with wealth and power are looting the store...just as they did when the Soviet Union collapsed 20 years ago.
Do you own any equities, or no? Index funds, mutual funds, exchange traded funds, or anything of that nature?Top executives are rewarded for quarterly profit margins with big bonuses, and have no incentives to stay with the same company for more than a few years. And the more ruthless they are, the greater their rewards.
It is indeed a system that favors a psychopath.If that's not a system that favours a psychopath, I don't know what is!
But my point is, that system is us.
Let's review. If "lame" is offensive, I'll retract it; but here's what I consider offensive propaganda to be posted without expecting to be challenged....and maybe you can show we where it says that this sub-forum and the Political World are not "particularly meant for debate." Does that mean any claim made gets to go unchallenged? Regardless! This is your statement which I find totally offensive, because it is a central part of the meme that wealth inequality and the worldwide banking collapse only has victims and no perpetrators:These political "only" areas aren't particularly meant for debate; they're for discussion. It's against the rules of the forum for heavy debate to occur here; we can discuss things civilly. You talk about my "lame" analysis and by posting those links you seem to make all sorts of assumptions about my politics or positions.
No, this isn't a natural historical cycle. The only facet of modern capitalism that is identical to Ancient Rome or with feudalistic societies in the Middle Ages are the gaps in wealth and income. Debt-based financing and fractional reserve banking systems which have made continuous growth an imperative, are not a repeat of history. And for the record neither is the wealth gap that shows the top 1% of Americans owning 40% of the Nation's wealth! Awhile back, a group of historians did an analysis of available records of Ancient Rome and determined that Rome's wealth gap (even on a slave-labour based economy) was less than the U.S. and other Western nations:Read this and get back to me.
And why is it, do you think, history repeats itself so often? Time and time again, and not just in the modern era, but in many ancient eras too.
Which is why economic models need to be designed to equalize the trend towards inequality when it develops. That was the logic behind modern liberal capitalism of John Maynard Keynes and his proteges. An economic system that has shifted from simple supply and demand, to creating demand for novelty and new products through sophisticated manipulation of consumers, provides an incentive for people to attach their status to brand names and the acquiring of status symbols. The alternative is to scrap capitalism altogether, and design a socialist economic system that is responsive enough to local interests to avoid decline in output, and although the general will is to reform an existing system rather than scrap it and try something new, our world is fast reaching a point where growth-based economics is crashing into the natural limits of what the planet can provide for a growing human population.I don't think wealth inequality is one of the symptoms of a collapsing civilization, I think it's one of the causes. And it occurs over and over because people are generally the same. A smaller segment of the population is willing to take advantage of the rest of the population, and the rest of the population allows it to happen. Eventually things get so unequal that revolution occurs, and it starts anew.
Yes, but I had to cash in a lot of them when my wife had to stop working and to cover medical costs that weren't completely covered by health insurance and group benefits.Do you own any equities, or no? Index funds, mutual funds, exchange traded funds, or anything of that nature?
Like most of the small fish in this investor class that you idealize, I have never tried to play the game of buying company shares directly, and even if I did, corporate democracy awards votes by the number of shares owned, so what's your point? A few major players can control the corporation without having to control 50% of the stock, because the minions out there are all divided up into little marginalized votes.If so, did you vote against the compensation plan of the executives of the companies that you own?
The "system is us" only in respects to the Joe-The-Plumber type fools who think the system will someday work for them. That used to work to keep real left movements from crashing the party in the American political system; but, as I pointed out on a different thread from the analysis of economist-Richard Wolfe, the reason for that confidence that capitalism would work for the average person existed because American history had witnessed a decade by decade increase in the average wage level from the 1820's to the 1970's. Since the 80's, the trend has reversed; and wages have declined for most segments of the population, including skilled labour, because of outsourcing production and importing illegal workers that can be treated as a slave labour class.It is indeed a system that favors a psychopath.
But my point is, that system is us.