peterrost.blogspot.com— Digg this if you think it is wrong to make $11 million, and get a 36% raise, when you just fired 10,000 employees.
Mar 16, 2007View in Crawl 4
I do not want to believe that the only working economic system is greed.Other than that, those pro-capitalist posts above seem pretty straight forward and to the point.
It is disappointing that when CEOs are criticized for being assh**es, everyone assumes you're a communist or a socialist. That's insane. Why can't people be shamed strictly on moral/ethical grounds without invoking political systems of government? What is wrong with us? Why can't we say that some guy is an assh**e without being associated with communism or socialism? Is that because the guy in question is rich? Is that why? So saying someone is an assh**e or greedy is OK if that person is not too rich, but when that person is rich, it becomes a threat to our very system of government?What is up with that crap?We should be able to criticize and shame CEOs without being associated with socialists or communists.
Exactly. I don't understand why when CEOs are criticized for selfishness and greed everyone screams "pinko commy" in an effort to completely dismiss the criticism. It seems that our ability to criticized people based on their level of greed is not that effective. That's unfortunate.If people can be shamed into a more moral behavior, then we wouldn't need regulations. But it's when people refuse to behave in an ethical/moral way that finally those abused decide that they've had enough and force regulations down everyone's throats.Spanking assh**e CEOs is good for capitalism. That way we can keep it! If we refuse the spank the outrageous CEOs, well, that's just begging for the poorer people to get more and more pissed, which, if we can believe history, leads to revolutions and/or more regulations as a backlash.
Once again the busy bodies (socialists, liberals and of course "progressives") disapprove of other people's spending habits. Its not your money, it belongs to the shareholders of Pfizer. That means it belongs neither you nor the government.If you disapprove so much, buy a few shares and then complain during a stockholders meeting. Better yet, get the stockholders to force the board to remove the CEO and terminate his contract. That would send more of a message than an open letter which the CEO probably is too technically illiterate to even read.Its amazing how many people in America feel it is their civic duty to demand other people spend their money in ways contrary to their best interests.
History has proven time and again the unmitigated capitalism is not a viable economic system. It requires checks and balances. If I buy something from you that for $10 and turn around a resell it for $1,000.00 because you didn't know what it was worth, will you admire me for my keen sense of business?
@andrew1193I know this is really late, but I've been away for a while.You said "Socialism is defined as the abolition of private property rights in the means of production." Google Socialism and read about. Your definition is nothing short of wrong. Even to call it a "point of view" would be misleading since it's really not based on anything.Then you said "Private property is specifically protected in Amendments III, IV, and V."These Amendments do not do what you are alleging that they do. They certainly do not prohibit the government from collecting taxes and using them how they see fit. But Article 1 of the constitution specifically does grant Congress those rights. Quartering soldiers, Unreasonable search and seizure, security in your papers and the right to a jury trial have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the government can tax you, enact price controls, tariffs, social welfare programs or anything else you are alleging. Read the Constitution yourself, read some legal reviews of it, and not just some Libertarian or Anarco-Capitalist misinterpretation that fits their own prejudice.
"You said "Socialism is defined as the abolition of private property rights in the means of production." Google Socialism and read about. Your definition is nothing short of wrong. Even to call it a "point of view" would be misleading since it's really not based on anything."My definition is from the dictionary:socialismn. 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. 2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved."Then you said "Private property is specifically protected in Amendments III, IV, and V."""These Amendments do not do what you are alleging that they do. They certainly do not prohibit the government from collecting taxes and using them how they see fit. But Article 1 of the constitution specifically does grant Congress those rights."We were not talking about taxes, we were talking about private property, which socialism seeks to abolish.In the case of Amendments III and IV, private property is implicitly recognized and protected. Private property is explicitly protected from being taken for public use without compensation in Amendment V."Quartering soldiers, Unreasonable search and seizure, security in your papers and the right to a jury trial have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the government can tax you, enact price controls, tariffs, social welfare programs or anything else you are alleging. Read the Constitution yourself, read some legal reviews of it, and not just some Libertarian or Anarco-Capitalist misinterpretation that fits their own prejudice."The powers of Congress are clearly spelled out in Article I, Section 8. None of the powers include the power to enact price controls or social welfare programs. The government is specifically limited to those enumerated powers by Amendment X. Anything else is unconstitutional.
We are living in a "ME" world. Corporate upper management doesn't care about the product, or general employee population. They only care about how many millions or billions it is going to save or make them. Don't like it. Start your own company.<a class="user" href="http://www.mysteryautoincome.com">http://www.mysteryautoincome.com</a>
kounaviMar 18, 2007
I do not want to believe that the only working economic system is greed.Other than that, those pro-capitalist posts above seem pretty straight forward and to the point.
starflyer59Mar 18, 2007
He did not do a good enough job leading the company. Why does he deserve anything?
aeooMar 18, 2007
It is disappointing that when CEOs are criticized for being assh**es, everyone assumes you're a communist or a socialist. That's insane. Why can't people be shamed strictly on moral/ethical grounds without invoking political systems of government? What is wrong with us? Why can't we say that some guy is an assh**e without being associated with communism or socialism? Is that because the guy in question is rich? Is that why? So saying someone is an assh**e or greedy is OK if that person is not too rich, but when that person is rich, it becomes a threat to our very system of government?What is up with that crap?We should be able to criticize and shame CEOs without being associated with socialists or communists.
aeooMar 18, 2007
Exactly. I don't understand why when CEOs are criticized for selfishness and greed everyone screams "pinko commy" in an effort to completely dismiss the criticism. It seems that our ability to criticized people based on their level of greed is not that effective. That's unfortunate.If people can be shamed into a more moral behavior, then we wouldn't need regulations. But it's when people refuse to behave in an ethical/moral way that finally those abused decide that they've had enough and force regulations down everyone's throats.Spanking assh**e CEOs is good for capitalism. That way we can keep it! If we refuse the spank the outrageous CEOs, well, that's just begging for the poorer people to get more and more pissed, which, if we can believe history, leads to revolutions and/or more regulations as a backlash.
timstevensMar 18, 2007
Once again the busy bodies (socialists, liberals and of course "progressives") disapprove of other people's spending habits. Its not your money, it belongs to the shareholders of Pfizer. That means it belongs neither you nor the government.If you disapprove so much, buy a few shares and then complain during a stockholders meeting. Better yet, get the stockholders to force the board to remove the CEO and terminate his contract. That would send more of a message than an open letter which the CEO probably is too technically illiterate to even read.Its amazing how many people in America feel it is their civic duty to demand other people spend their money in ways contrary to their best interests.
jrolson7Mar 19, 2007
History has proven time and again the unmitigated capitalism is not a viable economic system. It requires checks and balances. If I buy something from you that for $10 and turn around a resell it for $1,000.00 because you didn't know what it was worth, will you admire me for my keen sense of business?
Closed AccountMar 19, 2007
Yes.
15charmaxwtfMar 20, 2007
oops double post
peritonlogonMar 21, 2007
@andrew1193I know this is really late, but I've been away for a while.You said "Socialism is defined as the abolition of private property rights in the means of production." Google Socialism and read about. Your definition is nothing short of wrong. Even to call it a "point of view" would be misleading since it's really not based on anything.Then you said "Private property is specifically protected in Amendments III, IV, and V."These Amendments do not do what you are alleging that they do. They certainly do not prohibit the government from collecting taxes and using them how they see fit. But Article 1 of the constitution specifically does grant Congress those rights. Quartering soldiers, Unreasonable search and seizure, security in your papers and the right to a jury trial have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the government can tax you, enact price controls, tariffs, social welfare programs or anything else you are alleging. Read the Constitution yourself, read some legal reviews of it, and not just some Libertarian or Anarco-Capitalist misinterpretation that fits their own prejudice.
jrolson7Mar 23, 2007
Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition. It's not a "Capitalist Government".Most of the stuff you buy these days is made in China, a Communist Government.Your gasoline comes from the Middle East, Saudi Arabia is a monarchy. <a class="user" href="https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2128.html">https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2128.html</a>Being a fanatic about one particular economic system solves nothing.
stisevMar 27, 2007
How utterly sad
monk22Apr 13, 2007
dont like it start your own company. welcome to capitalism.
andrew1193Apr 16, 2007
"You said "Socialism is defined as the abolition of private property rights in the means of production." Google Socialism and read about. Your definition is nothing short of wrong. Even to call it a "point of view" would be misleading since it's really not based on anything."My definition is from the dictionary:socialismn. 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. 2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved."Then you said "Private property is specifically protected in Amendments III, IV, and V."""These Amendments do not do what you are alleging that they do. They certainly do not prohibit the government from collecting taxes and using them how they see fit. But Article 1 of the constitution specifically does grant Congress those rights."We were not talking about taxes, we were talking about private property, which socialism seeks to abolish.In the case of Amendments III and IV, private property is implicitly recognized and protected. Private property is explicitly protected from being taken for public use without compensation in Amendment V."Quartering soldiers, Unreasonable search and seizure, security in your papers and the right to a jury trial have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the government can tax you, enact price controls, tariffs, social welfare programs or anything else you are alleging. Read the Constitution yourself, read some legal reviews of it, and not just some Libertarian or Anarco-Capitalist misinterpretation that fits their own prejudice."The powers of Congress are clearly spelled out in Article I, Section 8. None of the powers include the power to enact price controls or social welfare programs. The government is specifically limited to those enumerated powers by Amendment X. Anything else is unconstitutional.
vittDec 1, 2007
Umm<a class="user" href="http://www.best-health-tips.com">http://www.best-health-tips.com</a><a class="user" href="http://www.best-finance-topics.com">http://www.best-finance-topics.com</a>
Closed AccountDec 14, 2007
<a class="user" href="http://www.credit-collection-agency.com">http://www.credit-collection-agency.com</a>I need a job as a CEO, so I can protect the interest of shareholders
jjpmarketingJan 12, 2008
We are living in a "ME" world. Corporate upper management doesn't care about the product, or general employee population. They only care about how many millions or billions it is going to save or make them. Don't like it. Start your own company.<a class="user" href="http://www.mysteryautoincome.com">http://www.mysteryautoincome.com</a>
autoklixFeb 10, 2008
10.000 employees?that's not fair.<a class="user" href="http://www.strongrealestatellc.com">http://www.strongrealestatellc.com</a>