rekrunner wrote:
Only if they did it fairly.
Some companies succeed only by getting handouts from the state, or by sponsoring legislation, or more simply breaking the law, giving them a de-facto monopoly.
I like how so many on the left demonize monopolies and at the same time want a government run monopoly on health care. (Not directed that the poster, just an observation in general).
luv2run wrote:
I like how so many on the left demonize monopolies and at the same time want a government run monopoly on health care. (Not directed that the poster, just an observation in general).
Why do you like that?
DiscoGary wrote:
Asu guy wrote:Read some crap about Walmart before you post this drivel. They treat employee's like dirt, Sam Walton used to work along side employee's to prove he was just like they were. Now his family is the wealthiest in the entire world, you don't get that way by sharing your huge profits. This company is the king of corporate welfare, they extort more subsidies from the local and state governments then all the "poor people" taking handouts combined. Walmart also teaches it's employee's how to get public assistance, something a company that shared it's wealth with it's employee's would never even consider.
"Wal-mart The High Cost of the Low Price", watch it and it's all ready fact check, for slimey conservative's who don't believe the facts..
If companies played by the rules they could make as money as possible, but they don't, they help make the rules and if they don't like the rules they lobby hard to change them. people without as much power as the corporations can't do that. it's not a level playing field and it never was.
read some books from Michael Lewis, The Big short or Flash boys or Liars Poker
So your problem with Walmart is the welfare state (government), corporate handouts (government), big business favoritism (government again). So if government would stop meddling in business, then you wouldn't have any complaints about Walmart.
We agree! Big companies only get dangerous when they have enough clout to buy government influence. Therefore the solution is to make sure our government can not be influenced by big companies.
I just want to be clear on your model. So, should companies regulate themselves in every aspect of business? What about environmental impact concerns for one. Who regulates that in your model?
Lib Rules wrote:
I just want to be clear on your model. So, should companies regulate themselves in every aspect of business? What about environmental impact concerns for one. Who regulates that in your model?
Any business that injures someone or damages someone's property could be taken to court and held responsible.
If they poison someone, off to court they go, and they don't want that.
If they pollute the water, off to court they go, and they don't want that.
I prefer innovation over regulation. Let the companies find ways to avoid hurting people and polluting the environment without the government telling them exactly what to do. Believe me, our lawyers would be more than happy to keep all these businesses in line using this model, and environmentalism would not be left behind.
The danger is always that the businesses corrupt the government so that laws don't get enforced. That danger exists for all models, and our current model of tight regulation is especially vulnerable because businesses can focus on a small number of regulators who are far easier to corrupt than the entire community of lawyers.
luv2run wrote:
rekrunner wrote:Only if they did it fairly.
Some companies succeed only by getting handouts from the state, or by sponsoring legislation, or more simply breaking the law, giving them a de-facto monopoly.
I like how so many on the left demonize monopolies and at the same time want a government run monopoly on health care. (Not directed that the poster, just an observation in general).
Amen to this.
I have no problem with a company making large profits so long as it is a competitive market place. If you don't like it when companies make a profit, then start your own company.
My whole argument being that the way we structure the managemen and ownership of businesses inherently incentivises to poor and short termist decisions.
A CEO who has maybe 3 or 4 years at the helm has a massive incentive to boost profts this quarter, to inflate his stock options, than to make genuine long term moves.
luv2run wrote:
rekrunner wrote:Only if they did it fairly.
Some companies succeed only by getting handouts from the state, or by sponsoring legislation, or more simply breaking the law, giving them a de-facto monopoly.
I like how so many on the left demonize monopolies and at the same time want a government run monopoly on health care. (Not directed that the poster, just an observation in general).
The difference is that a government monopoly is not trying to generate a profit, reducing the positive incentive to provide a bad overpriced service.
It also is theoretically held to account by voters, reducing the scope for poor performance through complacency.
Also, the British NHS is not a monopoly
le veritable wrote:
My whole argument being that the way we structure the managemen and ownership of businesses inherently incentivises to poor and short termist decisions.
A CEO who has maybe 3 or 4 years at the helm has a massive incentive to boost profts this quarter, to inflate his stock options, than to make genuine long term moves.
This is part of leftist mythology and is used to justify government involvement in the markets.
If CEO's didn't try to maximize profits then they could be dragged into court for failing to execute their fiduciary responsibilities to the share-holders, which is largely the general population. Would our economy work if CEO's ran their corporations as some kind of charity?
With regard to short-term decision making, are you saying that replacing the decision making process of professionals who have a financial stake in the consequences is less efficient than the decision making process of government officials who will not suffer the financial consequences of their poor choices?
Thanks for supporting me!
[quote]Le veritable wrote:
The difference is that a government monopoly is not trying to generate a profit, reducing the positive incentive to provide a bad overpriced service.
It also is theoretically held to account by voters, reducing the scope for poor performance through complacency.
A government monopoly ends up costing people more than if it were in the private sector as it is inefficient and unionized. If you look at the Medicaid system, almost the only providers are community health systems as they are utilizing doctors who are students that are working for basically nothing (or less than nothing as many are paying a lot of money to be there). The few private companies that do provide service to Medicaid patients (where the reimbursement is too low to turn a profit regardless of how efficient an operation is set up) abuse the system and the patient in the effort to turn a profit. Here is an article on a chain that specializes in performing care on Medicaid patients:
This is pretty much a result of the low reimbursement from Medicaid. Entities like the one mentioned above routinely pressure dental and medical boards for more mid-level providers and extended duties for less qualified personnel. It rewards larger (more "efficient") companies that employ less qualified individuals (instead of being seen by a doctor / dentist you will be seen by a nurse / assistant).
Obamacare has caused a lot of consolidation on the provider level as a lot of smaller (less "efficient") providers are selling their practices to more "efficient" operations in order to comply with the extensive requirements of Obamacare. So far most experience is that this socialized medicine experiment is costing people more money for worse care from a reduced number of providers. The only winners in the Obamacare experiment look to be prescription drug companies as they now have more sick people demanding their drugs.
That is a strawman, if you read any one of my previous posts in the thread, you will see me advocating employee and consumer ownership as a proven successful alternative, not just government ownership.
To your other points, the fiduciary duty to maximise profits is not actually written into company law, that is a myth; and plenty of companies have made poor strategic decisions in the past.
Finally, short termisf profit inflation does happen. Look at tesco who skewedup profits by recognising revenue early, the fall outfrom that has nearly bankrupted one of the worlds largest retailers.
Yes.
liberal mania wrote:
Do you REALLY think it's fair that some big companies are allowed to make large profits?
Thanks for bumping a year old thread to support me again!
fisky wrote:
It is counterproductive to penalize success and/or productivity. Success should be rewarded, not penalized.
Example: One guy wins several local 5k's. To be "fair," should he be required to run farther than everyone else or carry weights so he finishes when everyone else finishes?
Yes
Le veritable wrote:
That is a strawman, if you read any one of my previous posts in the thread, you will see me advocating employee and consumer ownership as a proven successful alternative, not just government ownership.
To your other points, the fiduciary duty to maximise profits is not actually written into company law, that is a myth; and plenty of companies have made poor strategic decisions in the past.
Finally, short termisf profit inflation does happen. Look at tesco who skewedup profits by recognising revenue early, the fall outfrom that has nearly bankrupted one of the worlds largest retailers.
You are quite correct. This thread renders manifest that many Americans cannot permit themselves to think certain questions... an alarming testament to deep indoctrination.
DiscoGary wrote:
le veritable wrote:My whole argument being that the way we structure the managemen and ownership of businesses inherently incentivises to poor and short termist decisions.
A CEO who has maybe 3 or 4 years at the helm has a massive incentive to boost profts this quarter, to inflate his stock options, than to make genuine long term moves.
This is part of leftist mythology and is used to justify government involvement in the markets.
If CEO's didn't try to maximize profits then they could be dragged into court for failing to execute their fiduciary responsibilities to the share-holders, which is largely the general population. Would our economy work if CEO's ran their corporations as some kind of charity?
With regard to short-term decision making, are you saying that replacing the decision making process of professionals who have a financial stake in the consequences is less efficient than the decision making process of government officials who will not suffer the financial consequences of their poor choices?
le veritable is, of course, wildly wrong.
Interestingly, you are wildly wrong too.
It is cute that you think that CEOs get "dragged into court for failing to execute their fiduciary responsibilities to the shareholders." You do know how often this happens in real life, right?
And probably because CEOs are universally focused on maximizing long-term shareholder value, right? LOL.
liberal mania wrote:
Do you REALLY think it's fair that some big companies are allowed to make large profits?
As long as they do it in free-market conditions: sure.
If they do it with the "assistance" or "cooperation" of government: no.