Devil or Angel, Whichever You Are

[carlfense]

If Beck wasn't successful at what he is doing or, if he would choose to simply go away and drink margaritas in the Bahamas the rest of his life, those 300 people wouldn't have that job.

And the country outside of those 300 people would be so much better for it . . .

[Abdullah the Butcher]

 

If Beck wasn't successful at what he is doing or, if he would choose to simply go away and drink margaritas in the Bahamas the rest of his life, those 300 people wouldn't have that job.

 

And the country outside of those 300 people would be so much better for it . . .

 

Move to Canada where you get fined for opinions on the radio.

[carlfense]

Move to Canada where you get fined for opinions on the radio.

No thanks re: Canada.

 

And I'm certainly not in favor of censorship.

[BigRedBuster]

 

If Beck wasn't successful at what he is doing or, if he would choose to simply go away and drink margaritas in the Bahamas the rest of his life, those 300 people wouldn't have that job.

And the country outside of those 300 people would be so much better for it . . .

 

LOL....well....we have the same opinion of Beck as far as what he says on TV.

[Hingle McCringleberry]

can we all agree that the problem is not making the employers rich, it is making the shareholders rich? what do they provide to a company or the economy? furthermore, they often handicap a business by not being able to see past the next quarter.

 

[HUSKER 37]

I'm still not ready to claim one of the sides (Dem/Rep), but lately it seems one of the sides hates having to work for a living.

 

I'm not saying we need to kiss business owners in low places, but I'd sure rather they were here than overseas improving someone else's Economy...My Boss was complaining today about none of us getting any raises for the last 6 years, and I shot back that I was way WAY too young to live on a fixed income...But several of my past employers have either gone out of business or transfered operations to S.E. Asia..

[carlfense]

I'm still not ready to claim one of the sides (Dem/Rep), but lately it seems one of the sides hates having to work for a living.

Oh, horsesh!t.

[HUSKER 37]

 

Well I'm glad that Glenn Beck doesn't smell like sulfur and employs 300 people, but his nonsense does far more bad than good. Far more.

 

People need to quit acting like employing people to work for their company or organization is doing them some huge personal favor. Those employees are working their ass off, mostly for the benefit of the higher-ups who employ them. "Hey I can't be an a-hole, I create jobs!" is such a stupid line that you hear all the time.

I think you just reinforced the point that Mike Rowe is making. You don't like Glen Beck so you have a certain opinion of him.

 

Personally I think Glen Beck is a an over the top individual that has taken things to far. Glen Beck thinks everyone that doesn't agree with him is stupid.

 

Personally I think Bill Maher is an over the top individual that has taken things to far. Bill Maher thinks everyone that doesn't agree with him is stupid.

 

[HUSKER 37]

 

I'm still not ready to claim one of the sides (Dem/Rep), but lately it seems one of the sides hates having to work for a living.

Oh, horsesh!t.

 

 

I didn't even say WHICH side...

 

And Maybe not everyone on that particular side...but often the ones favoring that party willing to argue about politics on the interwebs... Seem to have this strange hatred for all most things resembling Capitalism...

[carlfense]

 

 

I'm still not ready to claim one of the sides (Dem/Rep), but lately it seems one of the sides hates having to work for a living.

Oh, horsesh!t.

 

 

I didn't even say WHICH side...

 

And Maybe not everyone on that particular side...but often the ones favoring that party willing to argue about politics on the interwebs... Seem to have this strange hatred for all most things resembling Capitalism...

 

[tschu]

You should probably watch Capitalism: A Love Story and Death By China to figure out why most people on the left are on the side of fighting for the rights of workers and regulating capitalism. Deregulation and Reagan's trickle-down nonsense have sure worked well haven't they! As corporate profits skyrocket, the wealth inequality gap grows ever larger, the US manufacturing base is all but gone, hours worked per household are way way up among workers, middle-class debt is way way up, yet despite all the insane profits and Wall Street gains, wages remain stagnant, flatlined since the '70s, even as productivity and GDP continue to grow.

[tschu]

Yet, something something handouts something democrats don't want to work. The left wants to work - in an economy and a system that isn't gamed against them.

[sd'sker]

 

can we all agree that the problem is not making the employers rich, it is making the shareholders rich? what do they provide to a company or the economy? furthermore, they often handicap a business by not being able to see past the next quarter.

You honestly don't think someone investing their money in a business so they can expand and grow adds anything to the economy?

 

ideally, but not practically:

 

 

In the golden age of large public corporations, Stout says, businesses were not merely in business to make a profit, but also to fulfill other goals like building great products and providing livelihoods for employees.

But what's so wrong with companies trying to turn a profit?

Stout says this kind of singular focus on driving the stock price can lead companies to make decisions that benefit them only in the short-term -- and could be disastrous down the line.

When it comes to cost-cutting measures by companies, consumers are often the most affected. Take the example of an airline: when the company decides not to invest in repairs or infrastructure, airplane ticket buyers are the ones left waiting on the runway for maintenence to fix the plane.

"When managers are focusing on share price, it's very hard for companies to actually be innovative," Stout argues. "The second problem that short-termism imposes on consumers is that, obviously, when they're trying to cut costs...they're not going to invest in their employees; they're not going to invest in customer support, they're not going to invest in improving their products the way they should."

Worrying about the entire value of a company, and thinking long-term, doesn't just benefit the customer -- it helps the company as well.

"The life expectancy of a Fortune 500 company has declined from 75 years (back at the beginning of the century) to less than 15 years today," Stout says. "I think that's a pretty obvious symptom of what happens when you're pressuring managers to get that share price up at all costs even if it means taking on enormous risks and not planning for the future."

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

can we all agree that the problem is not making the employers rich, it is making the shareholders rich? what do they provide to a company or the economy? furthermore, they often handicap a business by not being able to see past the next quarter.

You honestly don't think someone investing their money in a business so they can expand and grow adds anything to the economy?

 

ideally, but not practically:

 

 

In the golden age of large public corporations, Stout says, businesses were not merely in business to make a profit, but also to fulfill other goals like building great products and providing livelihoods for employees.

But what's so wrong with companies trying to turn a profit?

Stout says this kind of singular focus on driving the stock price can lead companies to make decisions that benefit them only in the short-term -- and could be disastrous down the line.

When it comes to cost-cutting measures by companies, consumers are often the most affected. Take the example of an airline: when the company decides not to invest in repairs or infrastructure, airplane ticket buyers are the ones left waiting on the runway for maintenence to fix the plane.

"When managers are focusing on share price, it's very hard for companies to actually be innovative," Stout argues. "The second problem that short-termism imposes on consumers is that, obviously, when they're trying to cut costs...they're not going to invest in their employees; they're not going to invest in customer support, they're not going to invest in improving their products the way they should."

Worrying about the entire value of a company, and thinking long-term, doesn't just benefit the customer -- it helps the company as well.

"The life expectancy of a Fortune 500 company has declined from 75 years (back at the beginning of the century) to less than 15 years today," Stout says. "I think that's a pretty obvious symptom of what happens when you're pressuring managers to get that share price up at all costs even if it means taking on enormous risks and not planning for the future."

 

So....you are really believing that if private investment in businesses would go away, the economy would be better.

[carlfense]

 

 

 

can we all agree that the problem is not making the employers rich, it is making the shareholders rich? what do they provide to a company or the economy? furthermore, they often handicap a business by not being able to see past the next quarter.

You honestly don't think someone investing their money in a business so they can expand and grow adds anything to the economy?

 

ideally, but not practically:

 

 

In the golden age of large public corporations, Stout says, businesses were not merely in business to make a profit, but also to fulfill other goals like building great products and providing livelihoods for employees.

But what's so wrong with companies trying to turn a profit?

Stout says this kind of singular focus on driving the stock price can lead companies to make decisions that benefit them only in the short-term -- and could be disastrous down the line.

When it comes to cost-cutting measures by companies, consumers are often the most affected. Take the example of an airline: when the company decides not to invest in repairs or infrastructure, airplane ticket buyers are the ones left waiting on the runway for maintenence to fix the plane.

"When managers are focusing on share price, it's very hard for companies to actually be innovative," Stout argues. "The second problem that short-termism imposes on consumers is that, obviously, when they're trying to cut costs...they're not going to invest in their employees; they're not going to invest in customer support, they're not going to invest in improving their products the way they should."

Worrying about the entire value of a company, and thinking long-term, doesn't just benefit the customer -- it helps the company as well.

"The life expectancy of a Fortune 500 company has declined from 75 years (back at the beginning of the century) to less than 15 years today," Stout says. "I think that's a pretty obvious symptom of what happens when you're pressuring managers to get that share price up at all costs even if it means taking on enormous risks and not planning for the future."

 

So....you are really believing that if private investment in businesses would go away, the economy would be better.

 

I don't think that was what he was saying . . . and I also think that it's difficult to look at the events of the past 10 years and conclude that a loosely regulated Wall Street is good for the country.