Remember the Max? The cost of getting fired is disgustingly lucrative.

[PureX]

How did Lee Iococca exploit everyone else involved? He grew up relatively poor. Got an engineering degree. Worked his way up through the ranks at Ford and was instrumental in bringing about the Mustang. He created value for his company by giving consumers what they wanted. How does his work support your assertion that people like that "added no actual value or well-being to anyone but himself and the shareholders"

He ran Ford during the years of "planned obsolescence" and the exploding Pinto. I remember how bad Fords were when it came to their rusting all to hell and falling apart within 5 years of buying them. They were junk by 100k miles. Both decisions based on greed, that made the lives of a great many people much more difficult. He also didn't update his factories to keep up with modern technology allowing foreign car makers to build much better cars, cheaper, outselling Ford's, and eventually becoming an excuse for Ford to move most of their manufacturing out of the country (while blaming it all on the unions, of course).

How has Elon Musk "made many other people's lives significantly more difficult"? How does his work support your assertion that people like that "added no actual value or well-being to anyone but himself and the shareholders".

Musk makes toys for rich people. Capitalism works fine in luxury markets, where no one has to buy what's being sold. But he also wastes billions on a lot of experimental crap that does little to make the lives of regular human beings, better.

How has Richard Branson "made many other people's lives significantly more difficult"? How does his work support your assertion that people like that "added no actual value or well-being to anyone but himself and the shareholders".

Why are you choosing such extreme examples? Can't find any in the main stream of corporate America?

 

[Pete in Panama]

That point is that I need to agree that having money is good, is evidence that it is subjective in the following senses:
It is not good without humans, because without humans having money would be meaningless as it requires humans having it.
There is no objective referent to the word good.
Good is a subjective evaluation.

Having money is not objectively good. That is my point. It can be subjectively good and that subjective evaluation can be shared among several humans, hence inter-subjective.

We really may be getting somewhere here. What I'm hearing now is that you're saying that if you get a lot of money that's good, but if some CEO gets a lot of money that's bad.

Can we move forward from here?

 

[Pete in Panama]

...There is some relationship between how much is paid and the quality of the work but it isn't anything like as simple, unconditional or open-ended as you've implied.

The question we need to focus on is WHO has the privilege of deciding how much to pay for which service. IMHO that's a choice that the buyer & seller have to make.

The other thing is the source of our confusion, that I never intended to imply any market prices were 'open-ended'. In the future we may be able to get a lot more done if you work with what I actually say & not w/ what you may have hoped I implied.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We really may be getting somewhere here. What I'm hearing now is that you're saying that if you get a lot of money that's good, but if some CEO gets a lot of money that's bad.

Can we move forward from here?

Yes. If I did hold this position(I don't, because it is to simple), it would be because I am subjectively selfish and don't like capitalism.
But that is not the point as such.
Let us compare 2 versions of how money are good or bad.

• The money CEOs get are bad, because they are results of the exploitation of workers.
• The money CEOs get are good, because they get them for making companies turn profits and that is good, because it increase the wealth in society.

Are any of these objective? No, because they both rely on subjective evolutions of what makes something good or bad.
The point I am trying to explain to you, is that in practice good and bad are subjective, if you look at it objectively. I.e. describe how good and bad work in humans.
That is it.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Twilight Hue]

But he doesn't really increase anything. He just exploits everyone else involved in his area of commerce more intently than the guy before him. Because that's what greed is all about. And then he takes as much as he can get for having done so, because, again, that's what greed is all about. And the investors pay it because he made them richer. And again, that's what greed is all about: getting richer. No one cares that he probably made many other people's lives significantly more difficult. No one cares that he added no actual value or well-being to anyone but himself and the shareholders. No one even thinks twice about it because greed justifies all that selfishness. Top to bottom. Even in the eyes of many of the people who are getting screwed. America believes i greed.

The traditional CEO is no longer around anymore.

What we have are a breed of for profit CEOs whose goals are to maximize returns for shareholders in exchange for insane amounts of personal compensation.

Corporations are now literally and purposly run into the ground and exhausted of its funds and that's when the practice of perpetual restructuring occurs along with the revolving doors giving way to a constant stream of CEOs and Corporations coming and going out in perpetuity.

We see it all the time now.

 

[PureX]

The traditional CEO is no longer around anymore.

What we have are a breed of for profit CEOs whose goals are to maximize returns for shareholders in exchange for insane amounts of personal compensation.

Corporations are now literally and purposly run into the ground and exhausted of its funds and that's when the practice of perpetual restructuring occurs along with the revolving doors giving way to a constant stream of CEOs and Corporations coming and going out in perpetuity.

We see it all the time now.

It is the inevitable result of a system that rewards money with more money, and doesn't care how one gets that money or what one does with it. And that's capitalism.

 

[Pete in Panama]

...The point I am trying to explain to you, is that in practice good and bad are subjective...

That's nice. Meanwhile please tell me whether in your subjective opinion you don't want CEO's in general, and the Boeing CEO in particular, making a lot of money.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's nice. Meanwhile please tell me whether in your subjective opinion you don't want CEO's in general, and the Boeing CEO in particular, making a lot of money.

No, I fine with that as it is a result of the capitalistic market, but since I am a social democrat, there are some other limits, I would like to see be placed on the capitalistic market.
Now if you are really into the weeds of particulars of how to turn cooperate capitalism into something more social democratic, we can debate that. But since that is subjective and not the TRUTH, why should we do that? You for your we hold the TRUTH, right?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

See post # 91.

Doesn't matter. They aren't actually doing that much, they aren't working that hard, and if they **** up, unlike everybody else they get paid and rewarded.

You seem to have hit the nail on the head, without realizing it.

No one, in the real world, is offering you a job as CEO of a major corporation for millions per year, because you are not qualified. No one on this forum is qualified. People who are qualified, do not have time to waste on internet forums.

That has nothing to do with this.
CEO's don't do that much. They sit in cushioned offices "making decisions" while everybody else works. They don't manage, they don't supervise, they are very far removed from it all, but if you or I mess up we don't get rewarded for it. It's absurd that CEOs do.
And, no, it doesn't take special training. Anyone who can run a business can be a CEO.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why is it criminally absurd to try to lure highly qualified people to work in a company? If that employee can increase profits from 10 billion to 11 billion he is worthy of a salary of 250 million dollars. That's 1/4 of the profits.

Which CEO increased their company's profits by $1 billion?

 

[ecco]

Musk makes toys for rich people. Capitalism works fine in luxury markets, where no one has to buy what's being sold. But he also wastes billions on a lot of experimental crap that does little to make the lives of regular human beings, better.

Elon Musk is a leader in building electric vehicles. GM is now getting on board to completely eliminate gas engines by 2035. Maybe you favor internal combustion engines and oil-fired power plants.

Musk (Space X) is also becoming the leader in launching satellites relatively inexpensively. Maybe you don't use a cell phone and GPS.

Why are you choosing such extreme examples? Can't find any in the main stream of corporate America?

If I did you probably wouldn't know who I'm referring to. But if you want extremes, how about Trump's favorite Mike Pillow Man Lindell. Con man and conspiracy theorist.

 

[ecco]

He (Lee Iacocca) ran Ford during the years of "planned obsolescence" and the exploding Pinto. I remember how bad Fords were when it came to their rusting all to hell and falling apart within 5 years of buying them. They were junk by 100k miles. Both decisions based on greed, that made the lives of a great many people much more difficult.

Of course, people could have bought cars for twice the price that would have lasted much longer. The problem is that most people couldn't afford them.

You do understand the need for inexpensive cars, don't you?

He also didn't update his factories to keep up with modern technology allowing foreign car makers to build much better cars, cheaper, outselling Ford's, and eventually becoming an excuse for Ford to move most of their manufacturing out of the country (while blaming it all on the unions, of course).

Japan led, and is probably still a leader in automation and robotics. Today's automotive manufacturing plants use far fewer employees than those of the 1950's. And today's autoworkers, domestic and across the border, are paid less than autoworkers in the Detroit heyday. You do realize there are tradeoffs involved. There are fewer people building cars today. Is that something you favor?

It's rather odd that you make these comments about Iacocca and Ford and, in the next paragraph criticize Musk as someone who "makes toys for rich people".

Damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Ford builds cars the average American can afford and they are the bad guys.
Musk builds better cars that wealthier people can afford and he is the bad guy.

Am I the only one who sees a problem with your reasoning?

 

[PureX]

Of course, people could have bought cars for twice the price that would have lasted much longer. The problem is that most people couldn't afford them.

You do understand the need for inexpensive cars, don't you?

Wow, you really drank the capitalist coolaid, didn't you.

You really think Iacocca or any other CEO ever gave a rats butt about 'affordability'? If they could build one piece of crap car a year and sell it for a billion dollars, that's what they'd do. But we don't have a billion dollars and we won't buy crap if we can avoid it. So the 'game' is on. How crappy (i.e. cheap to make) can the car be while still getting us to buy it. And how much can they charge for it before we simply can't afford to buy it. That's the capitalist's one and only goal: finding that ugly compromise. Because it's all about the greed. It's all about getting as much money as they can from us while giving as little product in return, as possible. "Affordability" to them means squeezing every penny possible out of every deal, every time, regardless of how that effects the rest of us. And the rest of us have become so stupid, and so indoctrinated, that we actually think this greed and the selfishness and the damage it does to humanity is somehow good for us all. So we approve of it. Even celebrate it.

Japan led, and is probably still a leader in automation and robotics. Today's automotive manufacturing plants use far fewer employees than those of the 1950's. And today's autoworkers, domestic and across the border, are paid less than autoworkers in the Detroit heyday. You do realize there are tradeoffs involved. There are fewer people building cars today. Is that something you favor?

The more work the robots do, the less work we humans have to do. I approve. The robots aren't the problem. The problem is that the profits are more important to the process than the humans. We don't even consider whether or not it's good for humanity to have all these robots doing things. Or if we're going to use them, how to do it so that humans are not being harmed in the process. Because ALL we ever consider is profitability to the capital investor. That's it. Nothing else matters. Not the environment, not the social order, not the health and well-being of the humans involved and affected.

Unless, of course, they're forced to consider these. But they'll fight that every step of the way, and they'll corrupt governments, media, religion, and anything else that gets in the way of their prime directive: to maximize profits returned on capital invested.

It's rather odd that you make these comments about Iacocca and Ford and, in the next paragraph criticize Musk as someone who "makes toys for rich people".

Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

No WE'RE damned if they do and damned if they don't. Because none of them are looking out for our well-being. Yet because they have a lot of money, and control a lot of money; in a capitalist culture they have all the power. All the decision-making power. And they're making all their decisions for themselves. Not for the well-being of their species, or for the planet, or for anyone else.

Ford builds cars the average American can afford and they are the bad guys.
Musk builds better cars that wealthier people can afford and he is the bad guy.

Any one of these companies could build a very durable, functional, car for well under 10k. Especially an electric car. But none of them will. Because they know most of us can pay more. And they want ALL that money, not just some of it.

Am I the only one who sees a problem with your reasoning?

I think you're living in some 1950s fantasy of how "competition lowers prices and raises quality" and all that other Madison Avenue BS. The moment we needed a car to survive in this culture car making became a monopoly. And it stays a monopoly no matter how many companies are making cars because they ALL know we have to buy from them. And NONE of them want to sell great cars for little money. Even though every one of them COULD do that.

This is the horrible toxic truth of capitalism (systematized, commercialized, greed). The best gets reduced to the worst they can get away with. Every time. And we approve and participate in this fiasco even as it destroys our lives.

 

[ecco]

You really think Iacocca or any other CEO ever gave a rats butt about 'affordability'? If they could build one piece of crap car a year and sell it for a billion dollars, that's what they'd do. But we don't have a billion dollars and we won't buy crap if we can avoid it. So the 'game' is on. How crappy (i.e. cheap to make) can the car be while still getting us to buy it. And how much can they charge for it before we simply can't afford to buy it. That's the capitalist's one and only goal: finding that ugly compromise. Because it's all about the greed. It's all about getting as much money as they can from us while giving as little product in return, as possible. "Affordability" to them means squeezing every penny possible out of every deal, every time, regardless of how that effects the rest of us. And the rest of us have become so stupid, and so indoctrinated, that we actually think this greed and the selfishness and the damage it does to humanity is somehow good for us all. So we approve of it. Even celebrate it.

There are probably many people who agree with you. Get together and build a car manufacturing company that can build a car that will sell for under $10,000. Prices can be reduced by:
Not putting in an automatic transmission.
No heaters for cars to be sold in Florida or Southern California.
No Radio - people can listen in on their cell phones.
Hand crank windows.
No reclining seats.

So, go do it. Let's see how many cars your nifty company will sell. Actually, set out the specifications and see how many investors you get. I doubt you will get many. Most people are rational enough to know what they and others want in a car.

 

[ecco]

The more work the robots do, the less work we humans have to do. I approve. The robots aren't the problem. The problem is that the profits are more important to the process than the humans. We don't even consider whether or not it's good for humanity to have all these robots doing things.

Yet you approve by rationalizing that it will be less work for humans. In truth, it is less work available to humans and therefore fewer humans with jobs. Don't believe me. Ask a coal miner who sits home watching television while explosives and a few truck drivers get as much coal in a day as he and a hundred of his fellow workers could.

Or if we're going to use them, how to do it so that humans are not being harmed in the process.

Gee, it finally occurred to you to ask the big question. Do you have any answers? Five hundred years ago being a smith was a good occupation. There were so many that the word became a surname. How many smiths were harmed by the advent of the automobile? How many tallow makers, whalers,

The question isn't IF we're going to use robots. We are using them. We will continue to use them more and more. Again, Do you have any answers?

 

[PureX]

There are probably many people who agree with you. Get together and build a car manufacturing company that can build a car that will sell for under $10,000. Prices can be reduced by:
Not putting in an automatic transmission.
No heaters for cars to be sold in Florida or Southern California.
No Radio - people can listen in on their cell phones.
Hand crank windows.
No reclining seats.

So, go do it. Let's see how many cars your nifty company will sell. Actually, set out the specifications and see how many investors you get. I doubt you will get many. Most people are rational enough to know what they and others want in a car.

When living in the Land of Greed, one must also become greedy, just to survive. Sadly, greed becomes terminally contagious.

As to building affordable cars, it does not require a great sacrifice in comfort or functionality. Though this is a convenient lie the capitalists would like us all to believe. We had functional electric cars for a century. And they're much cheaper and more reliable because they're so much less complex. Or, they would be if we built them. But we don't. Because cheap and reliable means less profit for the makers. And they aren't in the business of making good cars. They're in the business of generating profit from capital investment. And reliable, durable, inexpensive cars don't generate as much profit as crappy over-complicated, over-priced cars do.

 

[PureX]

Yet you approve by rationalizing that it will be less work for humans.

Sure, so lets go to a 30 hour work week and let the robots take up the slack. But not with massive unemployment and unlivable wages, .... because that would be stupid. Wouldn't it. And yet, this will never be considered as an option because it would cut into profitability. And profitability is all that matters.

 

[ecco]

No WE'RE damned if they do and damned if they don't. Because none of them are looking out for our well-being. Yet because they have a lot of money, and control a lot of money; in a capitalist culture they have all the power. All the decision-making power. And they're making all their decisions for themselves. Not for the well-being of their species, or for the planet, or for anyone else.

Ah, THEY. I guess you missed your opportunity to be a part of THEY. You could perhaps have been a leader of THEY and tried to shift the course of events, even a little. But, ya didn't. So now all you can do is get on a forum and gripe about THEY.

I think you're living in some 1950s fantasy of how "competition lowers prices and raises quality" and all that other Madison Avenue BS. The moment we needed a car to survive in this culture car making became a monopoly. And it stays a monopoly no matter how many companies are making cars because they ALL know we have to buy from them. And NONE of them want to sell great cars for little money. Even though every one of them COULD do that.

According to you, I live in a 1950s fantasy and I'm OK with it because I drank the kool-aid.

I guess maybe you would prefer living in a 1650's Feudal society. Grubbing away at your little piece of farmland and giving a tithe to your Lord of the Manor.

Back then, if you weren't born into royalty your life probably sucked far more than either your or mine.

You were born into a society where you at least had a chance to become one of the movers and shakers. If you had done that you could actually change things. Instead, you sit in front of your computer and vent about the evil THEY.

This is the horrible toxic truth of capitalism (systematized, commercialized, greed). The best gets reduced to the worst they can get away with. Every time. And we approve and participate in this fiasco even as it destroys our lives.

Yeah, it's probably too late for you to organize a workers revolt. Oh, that brings another question to mind...how well did the middle classes live under an economic system other than Capitalism?

 

[ecco]

As to building affordable cars, it does not require a great sacrifice in comfort or functionality. Though this is a convenient lie the capitalists would like us all to believe. We had functional electric cars for a century. And they're much cheaper and more reliable because they're so much less complex. Or, they would be if we built them. But we don't. Because cheap and reliable means less profit for the makers. And they aren't in the business of making good cars. They're in the business of generating profit from capital investment. And reliable, durable, inexpensive cars don't generate as much profit as crappy over-complicated, over-priced cars do.

Who had "functional electric cars for a century"? Where did they plug in to charge the battery? How does an electric engine lower the cost of power seats and power windows and GPS and radio and cup holders and, and, and all those other little things?

But, as I said...Go do it. Let's see how many cars your nifty company will sell. Actually, set out the specifications and see how many investors you get. I doubt you will get many. Most people are rational enough to know what they and others want in a car.






Many years ago I bought a Triumph Herald.

No power nuttin' although it did have a radio. Four-speed syncro-mesh transmission. Bucket front seats, bench in the back. No gas gauge. When you ran out of gas, you opened the trunk and turned a valve on the gas tank. That got you another gallon (30 miles) to find a gas station.
As stripped sown as it was, it cost $2000 ($16,800 today).

It was a helluva lotta fun to drive.

 

[Kooky]

So, go do it. Let's see how many cars your nifty company will sell. Actually, set out the specifications and see how many investors you get. I doubt you will get many. Most people are rational enough to know what they and others want in a car.

Do you literally not know that corporations are obliged to make as much profit for their investors as they can? Even if they were allowed to produce cheaper cars for less profit, they would have to justify that with increased profits down the line.

The entire point of investing is the return of investment i.e. how much money any invested amount will make over time; contrary to popular belief, people generally don't get into the investment business because they want to give away their money, and there are entire systems in place that ensure investors can get the greatest profit out of their capital.

I once met a guy who used to be an analyst for an investment bank; his job would be to pore over financial data and business indicators of a variety of companies, then plug them into algorithms to see which ones would be more profitable to his clients down the line. Fun fact, he quit his job a decade ago to open a burger joint, and he claims to be a lot happier, even though he's poured most of his savings into it and is earning not nearly as much with his business as he did at his old job.