>>>>>>>>>Nope. I've never been a victim, but that doesn't change my belief that large companies are generally predatory, and do not necessarily have the best interests of their customers or their respective countries economies at heart. They pretty much care about one thing - their own greed, and if governments can't put a rein on that greed... well, nobody else can, and those who are not part of that greed continuum are fated for an uncomfortable future.
>>>>>
>>>>>But the point is that in the market system you act in your own best interests. This makes behavior predictable. An intelligent capitalist knows his first obligation is to his investors and employees. You are assuming sociopathic behavior is in the best interests of the company - I am claiming exactly the opposite.
>>>>
>>>>Not necessarily. I'm not claiming anything at all about sociopathic behaviour other than in order to become the CEO in a major corporation, it helps to be sociopathic to some extent. And, I expect that usually it is not so much the best interest of the company that is the goal of that CEO, but more, power and money garnered to him/herself.
>>>
>>>I always find it curious when people ascribe to others motives that are so much more base than their own <s> Isn't it just possible that CEOs are driven by the same things you are - they've just pointed their energies in another direction? Most of the petty tyrants I've met in business have been middle management and are reacting to a frustration with lack of success - and that has probably also been part of the reason.
>>
>>Curious why? I only ascribe those motives to others that I think have those motives. Had I those motives, I might also be a CEO. If they were driven by the same things I am, they wouldn't be pointing their energies in another direction, would they? As far as lack of success of some middle managers, it makes sense. One of them will ultimately become the CEO very likely, and as for the current CEO? Why would he want somebody vying with him for power?
>
>Okay, I don't know a lot of CEOs but over the years I've known more than a couple ( my college classmates tended to be more disciplined and less inclined to seek sin and adventure in far away places with strange sounding names <g> ) The ones I've know have been real grinds. Harvard or Stanford MBAs, maybe a law degree on top of that and then 30 years of very very hard work with very long hours doing things I would mostly find so boring I would have started embezzling or put a gun my mouth about year three. One of them right now does about 8 million a year in salary and bonuses ( major banking corp ) but I've travelled more than he has and have more free time in a week than he's had since college. Being a CEO is not that good a deal. ( being the art student son of a CEO isn't so bad )

If they were more like you or I, then like you and I, they would not be CEOs. Because they are driven by money and power, they are CEOs. About those long hours, as I said before, what kind of personality does it take to pretty much abandon your family in pursuit of money and power?

>The ones who really are in it for the competitive rush ( I know one of those ) aren't interested in crushing little guys. It only counts if the scalp you hang on your wall is at least as valuable as your own. When Ted Turner pleasures himself with visions of smiting his enemies, with the other hand he's not holding up a picture of the feisty crusading editor of the Paducah Fishrap Intelligencer and Shoppers Ads - he's lookin' at Rupert Murdoch.

The big fish eats the slightly smaller fish who eats the slightly smaller fish who eats... In the end, you are left with one fish.

< ...snipping was definately required... >

>>>Public education was first argued by the likes of Mann and Barnard as good for society because it would produce good citizens and be a unifying and stabilizing factor for society. As
>>
>>I thought your argument was that it was for economic reasons, and not for moral reasons. "good citizens" and "stabilizing factor" sound like moral reasons. Where is "it'll help our bottom line"?
>
>For the captains of industry good citizens and stable society means a stable business climate - no messy barricades in the street, no anarchists throwing bombs into the carriage, no Bolsheviks. Oh, and to some the idea that the workers can read the Bible on their day off gives them a warm fuzzy feeling. ( 1850, remember )

If that's true, then why did those same captains of industry hire thugs and gunmen to break up union meetings etc? Didn't they bring a lot of the chaos on themselves? It was their own practices that led to workers revolutions. Sure they wanted good citizens and a stable society, but the problem was in how they defined those things. Their definitions were very different than those of the average working guy.

< ...snipping was even more required here... >

>I'm not sure Kenneth Lay was representative of anything but Kenneth Lay. People who make it to that level are sui generis I grant you there is a long history of robber barons and the history continues. So what? That is like talking about pedophile priests or cops who are spouse abusers. Certainly enough there to think occupational hazard, but not definitive of the class.

True, but Kenneth Lay, it seems was hardly an isolated case, just the most sensational one. There is also the question of how many got away with it and have yet to be found out.

>>These people don't get there very often by being Mr. Nice Guy. I realise I sound like I'm generalising, but that's only because I am. I know that not every individual at the top of a corporation is an amoral jerk, but I honestly do believe that the ones who are overwhelmingly outnumber those who are not. I was a middle manager at a previous firm, and I thank my stars I never had to fire anyone. I got to the point where I just had to get out of there before that could happen. What must it take to call some father or mother in and tell them they've been let go, knowing it's being done so that the upper managers can cut costs in order to increase their own bonuses.

>But they most often don't get their by being abrasive boat-rockers, either. As one friend discribed it "It's sh*t sandwich. If you want all that bread ... well, you gotta eat the whole thing"

And you feel that is not a sign of a sociopathic personality?

>But somebody getting fired, while personally possibly tragic, is not inherently a sign of evil - it may be a sign of bad management, lack of success of the business, individual cupidity or a host of other things ... but i don't hear an alternative. Would you suggest the government pass a law forbidding firing people. Look what happened when France (where it is a lot harder to fire someone ) tried to make it easier to fire entry level workers so employers wouldn't be so reluctant to get stuck with someone they didn't want and therefore reduce their troubling unemployment situation. (Imagine how efficient an economy is where even with huge welfare roles and everybody taking at least 5 weeks off you have massive unemployment)

Sure people get fired for a variety of reasons, but far too often they are laid off 'as cost cutting measures', which again, too often, means the guy at the top sees his bonus shrinking.

>Tenured professors and federal workers are about as good an argument as you can find that job security is not always a good thing for an institution.

Incompetent people should be let go, but nobody should be let go in order to increase the incomes at the top of the heap.

>>When CEOs and their ilk stop getting obscene bonuses on top of salaries that make no sense on any level I can imagine compared with the salaries they pay their lower staff, maybe then I'll start thinking that they're not so greedy after all. I mean, these people get huge bonuses even with poor results. The guys down below get laid off. And before you ask, no, I'm not a victim, but I've known a few.

>But the money the top execs get is not coming out of your pocket. If you are a stockholder, fine, make the argument. But the only way they get to pass this on is through prices and that effects demand. As to their workers, wages are not set by dividing up some pool of money so if the CEO gets it they don't. If the CEO didn't get it it would be reinvested ( arguable more valuable than CEO compensation ) or would go to the shareholders. But the internal workings of the corp are OOP - there are only some methods and properties that have external relevance. How it is done internally shouldn't matter to the outside.

What Dragan said.