Occupy Wall Street: Solidarity Thread for 2+2ers

[sirio11]

Originally Posted by Tien

I am a Miami Heat fan.

Not much more to say about Mark Cuban.

WTF is a "good capitalist" anyway?

Well, he said this

Originally Posted by Mark Cuban

Great CEO White Lie = “We are acting in the best interests of shareholders.”

When a CEO utters this lie, everyone automatically forgives whatever they do. Add 10k jobless to the unemployment rolls ? Sorry, we did it in the BEST INTEREST OF SHAREHOLDERS. Merge or buy a company and cut back across the board ? We did it in the Best Interest of Shareholders.

The problem is that unless the company is losing money and it is the only way to keep the company alive, in this era of 9.1pct unemployment it NEVER is in the BEST INTEREST OF SHAREHOLDERS.

Shareholders , whether they own shares directly or through mutual funds or pensions do not live in a corporate vacuum. Their lives are impacted by far more than the share price of a stock. Every layoff in the name of more earnings per share puts a stress on the economy, on the federal, state and local governments which is in turn paid for through taxes or assumption of government debt by….wait for it.. the same shareholders CEOs say they want to benefit.

Looks like you and him differ about what's in the best interest of shareholders.

[plano]

I'm trying to incorporate online poker into a protest sign. Suggestions please, i'm not very creative.

I am the 99%...
and can't even play
online poker.

Is not very good. Help please.

I will put best slogan into practice at occupydallas.

[Fermion5]

Originally Posted by plano

I'm trying to incorporate online poker into a protest sign. Suggestions please, i'm not very creative.

I am the 99%...
and can't even play
online poker.

Is not very good. Help please.

I will put best slogan into practice at occupydallas.

I made money from poker
until the govt took that away.

Poker is not a crime.

Wall St gambles away our money,
but it's illegal to play poker.

[plano]

Originally Posted by Fermion5

I made money from poker
until the govt took that away.

Poker is not a crime.

Wall St gambles away our money,
but it's illegal to play poker.

I like it, may use.

FTP will not be mentioned by the way....or should it?

[Autocratic]

Originally Posted by The 13th 4postle

If a company is losing money because of an employee, it benefits the economy as a whole if that employee is laid off.

I know this is what um, economic theory would tell you, but this is actually a rather subjective judgment.

Of course, I don't disagree with the gist of your argument, but this isn't an objective fact.

[Boa Hancock]

L.A. teacher loses job over anti-Semitic comments

LOL at the AP and the SF Chronicle failing to mention that the "rally" she was participating in was the Occupy Los Angeles rally. Biased news service, biased newspaper? LDO



Serious questions for you in solidarity:

Are you prepared to renounce the anti-semitism prevalent at the Occupy rallies?

How will you weed out the anti-semitic elements in your cause?

[Autocratic]

Originally Posted by Boa Hancock

Serious questions for you in solidarity:

Are you prepared to renounce the anti-semitism prevalent at the Occupy rallies?

OMG so prepared, I've been preparing all morning and now I'm almost fully ready.

Originally Posted by Boa Hancock

How will you weed out the anti-semitic elements in your cause?

[lagdonk]

Boa Hancock, principled champion against hate speech. I look forward to your renunciations of whosoever on the Right speaketh prejudice, stereotype, and ethnic disparagement.

[vin17]

Those who haven't should watch that CBC video for the lolz if nothing else.

[pvn]

Originally Posted by sirio11

What do you think of Mark Cuban? Is he a good capitalist?

Cuban has actual thought behind his argument. "Everyone in the store isn't a bad employee" isn't even in the same ballpark with what Cuban says about layoffs.

[The 13th 4postle]

Originally Posted by Autocratic

I know this is what um, economic theory would tell you, but this is actually a rather subjective judgment.

Of course, I don't disagree with the gist of your argument, but this isn't an objective fact.

Look at it this way, an employee or group of employees that isn't producing a positive ROI is no longer producing wealth for that company due to those employees. Many times it is not the employees' fault. Managers may have made bad decisions, hired employees when they weren't really needed, new technology has replaced them, etc, etc....

When these employees move to another company and they do produce a positive ROI, they are helping the new company they are working for produce more wealth. The economy is better off with them working for the 2nd company instead of the 1st.

However, in the short run, when they're are so many layoffs at once, the economy will suffer as a result. It makes sense, those employees have less to spend on both investment and consumption and other companies suffer as a result of less demand.

I don't think it's subjective, I think it's pretty clear that in the long run, the economy benefits while in the short run, the economy suffers.

[Autocratic]

Originally Posted by The 13th 4postle

Look at it this way, an employee or group of employees that isn't producing a positive ROI is no longer producing wealth for that company due to those employees. Many times it is not the employees' fault. Managers may have made bad decisions, hired employees when they weren't really needed, new technology has replaced them, etc, etc....

When these employees move to another company and they do produce a positive ROI, they are helping the new company they are working for produce more wealth. The economy is better off with them working for the 2nd company instead of the 1st.

However, in the short run, when they're are so many layoffs at once, the economy will suffer as a result. It makes sense, those employees have less to spend on both investment and consumption and other companies suffer as a result of less demand.

I don't think it's subjective, I think it's pretty clear that in the long run, the economy benefits while in the short run, the economy suffers.

I mean, I was leaning on my opinion that most measures of "economy" are actually subjective in and of themselves, but even granting that that is not the case, this is just wrong.

There is, of course, no guarantee that employees will move to another company. No guarantee that the money will be used more efficiently (although if it's stuffed into the pockets of the CEO, GDP might not even budge). Efficiency in this regard may correlate with positive economic indicators, and I think that's what you're saying. But you're being too broad about it.

[Tien]

Originally Posted by sirio11

Well, he said this



Looks like you and him differ about what's in the best interest of shareholders.

Let me ask you a question.

What is a "good capitalist"? I'd really like to know.


I disagree with his comment about layoffs. He's basically suggesting never to layoff any employees if you are making profits. That's a very narrow minded viewpoint that ignores many other factors.

What if I lay off 1000 employees and use the excess money from those profits to re-invest in current infrastructure so that my company can have a stronger base to expand and grow?

I have a feeling he's just co-opting this movement to become more popular with the public.

[Fat-not-Thin Man]

My points had nothing to do with any individual company or layoff plan.

My point was that the system on wall street encourages companies to meet 'their' expectations at all costs, or be punished monetarily by way of downgrades and the other mechanics of a flawed system.

The wall street punishment, in most all cases, can be avoided by layoffs.

[Tien]

On that point I agree.

I absolutely hate it when a bunch of stupid analysts prepare a report on how much a company like GE "should" be making this quarter, and when GE doesn't meet those earnings their stock price goes down irregardless of how solid or well the company is doing.

Then there are these stock price loving CEO's that do everything in their power to meet analyst expectations. Slash and burn divisions / stupid acquisitions / layoffs you name it.

Some of them don't have a choice. Their board of directors will fire them if the stock price keeps dropping even though the CEO is doing a good job for the company. Most if not all CEOs of public companies dislike analysts anyway.

It's really the ignorance of the public (share holders) though that listens to these analyst expectations in the first place.