Why is their outrage over this on Fox News advocates of free markets? People are so stupid.

Because Fox News likes having high ratings and this will apeal to the widest audience.

Yes, the audience is dumb.

Nailed it in one.

What outrage is this? Cant find any news topics on the subject with a search and im curious about their phrasing.

I predict the outrage was coming from Megyn Kelly because A) she would show such outrage and B) Because Sklansky likes watching blondes with nice racks.

Could you possibly put this in context?

is there content in this post?

Bingo. Also the Sunday girl.

because rich people getting rich makes everyone else angry and jealous?

Kelly is hot, but can't stand her on Fox. Her righteous indignation is over the top. Now the interview she did on Howard Stern wasn't the same person, audibly or visually.

Since most people just surf 2+2 from their cubicles all day laying off people should be a top priority of any quality CEO when he gets the position.

But it's ok, guys. After the CEOs make ****tons of money by laying everyone off, all of that money is going to trickle down to the rest of us, and we'll all be unemployed, but rich beyond our wildest dreams!

Countdown to billion dollar checks to 99 week unemployeds. "Unemployeds" doesn't get a red line, but "incentivize" does?

The CEOs all learned from Al 'chainsaw' Dunlap.

Because the term free market has become on of those things that can mean whatever you want it to mean.

Allegedly, the savings on overhead get passed on to the shareholders. Since the mutual funds aren't advocates for their shareholders, what happens is the guy with the sharpest pencil and the guy that gets to count the money first makes all the dough.

Board members and officers of these publicly traded companies have the hungarian nuts,

Maybe capitalism is not the only mode of production that is possible, for the rest of eternity. Just a thought.

fyp

You are so naive that a nonsensical sentence drenched in hyperbole can't mask the clarity of your cluelessness; it drips onto your posts like venom from a cobra's fang.

Your apparent ability to own and operate a computer is still a pretty nice testament to (others') executive ability and work ethic.

If only we could trickle down intelligence.

down with palladium!

ban

"CEOs Who Lay Off Most Workers Make Most For Themselves"

I don't think this is a necessarily a true statement. CEOs who lay off workers may make their companies competitive. The profit margins at many companies are very small, if the companies did not lay off workers the companies might go broke and everyone lose their job like at GM without the bailout. Furthermore, the workers spent their money if they saved it they would be stockholders and be an owner of a company. There are CEOs that make no money and I know one that does not receive stock options.

Employees have no rights, for them working they deny the unemployed the right to their jobs. The the worker that does not quit is making the most for themselves.

Assume Sklansky is a book publisher and hires 20 employees. Why 20 and not 40? What if times were good and you could and do hire 40. Then things turned bad and you lost 50% of your revenue stream. So you lay off 20 workers. The statement would be, "Skalansky lays off 20 to make the most for himself". That statement is absurd.

If you work for someone else be it a small business or a corporation. They own the business, they have the right to fire you at any point in time. They also have the right to hire you. Generally the more workers a company has, the more money a CEO can make because generally the company has more revenue they can scam on.

So in summary be nice to your boss and don't eat your children.

The theory assumes that wealth and monetary assets are identical. Mercantilism suggests that the ruling government should advance these goals by playing a protectionist role in the economy by encouraging exports and discouraging imports, notably through the use of subsidies and tariffs respectively.[2] The theory dominated Western European economic policies from the 16th to the late-18th century.[1]


Man, you are sooooo late 18th century.

There is a boatload of stupid in this thread.

I just had to respond to the "Don't Eat My Children" link I posted. That link is not what I suspected. What I was referring to in the old days you had 8-10 kids and when you got old you would except some would help you out. In todays world you have 1.8 kids, and you might have to support yourself. So when I say don't eat your kids, I mean don't spend all your money. You save the money as the money are your kids, you don't waste it or eat it at fancy restaurants. Taken from Ed Griffin's crash course on money.

good lord. the "correllation <> causation" gongshow reaches this far? really?

what's next? "planets that contain american citizens found also to contain the most water in solar system" HOORAY AMERICA.

EDIT Actually, maybe the ability to make cold-hearted cost-decisions is what makes the best CEOs the most valuable. anyhoo.