Corporations need more profits not less.

When corporations lose money and go out of business and people lose their jobs, we blame CEOs for bad management. When companies make profits we get jealous, demand that the government regulate, and tax the company to the brink of bankruptcy.
We complain that wages are too low, yet we complain when companies’ profits are too high, wages and jobs are tide to company profits.
Companies that make profits fund most of the infrastructure in America; companies that don’t make profits can’t contribute much.

Obama is printing money like crazy and that money has to be paid back. Who is going to pay it back if Companies are not allowed to make money and create jobs?

Originally posted by gdeedWe complain that wages are too low, yet we complain when companies’ profits are too high, wages and jobs are tide to company profits.

What planet are living on? Are you trying to tell me that when Goldman Sachs has a good year the tellers get a raise?

Your post is wrong on a level so great that there are not words in the english language to express it.

Review the corporations you refer to prior to posting. If there is a specific corporation that you are speaking of then name it please. Ben and Jerry's sold out so that good business model is gone.

Originally posted by ..5..
What planet are living on?

I live on your planet where free enterprise is under attack and being run out of town by jealous mobs and taking their jobs with them.

Originally posted by ..5..

What planet are living on? Are you trying to tell me that when Goldman Sachs has a good year the tellers get a raise?

In a free market, we should not pay more for a job to be done than the amount that people are willing to do it for. This would be a waste. If someone will be a teller for minimum wage, why would you pay them more than that to do it? Just to be nice? The answer is that you wouldn't, because you can't be competitive if you do that. It is wasteful.

Your post is wrong on a level so great that there are not words in the english language to express it.

Successful people and corporations pay the vast, vast majority of taxes. They keep our country going; people who earn an average sallary cost the country money. The value of the public services(roads, schools, police, ect.) that they recieve costs more to provide than they pay in taxes. The difference is made up for by taking from the wealthy . . . and giving to the poor.

This system in which we make the successful corporations and individuals pay the lions share of our countries expenses, yet continue to blame them for all of the problems is completely unsustainable. Not to mention disgusting. How much sh!t can you expect them to take, while still giving one dollar away for every dollar that they get to keep? Of course we should support corporate profit, they support our country and our lifestyles, no matter how much you would like to believe that they are the root of all evil. The system would fail and the average person would suffer if it weren't for successful corporations and individuals bank rolling the whole operation.

reply to post by gdeed


Corporations do not need more profits. What the corporations need is for the consumer to show them who's boss. The only way to do that is to cut spending back to the necessities. To pay off credit at an accelerated rate as to deny them the projected interest income they rely on. The tables need to be turned now, or we'll be even more their slaves in the future.

reply to post by SpacePunk


So a CEO needs to make 10-50 million dollars a year + stock options if we want to keep a company a float? They also need to make these large amounts when they are actually making a company go out of business?

I have no issue with the amount of money they make or bonus' but i have issues when they get this money and they are not doing a good job. The system is corrupt and the tax laws support them. Insider trading is running crazy.

Very true. We should not have a government authority telling our corporations what to pay people and what to do with their money. That is for the consumer to decide.

That being said, when Blue Cross Blue Shield gives out $1M bonuses to 37 people and spends $27M on executive retreats, but doesn't give raises and bonuses to their employees, and simultaneously raises premiums by 39% claiming they are losing money, I would personally hope that that would cause the company to self destruct. It won't, though, because they are protected by their cronies in Congress.

I can even relate to this scenario. I worked, ages ago, in a technical support call center. News came out on in a business journal that the CEO of the company got a $250,000 Christmas Bonus (she got one of these every quarter) and everyone was excited. We assumed that because the bonus was given to her -- as stated -- because of the hard work of the employees who helped to deliver record profits for that quarter, we would also get nice bonuses. Later that day, the bonuses did indeed show up. They wheeled out carts loaded with dry, tasteless bran muffins. That was our OFFICIAL christmas bonus that year. I excercised my right to get a new job the next day.

As for pay, I can tell you one really big reason why employees would get paid more than the industry standard. Experience and talent. When it comes to hiring employees, the old adage "you get what you pay for" is very true. You want good employees, you better pay them right or they will leave. What gets under my skin is these Executives who get paid $100s of million per year because they are good "delegators".

Regardless, that should be a consumer driven reaction. Require open pay records for executives, publish those records, then let the public decide if the executives should take the hit or not. I envision an America with very few laws restricting corporations, many laws requiring open records, and a lot of grass roots consumer action groups that can organize boycotts and fund business incubators to encourage competition.

Originally posted by whoshotJR
reply to post by SpacePunk

 

So a CEO needs to make 10-50 million dollars a year + stock options if we want to keep a company a float? They also need to make these large amounts when they are actually making a company go out of business?

I have no issue with the amount of money they make or bonus' but i have issues when they get this money and they are not doing a good job. The system is corrupt and the tax laws support them. Insider trading is running crazy.

I agree with you completely. That's why I advocate reduced spending.

Originally posted by SpacePunk
reply to post by gdeed

 

Corporations do not need more profits. What the corporations need is for the consumer to show them who's boss. The only way to do that is to cut spending back to the necessities. To pay off credit at an accelerated rate as to deny them the projected interest income they rely on. The tables need to be turned now, or we'll be even more their slaves in the future.

Corporation do need profits, and the government, the true beniffiter of those profits, should stop biting the hand that feeds it.

Just as an example...

Wal Mart had a 22% increase in profit for fourth quarter LY.

Their employees however make notoriously low wages and most are employed on a part-time basis only with no benefits and live in constant fear of losing their jobs over the smallest of infractions.

And you say they need more profits? My head is about to explode from the cognitive dissonance.

The market should have more power and less regulation because it's more reflective of leadership in society than what we have now, and would promote longer term solutions to problems we have. Let me add here that we don't really have a free market today, just like we don't have capitalism (it's debtism, and it's mostly due to government policy, not "greedy corporate people"). Think about oil: the free market would have taken the same initial trajectory in terms of oil consumption when automobile demand skyrocketed. But once ONE spike in price hit - the 1970s oil crisis - the free market without gov't intervention would have focused its efforts on longer term solution. Now, the oil companies know that as long as they keep digging for oil and the US is out fighting wars abroad to import as much oil as possible, we're just now, 30 years later than we should have, starting to make a serious effort toward alternative fuel. A truly free market would have been all over this 30 years ago, and who gives a rats about Israel, Iran, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia at that point? W/ the government involved that process has slowed down due to artificial pricing, friendships and enemies in the middle east, etc. etc., which is delaying the inevitable. Just like the housing market - no free market would have ever allowed half the loans that existed between 1999 and 2005, but the government wanted it, the fed printed the money, and the loans were pushed into the system at low interest rates. This was a policy decision and they messed it up, as they always do.

reply to post by concernedcitizan


I would tend to agree here. Darwinian logic would rule the market place. Instead of the US Government bailing out corporations that took unwise gambles, the market would eat them alive and it would, in theory, balance itself out -- a kind of economic revolution. The only thing needed, really, is safe guards to protect against collusion and price fixing. The consumer needs to be guaranteed that they remaing in charge, which should be attainable by requireing corporate transparency. If the corporations were to think of consumers as bosses instead of cattle, then the consumers could keep them in line and big government could go away.

@gdeed
no..really , what planet are you from , we just bailed out these corporations and banks for causing this mess. We were told this would save jobs and stimulate the economy but instead we got even more job losses and now were hearing of a jobless recovery.Even this so called recovery is doubtful. Why , because those bailouts (read profits) did not trickle down , haven't you heard of all the ridiculous bonuses these guys paid themselves , using the bailout money.

It wasn't for them to use for bonuses or any other greedy and selfish luxuries, they should use their own "profits" for that . It was for them to keep and generate jobs and use as capitol , no , not in India or Africa or any other foreign low wage jurisdiction , but here in America. So you see no one is stopping big business from creating jobs and making a profit , they were paid (bailed out) for that very reason. Instead the same mentality of swindling that caused this mess prevailed and their not making nearly as much new jobs as they could nor or they investing in America.

@OnceReturned

In a free market, we should not pay more for a job to be done than the amount that people are willing to do it for. This would be a waste. If someone will be a teller for minimum wage, why would you pay them more than that to do it? Just to be nice? The answer is that you wouldn't, because you can't be competitive if you do that. It is wasteful.

Just as wasteful as paying out exorbitant bonuses to the big boys/gals , hmm? Don't forget the ceo's secretary her "services" are truly spectacular. Oh you little plutocrats behave.

Another thing is we don't have a free market anymore , haven't since JD Rockerfeller and the "Cleveland massacre"=Anti-competition. Remember he was famous for saying "competition is sin"

This system in which we make the successful corporations and individuals pay the lions share of our countries expenses, yet continue to blame them for all of the problems is completely unsustainable. Not to mention disgusting

Corporations , pay taxes , why , when They've got their men and women on the inside to pull a string or two(lobbyist , bought off senator , president) and a Federal Reserve which is anything but federal , but owned by private bankers who print money as they require. Many of these corporations are responsible for the most horrendous tax evasions , workers rights violations and pollution , that is disgusting. Don't sell me that bs that America needs corporations and would fail without them , no America needs it's people and it's people need God cuz the middle class and poor are in for a rough ride.



Yes to free market , yes to clean and fair enterprise and yes to transparent business.

While we slept.......!

The very basis for a healthy state economy is to set up and maintain stable companies that produce things people need, and ensure a good balance between the reserve (such as gold) and the symbolic value (such as paper money). This is why a country cannot produce endless amounts of paper bills and become rich that way; if there are more paper notes than there is reserve that amounts to the value of those paper notes, the money becomes less worth. This is simple mathematics.

In order to regulate the value of the currency, the state is able to produce more money to lower the value, or increase the interest rates to hinder the flow of money and thus decrease the amount of money in circulation. But since our societies today are huge and many people have a lot of economic transactions to take care of, the state has set up banks to manage the economic affairs on a local level. The most famous type of bank we know of today is the central bank, which is presented as a way for the government to regulate the value of money, hinder inflation (money losing its value) and manage central economic affairs. What most people don't know, is that these central banks are now operating more or less independently of the state, creating an "internal" economy inside the national economy, draining its wealth and transferring it to the hands of a few rich people in power. How?

First of all, the government doesn't run our national banks anymore. Ever heard of the "Federal Reserve Bank" in America? Well, that bank is definitely not "federal," but controlled by private stockholders with individual interests separate from that of the state economy. Further, many of these banks have started to engage in what we call "fractional reserve banking." What this means, is that the bank lends out more money than it has got reserve capital to cover for. This creates an imbalance between the state economy and the banking interests, since more money is put into circulation than what is being kept as state reserve. Moreover, the banking people in power are generating huge amounts of private money, which they cash in from the interest rates, even if the truth is that they lack reserve to back up their lendings.

Imagine you have a hundred bricks of gold worth one dollar each. If you were an honest lender, you'd not loan out more than you can back up with gold. Say you loan out fifty dollars and maintain an interest rate on five dollar, in case your lender would not be able to return his money. That's pretty sensible. Now, imagine you do this for a while, buy home more and more gold from your interest revenues, start to print up more money to meet the increasing demands (since you're a bank now, you have the power to do this) and loan out fifty dollars each to three persons and maintain an interest rate of fifteen dollars. Suddenly you've started your own business, cashing in on people's loans, and since most people won't require their money back at any given time, no one will notice the scam: you're producing money out of nothing and you lack reserves to back them up.

This how the central banks in the West today keep getting richer, while the average citizen is slaving away for large corporations, wondering what he or she is getting out of all the taxes. But the trouble doesn't stop here. Both in American and in Europe, state companies are being sold out to foreign interest, which means the state makes quick cash to pay off the national debt - to the central banks (!) - but from a long term perspective lose insane amounts of money and force the country to import products from other nations. The very foundation of a healthy nation, are local companies producing products that other people are interested in. When you sell that out to other nations, you basically begin to slowly bankrupt yourself.

However, the average worker in the West has more to fear than just private interests and companies moving to China; the large waves of immigration that we've seen these past years, pose a great threat to the Western worker. If Stephanie Rogers makes $7 an hour on constructing buildings and Rodrigo Sanchez offers her customers the same work for $4 an hour, Stephanie is more or less out of job. Our current government calls this "humanitarianism" and "multiculturalism," but for those who've seen through the smokescreen in using people from other cultures to further enrich corporations, this is really just another way of wrecking our economy.

Originally posted by De La Valletta

Don't sell me that bs that America needs corporations and would fail without them , no America needs it's people and it's people need God cuz the middle class and poor are in for a rough ride.

Yes, we are in for a rough ride. We need to make sure the ride is as rough for the corporations. Perhaps even rougher. For every 'too big to fail' corporation that we, as consumers, can take down, ten smaller corporations will spring up to take their place. Hopefully those will learn from the mistakes of history. Job losses would be temporary, and there will always be someone to fill the vacume. If the new corporations misbehave, they can receive the same treatment.

Small businesses create the vast majority of new jobs. So if these politicians and banksters really cared about anything other than themselves we'd be talking about being "too small to fail" not "too big to fail." What they really mean to say is "I'm too rich to fail, even if the rest of the country goes to !@#$ as a result."

webserver03.ces.census.gov...
www.drjeffcornwall.com...

See that really tall column in the corner? That is new companies under 50 employees.

Hello All,
I work for a major corporation in the US and the labor force is unionized.
I am a member of the union, but not by choice. In order to work here you must join the union. In my opinion corp. Do not need more profit and do not pay the lions share of the taxes for this country. Why? You ask. Because they (corp.) when taxed pass those taxes on to the consumer in higher prices of there product. Its just the business way. The CEO's of these corp. are payed to increase the value of the stock shares. Not look after the welfare of the company as a whole. (Ex. Here at the company I work for the CEO's annual salary is around $950,000. He received bonuses and stock options in upwards of $20,000,000. In that same year the stock of the company was at its highest in 10+ years. And in that same year they cut the amount of spending on material we use to do our job.) They can't cut our jobs off or lower our wages because of the union agreement. Not that I would want them too. The point I'm trying to make is that corp. are only in it for the money. Look at when a stock starts to go down, what happens, the share holder start selling off there stock in order to maximize the gain. The CEO's work for and are appointed by the share holders. I know this will sound contradictory but I dislike being in a union. Because I feel I pay dues to the just to keep my job and that's it. When I have a problem and try to call a rep to solve it you usually get the run around and no call back. And also workers who don't work as hard as I do get payed the same wage I do. Unfair IMO. The rich don't pay the lions share of the taxes either because they have tax havens and loop hole to dodge paying taxes in the high tax brackets. The middle class have no choice as most of there taxes are taken from them before they even get there check. And do not have the tax havens and loop holes to lower there tax bracket. My solution to corporate business is do away with the unions and give the labor force the same benefits as the CEO's. (Ex. If the company is profitable it is not by the will of the CEO alone but the entire company as a whole. If the laborer knows that he will benefit by getting a bonus and stock options same as the CEO for doing a good job and keeping cost down. Then he will do so.) And everyone wins the company, the stock holders, the CEO and the Laborer. Oh and there are way more middle class tax payers than the wealthy tax payers.

reply to post by gdeed


Who said corporations were not profiting? The problem with the profits is over the past year, corporations have hoarded 74% of their profits into their coffers for "rainy days" .. profit does not = jobs, at least in this economy.

Originally posted by kosmicjack
Just as an example...

Wal Mart had a 22% increase in profit for fourth quarter LY.

Their employees however make notoriously low wages and most are employed on a part-time basis only with no benefits and live in constant fear of losing their jobs over the smallest of infractions.

And you say they need more profits? My head is about to explode from the cognitive dissonance.

Corporations that don't make profits don't hire empoyees at all period. If empoyees don't like the money they make at wallmart or any company they work for they should go somewhere else or start their own buisness.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by gdeed

 

Who said corporations were not profiting? The problem with the profits is over the past year, corporations have hoarded 74% of their profits into their coffers for "rainy days" .. profit does not = jobs, at least in this economy.

No profits don't equal jobs that's for sure. If companies don't stash money away for raining days they will not be in buisness for long.

It takes a lot of money to servive in this highly government regulated world we live in. Should we let corporations die off. they are already falling like flies and millions of people are unemployed because of that.