Corporate Greed Run Amock!!!

[renormalised]

Need I say more....

http://money.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=849873

Disgusting:mad2:

[sheeny]

yep.

Al.

[toetoe]

People like that make me so mad that i find it hard to comment.

[astroron]

What I cannot understand is, why do they get bonuses when the company is failing, I always thought that you got bonuses for doing good things for the company.:shrug:
The CEO trail is just one big "Old Boys Club" they go from one company after another picking up more and more money as they go.
Why must the remuneration package only approved by the board and not the Share Holders:shrug:

[renormalised]

Because, Ron, you hit the nail on the head when you said "Old Boys Club". Them and their pollie mates basically run the joint and don't give a rat's about anyone else. Just so long as they get everything they want, everything and everyone else can go take a running leap.

[dannat]

If i were in that position I would take the money (who wouldn't)

I feel its the responsibilty of the board's of big copnaies to not be so stupid & offer people ridiculous - the CEo's can't set their own pay - its up to the board - Most of the time people get voted there & may not have any of the necessary skills

[astroron]

I Just saw on the BBC website, a lot of it is a crock of rubbish:mad2:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8203094.stm

[Octane]

I saw that the other day and, with regards to the top earner, had a discussion with a mate last night who is well-versed in economics and finance. He basically said these people are essentially soulless, have no morals and absolutely no ethics. They are ruthless to the core. Their entire lives are about pushing paper around, transferring documents and never actually ever creating anything beneficial for humanity. They are driven by greed and the green is all that matters.

It's disgusting.

Regards,
Humayun

[renormalised]

Judging from that BBC report, and having followed this sort of stuff in the news and such over the years, you can only conclude that apart from the CEO's being ruthless, money grabbing opportunists, the rest of the financial and banking sector right down to the lower middle tier is most likely exactly the same. The pollies might crow about it being wrong and such, but they're not exactly the ones to make waves about it, considering themselves as well.

[marki]

Ah the joys of capitalism and the market economy. I would not be pointing a finger at the CEO's What about the stupid shareholders that let it occur in the first place. If someone said here, have 700 mil US I would take it.

Mark

[renormalised]

You've got a very valid point there, Mark, but shareholders are like the rest of them. Just as long as they're getting what they want, who cares. You take that away from them and see what happens. If that investment bank had've collapsed, they would've been baying for blood.

[Miaplacidus]

As Fred Schwed said: "Where are the customer's yachts..?"

[renormalised]

Right here....

[AstralTraveller]

Ladies and Gentlemen: SNAFU. That is all this is.

Humayun's mate got the soul and morals of this type spot on. The question this poses is whether these type of people were innately as they are now or whether they became that way as they became embedded in the system. Obviously it must be a bit of both but don't underestimate the latter. By the time a person reaches this level they have become the embodiment of the corporate ethos. They personify those absract entities, the corporations, which "are driven by greed and the green is all that matters".

Asking the shareholders to regulate the executives is futile. Shareholders are the biggest spongers of the lot (forget the 'mum and dad' investors - their role is trivial). These people believe that because they have money they deserve to get more without doing any work. Often too the shareholder in one corporation is another corporation whos CEO is making a bomb and so is unlikely to point a finger at a fellow executive. Then there is the close interconnection between the executives and the big shareholders - in fact they are sometimes one and the same. No, change won't come from that driection.

Anyway, off the soapbox.

David

[dpastern]

Agreed.

Dave

[dpastern]

What happened to morals? Maybe I'm old fashioned, but what he was getting paid is just morally wrong. Maybe you'd accept such a large pay, but some wouldn't. No one is EVER worth that much. EVER. And anyone who thinks that they are worth that much is full of it.

Dave

[Octane]

100% with you there, Dave.

One might turn around and say that I am jealous and/or envious. When, in all honesty I don't have a single jealousy or envy bone in my body. :)

I couldn't accept that type of money and sleep at night knowing that I am directly profiting off the misery, despair and pain of others.

But, then, as David mentioned, you're probably beyond humanity at that point.

Regards,
Humayun

[Jules76]

How much would it cost to rent one of those?

We could use the helipad as an observation deck and spend a week or so island hopping the pacific islands, observing the beautiful night sky, free from light pollution. :)

Who's in? IIS Cruise '09. :lol:

[renormalised]

Too much....that superyacht....not for rent (it's the Sultan of Dubai's personal yacht). However, to rent something like that, you'd be looking at the very least $1000000 US a week.

[dpastern]

Unfortunately Humayun, many people would have no problems benefiting from this sort of immoral behaviour. I always find it amazing that 99% of the world's wealth is owned by 1% of the population. I don't care if they've "worked for it", cos they haven't. They've had people work for them, making a bucketful of money, @ slave wages. Like my bosses @ work - they can spend $500k on a new server room outfit, but can't afford $40k or so to put a 4th technician on to replace the guy who left last November (and we've been busting a gut to get through 4 people's work).

Dave

[marki]

Then H perhaps you should be the one to accept it. You could then distribute it to those in need rather then keeping it all for yourself.

Mark

[Octane]

lol Mark, cheeky bugger!

I'd rather not have anything to do with it!

Regards,
Humayun

[marki]

I am just a little concerned about the assumptions we are making here. If someone earns a large amount of money we automatically assume they are intrinsically evil. Who knows what this guy does with his cash? He may very well give half away to charity as unlikely as that may sound. I remember people dumping on Bill Gates and now he's off to save Africa. I have no problem in that the amount is staggering and uncalled for, just the character assassination without proof gets under my skin :). Soory now who's getting on their moral soapbox.:doh:

Mark

[Octane]

Mark,

No, no, nothing like that. I was going by what my mate had said to me as he has first-hand experience working for financial moguls.

I'm not saying these guys are baby-eating evil overlords, just, that I, personally, wouldn't be comfortable earning squillions knowing that the money that I'm earning (as a financial mogul) is most likely being earned at the expense of others.

Besides, they don't eat babies, they eat foetii. :P

Regards,
Humayun

[RB]

I must agree Mark.
I don't think we can assume that being in this position will not change our own character in some way.
Unless one is placed in that position I say one has no way of knowing how they'd act or treat others.
Many times we see people change when their circumstances change and so to assume one will stay 'humble' if they happened to come into a fortunate lifestyle is just that, an assumption.

I don't necessarily agree with these huge pay packets for the top CEOs but that's how it is.

I suppose one sentance comes to mind, "There but for the grace of God go I".

:)

[marki]

Yeah I know :). I have two friends who earn obscene amounts of money but few know that they give so much of it away. They are both fantastic human beings.

Mark

[dpastern]

Yes but Mark - you are assuming that everyone who earns such large sums of money is equally generous and that is not the case. And those that do give some back, only give it back for 2 reasons:

1) tax cuts

2) make it look like they're nice people

as to Bill Gates - he may be nice now, but he wasn't in the past. He's screwed the software industry beyond belief, so that only a few few can reasonably play in it (think: software patents). This has ruined innovation and competition. So, he may be being nice now with his money, but he was not so nice when he was making said money. One hand does not wash the other I'm afraid.

I could go on and say some more, but that path leads to criticism of one country in particular and political comments which aren't really appropriate here.

Dave

[mozzie]

and the country is run into the ground yep take the money and run nice people no morals at all
mozzie

[marki]

Dave, I am not assuming every high paid executive has a social conscience, only that I know several that do and am not prepared to tar everybody with the same brush. Before you talk tax rebates you probably should know how and who the money was given to. Not all charity comes with a tax reciept. I do not like the way business is conducted anymore then anyone else but I am a realist and will support anyone who goes out of their way to bring about change for the better.

Mark

[GrahamL]

couple of thoughts ?

OK .. I'll buy hes a really nice fellow .. But the real issue is by way of corporate structure if joe blow buys enough shares in a listed company
he then has a place on the board and can vote on renumeration paid to other senior board members includeing himself :)

Shareholders are quick to squeal when there investments take a dive
but ..imo .. are happy to take the rewards when times arn't tough. :)

But its a double edged sword sometimes (think meade) if that cosy little cash cow starts to get a little shakey with a listed company
and the share price drops to nothing theres somone buying up those shares and with it a controlling interest who can then boot out the dead wood ....but still start the whole cycle again .:lol:

viva capitalism

[tlgerdes]

I didnt look at the rest of them, but Schwarzman and Ellison are running their own companies, so well done to them to take an idea and make it a reality and profit from it.

So when it comes to


Then if it is his company and you want to invest in it, thats great, but remember it is his company and you invest in it because he is the owner and manager.

[AstralTraveller]

These debates always run off onto the character of this or that squillionar. What about why we have such inequality? Why should we need charity? I'm not saying everyone should have the same regardless of contribution, but is such inequality justified? And is remuneration proportional to contribution? I think not. The culprit is the system. The culprit is the imperative that money only exists to make more money.

[gman]

What you could do H is get yourself into the position and become a modern day corporate Robin Hood.
Think of it as taking from the people who have money and you could give it to some deserving charities and claim it on your tax return.:thumbsup:

[norm]

People like that make me sick:mad2:. Noone is worth that much. It does gives me comfort knowing one day, they will leave this world like the rest of us mere mortals, regardless of their wealth.

"

The problem with this is that the majority of the board are in it as well. They don't have anymore morality either.

Norm

[tornado33]

$800+m would fund a mission to Europa, maybe even including a lander/hydrobot for exploring under the ice. It would also well and truly get the 100 metre OWL telescope under way.

What did this man spend it on anyway? No human is truly worth that amount of money anyway. The late Dr Victor Chang would be much more valuable to the human race than that CEO.

Its so sad that CEO,s sports stars, models and actors get such rediculous amounts of money, that is far in excess of the actual work they do, wheras people on the forefront of scientific research (which is of much greater value to the human race) get so much less.

Take Tiger Woods. How can the ability to get a small white ball into 18 holes in less strokes that most other people justify he being paid orders of magnitude more than, say a paramedic who routinely saves human lives sometimes putting his/her own on the line to do so

Just think if that CEO DID fund a mission to Europa, and that mission discovered living organisms near volcanic vents inthe Europan ocean. he would become far more famous than any other rich person in history!

[ngcles]

Hi All,

[rant mode enabled] Just one word is needed to describe this: Obscene. It cannot be justified. Period.

As others have noted, individuals like this are selected on the basis that they have no soul but more importantly, no conscience at all.

They are hired by people near the top of organisations who still have a semblance of conscience and can't be rid of it. That semblance of conscience won't allow them to make the type of absolutely ruthless decisions that require a complete and utter absence of conscience.The people who hire them are now able to sleep at night because they can rationalise any "collateral damage" done along the way to achieving an objective by saying to themselves -- "Well I didn't do it, he did".

The sole objective of these types is the bottom line -- no matter the cost to anything or anybody that stands in the way. Nothing else is relevant except the bottom line.

I agree with most of Humayan's thoughts except this:

[sic??]

I don't agree they are driven by greed. This high up the money is almost (but not quite) irrelevant. On their "way up" the food chain, they have almost certainly already "earned" more money than they can ever spend.

Instead these types are completely driven by power, the need to retain it and to exercise it. Remember Orwell's 1984? "Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power."

The size of the "pay-packet" is just an outward sign to the other similar types that they wield "X" amount of power. The actual amount of money is irrelevant to their lifestyle. They haven't a hope of spending a 1/10th of it and they know that too.

All it says is "I'm this powerful", that's all. My what-chama-call-it is this big and my "soul" is this microscopically small.

Actually, the "pay-packet" serves just one other small purpose: it ensures the recipient is completely divorced from the reality that the other 99.99999999% of us live. Divorced from that reality, there is even less chance that "conscience" will get in the way because for these individuals, we are almost part of another world that doesn't really exist to them.

Not that that is in any way a justification, it is in fact the exact opposite.

We have a "minimum wage" in most of the industrialized world. Why isn't there a "maximum wage"?

One of the first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes I say ...

[rant mode disabled]


Best,

Les D

[sjastro]

As much as this is an emotive issue the packages offered to CEOs is largely determined by market forces or the supply and demand of labour.

A CEO is a non specialist, the same CEO who runs a bank can also run an automotive company or a public utility. As a result companies that ordinarily do not compete with each other on a commercial level are all in the same boat when it comes to attracting the right person for the top job.

The harsh reality is that there a too few individuals considered to be of the "right stuff" and a relative abundance of top level positions.

The result is the highly inflated packages being offered.

Steven

[beefking]

try to track down "The Economics of Innocent Fraud" by J.K. Galbraith. It's very short, but extremely readable, and a brilliant explanation of how perverse outcomes like that actually occur.

He makes the point that we do not have a capitalist economy - that would imply the provider of the capital bears the risk and reaps the benefits. Bailouts and excessive CEO remuneration, for example, do not bear that out. We actually have a managerialist economy, where those who manage the capital get to structure the system to their benefit. Seems evident once its pointed out.

As for the "soullessnes" of such people, Galbraith makes the good point that the corporate structure allows people to, I guess, compartmentalise their ethical decisions into a personal and a business sphere - it's one of the reasons for the success of the "corporation". The success of the corporation demands that such "frauds" take place.

To that end, I also recommend the books "The Corporation" and "No Logo".

it's all sadly short of solutions though. I daydream that if I ever start a company it will have an ethical structure, but that's just a daydream innit.