It's your damn fault, Market Traders, and Greedy C.E.O.'s.

Sublime

Electoral Member
Mar 8, 2006
237
2
18
Toronto
It's your damn fault why are markets are so dam poor, you trade our jobs away to other country's for cheap labour and we lose jobs.

And Company's Executives bank the saving and don't pump any of those savings back into our economy.

DAM YOU BASTRDS!:angryfire:
 

johnnyhangover

now with added fiber!
Feb 20, 2009
132
4
18
in my house
www.dreadfulmonkey.com
I trade stocks, but I did nothing to hurt this "market" you speak of. If you're talking about the TSX, it's in pretty good shape. Somewhere around 10400, I think. Not an all-time high, but recovering.

As for CEO's, well, their job is to maximize profits, that's it. If you don't like that, as I don't, then you have a problem with the laws of incorporation. Any behaviour that goes against profit maximization puts them on the wrong side of the law.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,466
138
63
Location, Location
Well now, the best part is that our delightful greenies have decided that the way to save the earth is to establish some carbon trading scheme, which will be run in short order by the same traders who have made investment banking so successful.
 

johnnyhangover

now with added fiber!
Feb 20, 2009
132
4
18
in my house
www.dreadfulmonkey.com
Well now, the best part is that our delightful greenies have decided that the way to save the earth is to establish some carbon trading scheme, which will be run in short order by the same traders who have made investment banking so successful.

Nope. Completely wrong. It will be made up of companies that have or require carbon credits.

The traders you speak of trade in Credit Default Swaps, which is a type of insurance, and has no tangible commodity behind it, unlike carbon credits.
 

Risus

Genius
May 24, 2006
5,373
25
38
Toronto
It's your damn fault why are markets are so dam poor, you trade our jobs away to other country's for cheap labour and we lose jobs.

And Company's Executives bank the saving and don't pump any of those savings back into our economy.

DAM YOU BASTRDS!:angryfire:

Who you calling a bastrd??? 8O
 

wulfie68

Council Member
Mar 29, 2009
2,014
24
38
Calgary, AB
As for CEO's, well, their job is to maximize profits, that's it. If you don't like that, as I don't, then you have a problem with the laws of incorporation. Any behaviour that goes against profit maximization puts them on the wrong side of the law.

Its not quite that cut and dry. There is a chain of command so to speak

Investors --> Board of Directors --> CEO --> other execs and exmployees

As an investor (which I am) I want profit but I can, through the board, put limits on how I want that profitibility achieved.

I actually admire Henry Ford's outlook:

A business that makes nothing but money is a poor business.
The highest use of capital is not to make more money, but to make money do more for the betterment of life.
There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible


Those statements, in my mind show, how skewed our current economic system has become. I am definately not a socialist (I think collectivism discourages innovation and hard work), but I do think something is wrong with the way our system is working. To use an example, the bonuses paid to execs in companies like AIG in the US when the companies are underperforming due to the decisions the execs made. There was an excuse made that paying those bonuses was necessary to keep execs working for AIG, but IMO, it was their incompetance that put the company in jeopardy, so if they all quit, then good riddance. AIG is an extreme example but I've seen the same thing in the private sector in Canada.

I think the real issue is investors need to start exerting their authority over the board and the execs more, but a) they have to accept that limiting profits to build communities is in their best interest and b) they have to find a way to make their priorities known in a world where pension funds and large investors are the ones with the most control, thus the most say in how things are run.
 
  • Like
Reactions: L Gilbert

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,466
138
63
Location, Location
Nope. Completely wrong. It will be made up of companies that have or require carbon credits.
And how, exactly, are these 'companies' going to trade credits? Is the CEO of SomePulpMill going to call up the CEO of SomeOtherCo and make a deal?

No, they'll used hired intermediaries. And guess who they'll be?
The same intermediaries they use when they need capital.

Don't kid yourself, it's the same merry band of thieves.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Its not quite that cut and dry. There is a chain of command so to speak

Investors --> Board of Directors --> CEO --> other execs and exmployees

As an investor (which I am) I want profit but I can, through the board, put limits on how I want that profitibility achieved.

I actually admire Henry Ford's outlook:





Those statements, in my mind show, how skewed our current economic system has become. I am definately not a socialist (I think collectivism discourages innovation and hard work), but I do think something is wrong with the way our system is working. To use an example, the bonuses paid to execs in companies like AIG in the US when the companies are underperforming due to the decisions the execs made. There was an excuse made that paying those bonuses was necessary to keep execs working for AIG, but IMO, it was their incompetance that put the company in jeopardy, so if they all quit, then good riddance. AIG is an extreme example but I've seen the same thing in the private sector in Canada.

I think the real issue is investors need to start exerting their authority over the board and the execs more, but a) they have to accept that limiting profits to build communities is in their best interest and b) they have to find a way to make their priorities known in a world where pension funds and large investors are the ones with the most control, thus the most say in how things are run.
Pretty much in line with my views. :) Good post and good quotes. But I won't be holding my breath.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
"...the bonuses paid to execs in companies like AIG in the US when the companies are underperforming due to the decisions the execs made. There was an excuse made that paying those bonuses was necessary to keep execs working for AIG..."

I bet that claim was made by the execs working for AIG.

The more you dig the worse it gets. For example, in a letter to Congress from New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo dated April 23, 2009, Bernanke was mentioned along with former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson in allegations of fraud concerning the acquisition of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America. The letter alleged that the extent of the losses at Merrill Lynch were not disclosed to Bank of America by Bernanke and Paulson. When Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis informed Paulson that Bank of America was exiting the merger by invoking the "Materially Adverse Change" clause Paulson immediately called Lewis to a meeting in Washington. At the meeting, which allegedly took place on December 21, 2008, Paulson told Lewis that he and the board would be replaced if they invoked the MAC clause and additionally not to reveal the extent of the losses to shareholders. Paulson stated to Cuomo's office that he was directed by Bernanke to threaten Lewis in this manner.

reference:
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/media_center/2009/apr/pdfs/BofAmergLetter.pdf

Paulson was the designated leader of the Bush Administration's efforts in 2008 to nationalize the cost of bad loans made by financial institutions.

Through unprecedented intervention by the U.S. Treasury, Paulson led government efforts which he said were aimed at avoiding a severe economic slowdown. He pushed through the conservatorship of government agency mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Working with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, he influenced the decision to create a credit facility (bridge loan & warrants) of US$85 billion to American International Group so it would avoid filing bankruptcy.

In late September 2008, Paulson, along with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, led the effort to help financial firms by agreeing to use US$700 billion dollars to purchase bad debt they had incurred.[23] He faced criticism from economists for initially refusing to consider injecting large amounts of cash into financial institutions directly by purchasing stock, an option which other countries in similar circumstances have pursued.[24] This was the option favored by Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, and the one that was eventually followed. [25]

On September 19, 2008, Paulson called for the U.S. government to use hundreds of billions of Treasury dollars to help financial firms clean up nonperforming mortgages threatening the liquidity of those firms.[26] Because of his leadership and public appearances on this issue, the press labeled these measures the "Paulson financial rescue plan" or simply the Paulson Plan.[27]

With the passage of H.R. 1424, Paulson became the manager of the United States Emergency Economic Stabilization fund.

As Treasury Secretary, he also sat on the newly established Financial Stability Oversight Board that oversees the Troubled Assets Relief Program.


[edit] Conflict of interest claims
It has been pointed out that Paulson's plan could potentially have some conflicts of interest, since Paulson was the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, a firm that may benefit largely from the plan.[28] Questions remain about Paulson's interest, despite the fact that he had no direct financial interest in Goldman, since he had sold his entire stake in the firm prior to becoming Treasury Secretary, pursuant to ethics law.[29] The Goldman Sachs benefit from AIG bailout was recently estimated as USD 12.9 billion and GS was the largest recipient of the public funds from AIG. [30] Creating the collateralized debt obligation (CDO's) forming the basis of the current crisis was an active part of Goldman Sach's business during Paulson's tenure as CEO[31]. An investigation into whether the creators of these debts had failed to disclose their underlying risk -- likely in civil damage suits arising out of AIG's failure -- would necessarily involve scrutiny of Paulson's own role. The fact that his sale of his Goldman Sach's interest was tax-deferred, netting him nearly $200 million in tax benefits, resulted in questions about the motives of his joining the government. [32]

Opponents argued that Paulson remained a Wall Street insider who maintained close friendships with higher-ups of the bailout beneficiaries. If passed into law, the proposed bill would give the United States Treasury Secretary unprecedented powers over the economic and financial life of the U.S. Section 8 of Paulson’s original plan stated: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."[33]. For this reason, many bloggers referred to Mr. Paulson as "King Henry." [34] Some time after the passage of this bill, the press reported that the Treasury was now proposing to use these funds ($700 billion) in ways other than what was originally intended in the bill.[35].

Henry Paulson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Phew! This smells so bad. Any capitalist right wingers want to defend this crap...
 

Sublime

Electoral Member
Mar 8, 2006
237
2
18
Toronto
I have no problem with people making a profit, but when U bank it all and not pump it back into the economy it destroys jobs and the middle class, which built this country..and North America as a whole.

Capatalism runs on the prusumption that in trust you will actualy spend money not just save it all.

DAM BASTRDS!:angryfire::angryfire:
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Sublime... might I suggest that you link people to one thread to talk about your job skills and search? Right now you've got people giving you work advice in three separate threads. Keeping track, for you AND them, will be easier if you funnel all the great advice into one place.

If not, that's fine too... just a suggestion.
 

DurkaDurka

Internet Lawyer
Mar 15, 2006
10,385
129
63
Toronto
Farm/Labour something other than the usual crud i'v bean doing.

Job Bank - Job Profile

Title: Fruit farm worker (Apple Orchard Worker) (NOC: 8431)
Terms of Employment: Permanent, Full Time, Weekend, Day
Salary: To be negotiated, Other Benefits
Anticipated Start Date: As soon as possible
Location: Ajax -Kingston Rd & Lakeridge, Ontario (1 vacancy)

There you go, you owe me $500.00 for my amazing internet searching skills.