I pray that it can be done. I just wish he'd shut up once in a while and stay off Twitter.
Business leaders rave about Trump after meeting promising massive regulatory cuts
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
Beneath me.....Well I not a CFA or even a CPA but I understand financial statements including a business' P&L.
I agree 100% with on-shoring profits. I have no idea why Obama didn't take action here. I agree with reduced regulation. I don't completely agree with the trickle down formula that you described. What bothers me is the absurd rise in C-suite salaries. My left leaning brain struggles to understand how a person within a corporation can me worth these salaries. (entrepreneurs excluded) I was the internal audit director at a $8B regional bank. The CFO made $3-4 mil a year all in and most of the top execs were over $1 mil. None of these guys founded the bank, grew the bank, or were innovators. The asset liability mix was stable. The market was mostly immune to the 2007 recession....the bank ran itself and they got wealthy.
He can Tweet to inform, build consensus, correct a misquote, or a Media lie, or a smear. No problem with that.
Stay away from insults, barbs, personalities, complaints, whining, pissing, moaning, groaning, and foolishness.
You're THE MAN....President of the United States. Choose your words carefully, responsibly, with deference to careful thought, tact, brevity (the soul of wit), and a sense of urgency or the weight your words carry around the Globe.
You are the leader of the Free World. Tweet to lead, not appease.
Every company that earns profits & pays their employees or shareholders (if they're publicly traded) does so through "trickle down". It's a misnomer incorrectly described to indicate that as revenues flow or are generated from wealth creation or profits, it goes back down through the company or individuals and eventually into the economy.
I don't know what those Bank Execs you mentioned did with those millions they were paid, but my guess is they either invested it, spent it, saved it, or used some combination of those 3 once it was transferred from your Bank into their private accounts.
The money has to go somewhere, just as PAX mentioned in another post, why is it assumed the best place for it is tied up in some bureaucracy for some bureaucrat who may or may not be needed? The more of that money we keep circulating through the private free enterprise economy, the more "trickle down" there will be generated for more people who can benefit from the increased job creation, investments, savings, loans, and other positive effects of money making more money for more people.
"Trickle down" is not as the Left describes it...as a few rich people allowing a few 'crumbs' to fall off their over stuffed tables while everyone else starves. It is the expansion of economic opportunity for more people as more people pursue economic advancements for themselves.
Come on, your a smart guy, a good poster and debater. Don't lower yourself to stupid seat belt arguments. You know that is fallacious.
As for corporate salaries, the Board makes those decisions and they represent the stock holders. Government should not get involved. If exec salaries are too high, petition the Board, go to the Shareholder's meetings. Start a movement. But keep government the hell out.
I personally think exec salaries should be mostly bonus based, merit based. If the company's results improve, reward the exec. High salaries never made business sense to me. Salaries should be based on results, not longevity or simply holding an office.
As for trickle down, we have tried Reagan's way. We have tried Obama's way. Reagan, supply side. Obama, Keynesian. Trump is more on the Reagan side with populist inserts. Personally, I believe and the stats bear this out that Reagan had a much better economy than Obama. If Trump improves our economy over Obama's performance, we have two data points.
You go from making nonsense statements about all liberal Americans to making nonsense statements about me. You're on a roll.
I certainly have not heard them argue otherwise. They may deny the desired outcome (larger Government) but they most certainly do not deny the means. (active Government)
Whatever objective they prefer, it all requires the same thing (larger, more active Government)
Fact.
Apparently neither you or Ms. Conway know what a fact is and you just seem confused in general about things based on your statements. Read up man, get a better understanding.
If you look at the political spectrum, I'd say the folks to the middle-left to far-left fall in that category. I surely do not. Being a liberal doesn't necessary mean one desires big government, but I will concede that they generally go together.
I find most government regulation was the result of corporations abusing customers, environment, or employees. Regulation doesn't materialize from thin air with no basis. I grew up in Weirton in the 60s and 70s. I saw the pollution(which didn't compare to the pollution of the 20s-40s). I had an uncle that was beaten by Pinkerton police for trying to unionize. Anyone from WV know how miners were treated by the mining companies. All of the abuse led to regulation. Corporations don't all desire to be good citizens just because. It generally doesn't lead to profit. Yes there are exceptions. There is usually a fine associated with non-compliance and that is the motivator for most corporations to behave. Look at Volkswagen and their manipulation of test results for profit. Look at Countrywide Mortgage and their abuse of consumers for profit. Look at the Sago mine operator in WV whose dodging of regulation caused the deaths of 12 miners. There has to be level of federal oversight or we all suffer except corporate execs and shareholders.
Sure in certain sectors we have become over-regulated (IRS is an easy example). But in many other, it is simply that corporations won't behave in a safe or fair manner that drives regulation. I repeat, federal regulation generally doesn't precede a legitimate cause.
I should have used Enron as an example, look at the new regulation that fiasco drove. Were the regulations costly? Hell yes. But you could argue that they have paid off too......
I think we need a thorough regulatory review. The EPA is out of control. Send the EPA back to the states with a fairly small central EPA. Same with DOE, both Energy and Education. I would look to decentralize other departments as well.
I would eliminate all regs that are no longer relevant, don't provide benefits, and for large regulations that don't pass a cost/benefit analysis.
You know Original Mouintaineer1, I often hear this argument from the Left about companies not caring or out to "screw people" just for profit but I sort of equate them to major College football programs who recruit and want to attract good players so they can win.
If a company wants to grow, attract and retain good workers, and improve their brand (like College athletic programs who want good players, who can help them win, & grow their brand) why mistreat them? They will work as hard they can to make things at the company and in their environment they have to sell and grow in as good as it can be correct?
It's the same thing in the marketplace. The Left will argue they don't trust markets, but markets is us. If you trust yourself (most Leftists do) just imagine everyone else will take care of themselves and act in their own best interests just as you do.
I know a lot of Leftists think they're better than everyone else, but imagine just for a moment if everyone else is just as good as you are? Do you trust yourself in the market to operate fairly? Well OK then, just give that same respect to other individuals, and ultimately to companies because all they are is a large collection of like minded individuals acting in their interests.
I don't deny corporate wrongdoing, no more than I can deny some people also try to steal from each other and their employers. But we have Laws to prosecute cheaters, just like we have Refs to throw laundry or call fouls.
What we need are common sense regulations, and trust in the Free market for folks to make their work and earning environments as trouble free and attractive as possible.
Microsoft, Google, Amazon and a host of other companies looking for good employees who can help them maintain market share are offering fabulous benefits and attractive work environments to keep them. They have day care centers, health and wellness programs, exercise facilities etc.
Win-win for everybody.
Last edited:
Do you mean major college football programs like Oregon that just sent three players to the hospital for over-practicing them? Just look around, D1 programs cheat, cheat, and cheat again. See UNC
Most companies that are profit driven won't police themselves. If allowed to cheat, they will. Your examples highlight companies known for their above average workplace experiences. But your example of Microsoft is a company that has been repeatedly accused and sued for stealing ideas. Not cool generally. If you gave me a day I could probably find 100 companies that cited for severe safety violations, unpaid overtime, or that fire people for staying home to care for a sick kid. Hell I worked for a company that systematically and intentionally refused to pay for mandated OT hrs worked by hourly workers and paid female workers below published wage rates. I found this in an internal audit. I was reprimanded by our legal counsel for not informing them immediatly. Then it was promptly swept under the rug. I surely would have been fired if not for whistle blower provisions. This was within the last 10 years.
I just found this article from 2014: Bank of America, Western Union, and JP Morgan, are among the institutions allegedly involved in the drug trade. Meanwhile, HSBC has admitted its laundering role, and evaded criminal prosecution by paying a fine of almost $2 billion. They do this for profit by the way.
From a 2010 article: OSHA statistics show BP ran up 760 "egregious, willful" safety violations, while Sunoco and Conoco-Phillips each had eight, Citgo had two and Exxon had one comparable citation. This didn't stop BP from hiring oil workers or selling product
In 2016 grocery store Chain Supervalu Inc. received a big slap on the wrist from federal regulators for serious food safety violations at a seafood processing facility in Pennsylvania — violations not typically seen at such a large operation.
In my opinion, we can't have common sense regulation because everybody would play in the gutter.
I just respectfully disagree with you on this. Most companies want and need good workers. When they get them they try to keep them happy. It does them no good to do otherwise to them or their customers.
I'm not arguing for the corruption you're worried about Original. I'm arguing against it being the norm, and more importantly the Government running private enterprise being the only fair way around it.
Common sense legislation that acts as a referee does during an athletic contest? Sure. Control of the free market? No.
No business interested in growing or remaining profitable can hope to do so poisoning its customers or cheating its employees. It's against their own long term interests and survival. Corporate profits are no different than individual profit. You would not deliberately screw yourself out of a chance to improve your financial condition. Would you cheat? Maybe. Deliberately hurt your chances if by doing so you knew it would rob you of any future earnings potential? I doubt it.
Would you?
I work for Berkshire Hathaway (Warren Buffett) in one of their Dealership subsidiaries...and yes we are treated well and paid well for performance.
Are they totally completely 100% above board in everything? No.
Are they deliberately out to screw us or their customers? Absolutely not.
Last edited: