VIDEO Thomas DiLorenzo on Fox Business to Discuss CEO Salaries
This is awesome. Tom doesn't get much time but this is a great example of what you can do with a short period of time when you aren't a wimpy beltarian,
I thought the lady guest was a bit more concise than Tom.
Capitalism vs. Socialism isn't a battle of "selfishnes" vs. "altruism." The choice is between liberty and its byproducts---specialization, diversity of ability, and division of labor---vs. oppression, the regulation and bridling of freedom to succeed, and homogeneity of skills and ability. Of course, it took me 10 minutes to come up with that, not the 60 seconds they they had to speak!
Yeah, those dumb ass CEO's are just soooo valuable. Yes, business is not a charity, and people should be more concerned with the corruption of the money via the Federal Reserve along with the asinine taxes and regulations that impede wealth creation. However, anyone who tells me that these CEO's are creating all this wonderful value is simply ludicrous. I like Tom Woods, but anyone who can think has to admit it is bad optics when a corporate head makes several times the wage of the average employee.
Of course, I know the libertardians here would rejoice if a company imports immigrant labor for a $1 a day while Americans go begging. I admit unions are a bit stupid in some of their demands, but so are the corporate CEO's - they too want everything for free. It's sad that some make substantial profit, but will go through the trouble of replacing someone to simply raise their percent profit a point or two. No wonder anyone cares about customer service anymore. Working productively and doing your job means nothing these days. But hey libertardians, keep telling us this does not matter.
If an immigrant is willing to work for a dollar a day, I would hire as many as I could! I better start advertising for some of those.
Of course they don't do that. There's something called the Disutility of Labor, but clearly this is meaningless to you as you waste no time showing everyone that Trump supporters are economically clueless.
The CEO generally makes the decision on key entrepreneurial functions in a company, such as which markets to enter and exit. This is everything.
How much would Eastman Kodak be worth today if they had a CEO who understood that digital camera technology would completely eclipse film? They could have thrown their massive R&D might (they had a ridiculously-large R&D budget at the time; more than anyone else in the chemical industry) at dominating digital cameras early.
Another great example was Realnetworks. At one time they had enough capital to become what Netflix is today. Their CEO decided not to go in that direction. Now the CEO has to figure out a way for their stock to top 2 dollars per share.
We see so many successful companies and just assume that failing is an aberration caused by dumb leadership. As a result, no respect is given to a CEO who grows (or at least doesn't trash) the stock value. In reality, these successful companies are aberrations from an extensive graveyard of failed startups and small businesses.
People appreciate athlete salaries more because they can understand how difficult it can be to throw/catch/chase a ball under pressure. They can't comprehend what's involved with running a company, so they assume that even the guy with the median salary could do it.
I'm sure that if one looked at nationwide statistics for the pay for all CEOs relative to all entry-level workers, then the ratio would be much less dramatic. Many CEOs take home little to no pay while they are getting their businesses going, while they reliably pay entry-level workers; many companies fail, leaving their CEOs with zero return on their capital and effort. The SJWs focus only on a very thin sliver of the data.
Yeah, the CEO's running GE, Sears, and other retailers into the ground are such a good buy for shareholders. What would America do without such business acumen?
Why do you keep defining CEO's in terms of what they do for "America"? That sounds quite... Soviet. CEOs who run companies to the ground, as you say so casually, are greatly **outnumbered** by CEOs who help their companies turn a profit, because - get this - people are GREEDY. CEOs are in it for the money, just like everyone else.
Then again, maybe you're a puritan who eschews greed and embraces the virtue of American-style Juche.
Envy is the root of all evil. And wealth accumulation is not a zero-sum game. If people understood and accepted these, we'd have a lot less rancor, resentment, strife, and legal plunder...
I thought the lady guest was a bit more concise than Tom.
ReplyDeleteCapitalism vs. Socialism isn't a battle of "selfishnes" vs. "altruism." The choice is between liberty and its byproducts---specialization, diversity of ability, and division of labor---vs. oppression, the regulation and bridling of freedom to succeed, and homogeneity of skills and ability.
Of course, it took me 10 minutes to come up with that, not the 60 seconds they they had to speak!
Yeah, those dumb ass CEO's are just soooo valuable. Yes, business is not a charity, and people should be more concerned with the corruption of the money via the Federal Reserve along with the asinine taxes and regulations that impede wealth creation. However, anyone who tells me that these CEO's are creating all this wonderful value is simply ludicrous. I like Tom Woods, but anyone who can think has to admit it is bad optics when a corporate head makes several times the wage of the average employee.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I know the libertardians here would rejoice if a company imports immigrant labor for a $1 a day while Americans go begging. I admit unions are a bit stupid in some of their demands, but so are the corporate CEO's - they too want everything for free. It's sad that some make substantial profit, but will go through the trouble of replacing someone to simply raise their percent profit a point or two. No wonder anyone cares about customer service anymore. Working productively and doing your job means nothing these days. But hey libertardians, keep telling us this does not matter.
If the optics are lacking, then fix the lenses, not the view.
DeleteAnd BTW, what does Tom Woods have to do with this clip?
If an immigrant is willing to work for a dollar a day, I would hire as many as I could! I better start advertising for some of those.
DeleteOf course they don't do that. There's something called the Disutility of Labor, but clearly this is meaningless to you as you waste no time showing everyone that Trump supporters are economically clueless.
The CEO generally makes the decision on key entrepreneurial functions in a company, such as which markets to enter and exit. This is everything.
ReplyDeleteHow much would Eastman Kodak be worth today if they had a CEO who understood that digital camera technology would completely eclipse film? They could have thrown their massive R&D might (they had a ridiculously-large R&D budget at the time; more than anyone else in the chemical industry) at dominating digital cameras early.
Another great example was Realnetworks. At one time they had enough capital to become what Netflix is today. Their CEO decided not to go in that direction. Now the CEO has to figure out a way for their stock to top 2 dollars per share.
We see so many successful companies and just assume that failing is an aberration caused by dumb leadership. As a result, no respect is given to a CEO who grows (or at least doesn't trash) the stock value. In reality, these successful companies are aberrations from an extensive graveyard of failed startups and small businesses.
People appreciate athlete salaries more because they can understand how difficult it can be to throw/catch/chase a ball under pressure. They can't comprehend what's involved with running a company, so they assume that even the guy with the median salary could do it.
I'm sure that if one looked at nationwide statistics for the pay for all CEOs relative to all entry-level workers, then the ratio would be much less dramatic. Many CEOs take home little to no pay while they are getting their businesses going, while they reliably pay entry-level workers; many companies fail, leaving their CEOs with zero return on their capital and effort. The SJWs focus only on a very thin sliver of the data.
ReplyDeleteYeah, the CEO's running GE, Sears, and other retailers into the ground are such a good buy for shareholders. What would America do without such business acumen?
DeleteHey, Lab Manager,
DeleteWhy do you keep defining CEO's in terms of what they do for "America"? That sounds quite... Soviet. CEOs who run companies to the ground, as you say so casually, are greatly **outnumbered** by CEOs who help their companies turn a profit, because - get this - people are GREEDY. CEOs are in it for the money, just like everyone else.
Then again, maybe you're a puritan who eschews greed and embraces the virtue of American-style Juche.
Envy is the root of all evil. And wealth accumulation is not a zero-sum game.
ReplyDeleteIf people understood and accepted these, we'd have a lot less rancor, resentment, strife, and legal plunder...