The Stimulus didn't work?!

[stokes234]

You couldn't pay me enough. The money and perks and country club memberships couldn't even begin to cover the stress.

But that's just me. Maybe I'm a wimp. How much would you take for pay?

Well, three things:

1. There's no actual physical danger for the CEO himself. Firemen run into burning buildings every day and soldiers duck under bullets and explosions, and they get paid orders of magnitude less.

2. The steps of removal mean that CEOs will often never witness first hand the consequences of their mistakes, whereas professions like surgeons could have someone die under their knife from a tiny slip-up, and they get paid alot less.

3. The financial risk of a cock-up seems to be pretty negligible as well. It's pretty rare to hear of a highly-paid CEO that gets jailed or made destitute for their mistakes, and it's pretty common to hear of them walking away with millions.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The claim that being a CEO is very stressful is laughable. Heck, even if they get fired, they have golden-parachute severances. The last company I worked at went through 3 CEO's in 3 years, all of whom were fired because they didn't grow the company. All 3 had several million dollars of severance.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The claim that being a CEO is very stressful is laughable. Heck, even if they get fired, they have golden-parachute severances. The last company I worked at went through 3 CEO's in 3 years, all of whom were fired because they didn't grow the company. All 3 had several million dollars of severance.

There's something I've noticed about managers, where I work. I have worked under some managers who identify with, and care about the company that they serve, and I have worked under managers who couldn't give a rat's ass about the company, who only care about what's in it for them. I've seen huge differences in how well my department has run, under these different types of managers.

What you say makes sense, only with regard to the latter type of manager, who doesn't really care about his company so long as he gets paid well, and, in the worst event that he fails, he gets a generous severance package. But that is certainly not the sort of manager that you want at the very top of the company.

The sort of manager who actually cares about his company will be under a great deal of stress if his company is not doing well—not out of fear of being fired, but because he personally takes a failure of his company (or whatever portion thereof is under his authority) as a personal failure on his own part. If his company does badly, and he loses his job as a result, a huge severance package will be little comfort—he will still have failed.

To have this sort of manager in the CEO position is probably well worth any of the high salaries and other compensations that some CEOs command.

To get rid of a CEO who is of the other type is probably well worth the extravagant severance package.

 

[thaiboxerken]

To have this sort of manager in the CEO position is probably well worth any of the high salaries and other compensations that some CEOs command.

This may be true, but the "bad" CEO's are out there and often get jobs not because of past qualifications. Rather, they know the right people.

The two failed candidates in California come to mind.

 

[lomiller]

Note that the current 7.5% rate is near a historic low:

Apparently your history only goes back 10 years...

In any case Germany has had relatively high unemployment since reunification in the early 90's due to the problems associated with absorbing and integrating a troubled economy with tens of millions of people.

The real lesson here is that the German government managed to keep it's banks mostly out of trouble and kept spending when the US did not. As a result they survived the crisis and have started to recover nicely.

 

[BeAChooser]

Apparently your history only goes back 10 years...

I point you once again to the contents of post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6600286&postcount=80 . It's true that once, long ago, German unemployment was well below 7.5%. Of course, that was an idyllic time when socialists did not run Germany. Whenever they did, unemployment would rise.

In any case Germany has had relatively high unemployment since reunification in the early 90's

But from 1980 to about 1983 unemployment rose from 4% to about 9%. This occurred well before German reunification (during a time when socialists controlled Germany) so you can't blame THAT on reunification, can you? And then it fell (thanks to non-socialists regaining control) back to about 7% by 1990, when reunification occurred.

Then what happened? Well at first, economic growth exploded. The first two years after reunification, Germany's GDP grew 5-7% a year. Then it gradually grew worse and worse, with the lowest GDP growth occurring in the early 2000s. And while it is true that reunification is part of the reason unemployment rose in Germany, another part of the reason was the growing control of the government by socialists through the 1990s. It was the socialists who killed economic growth. And the reason unemployment stayed over 10% for a decade after climbing to that level (at a time when the US economy was booming and unemployment low) was the continued socialist control of the government. Can it just be coincidence that the economy has begun growing again and unemployment has fallen to 18 year lows at precisely the moment when the socialists have lost control of the government and become a very minor player?

The real lesson here is that the German government managed to keep it's banks mostly out of trouble and kept spending when the US did not.

First of all, don't delude yourself, the US government is still "spending". But more important, Germany's government *spent* much differently than the Obama administration did. You willing to learn the lesson in THAT?

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

[...snip...]in 1969, the SPD won the majority of seats itself and dominated the government until 1982. That was time enough to establish Germany as a social welfare state with unemployment steadily climbing to over 8% and rising. And you can see from the chart, after the other parties regained control, they managed to get the unemployment growth stopped and it started to drop ... back down to well under 8% by 1992.

*facepalm* You're about one hundred years off on the creation of the German welfare state. Otto Von Bismark worked to pass several bills centered on socialist reform; health care paid through a tax from employees and their employers, accident insurance administrated at the federal and state level, and a pension program for retirees. Somehow, they managed to retain those low unemployment rates through the 1960's having already been transformed into a third-world socialist hellhole some eighty years ago.

 

[BeAChooser]

You're about one hundred years off on the creation of the German welfare state. Otto Von Bismark worked to pass several bills centered on socialist reform; health care paid through a tax from employees and their employers, accident insurance administrated at the federal and state level, and a pension program for retirees.

Gee. I wonder if that might be the reason Germany was the source of two World Wars? But seriously, Bismarck's system was designed to keep the elderly out of severe poverty. That's all. What I mean by "socialists" are those who promote income redistribution like Obama. What Bismark started, and even the more conservative factions of the German government post WW2 have advocated/supported, is a social "insurance" system based on contributions through which an employee would acquire claim to later benefits. That's not a bad thing if done right and done in a pay as you go manner. That's not the same thing as the SPD and US democrats advocate. Which is a nanny state that promotes "equality" in all things, massive income redistribution to attain that, and government interference/control in/of all things. See the difference, KF?

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

But seriously, Bismarck's system was designed to keep the elderly out of severe poverty. That's all.

Which "system" was that? You're aware that there were three major bills passed which are cited by everyone and anyone as the foundation of the German welfare state; UHC provided for by taxing employees and workers, heavily government regulated accident insurance for German laborers, a pension program designed to cover retirees who reached the age of sixty-five/insurance for the permanently disabled. If you're claiming that all three were designed solely for the purpose (note that you stated "That's all" in regards to what the "system" was designed to do) of keeping the elderly out of severe poverty, why should we not implement similar programs to cover the non-elderly?

What I mean by "socialists" are those who promote income redistribution like Obama.

That's a very narrow and arbitrary definition of "socialist". But besides that, this is a dubious claim at best; and please don't post a dozen plus links from times when Obama said "social justice" or shook hands with a communist.

What Bismark started, and even the more conservative factions of the German government post WW2 have advocated/supported, is a social "insurance" system based on contributions through which an employee would acquire claim to later benefits. That's not a bad thing if done right and done in a pay as you go manner. That's not the same thing as the SPD and US democrats advocate.

So then if the US advocates a Bismark-styled UHC system for American workers, and funded via tax increases, we can expect nothing but glowing support from you?

Which is a nanny state that promotes "equality" in all things, massive income redistribution to attain that, and government interference/control in/of all things. See the difference, KF?

That's a fine strawman you've built up but I don't know anyone who advocates those things, at least not anyone in a position to do something about it.

 

[lomiller]

But from 1980 to about 1983 unemployment rose from 4% to about 9%. This occurred well before German reunification

Congratulations, you discovered that unemployment goes up during recessions. US unemployment rose to near 11% during that period. Damn that Regan and his socialism!

 

[lomiller]

First of all, don't delude yourself, the US government is still "spending". But more important, Germany's government *spent* much differently than the Obama administration did. You willing to learn the lesson in THAT?

Well, one thiong you did get right is that the German govenment spent differntly. They actuly spent their stimulus, while the US offered 1/2 of it in tax cuts as a foolish attempt at compromise with thje right wingnuts.

This is at least part of the reason why real US government spending levels off while Germany's is still going up. Now we know Germany’s approach worked, the US approach worked less well.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
What I mean by "socialists" are those who promote income redistribution like Obama.

… snip … this is a dubious claim at best

Barack Obama in one of his few candid off-teleprompter moments … "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

And such feeling go way back with Obama ...

Barack Obama from September 2001 … "the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. … snip ... one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change."

Then there is Obamacare …

Senator Baucus (the architect of Obamacare) … "This is also an income shift, it's a shift, a leveling, to help lower middle income Americans. … snip … This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America"

And Obama isn't just trying to redistribute wealth within the borders of America. Consider the The Global Poverty Act, introduced by Barack Obama (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/the_global_candidate_proposes.html ). It is advocacy for wealth redistribution on a global scale.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Which is a nanny state that promotes "equality" in all things, massive income redistribution to attain that, and government interference/control in/of all things. See the difference, KF?

That's a fine strawman you've built up but I don't know anyone who advocates those things, at least not anyone in a position to do something about it.

Just off the top of my head …

Donald Berwick (Obama's appointment to head Medicare/Medicaid) … "Any healthcare funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized, and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate."

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
But from 1980 to about 1983 unemployment rose from 4% to about 9%. This occurred well before German reunification

Congratulations, you discovered that unemployment goes up during recessions. US unemployment rose to near 11% during that period. Damn that Regan and his socialism!

You are being dishonest. There were two brief recessions in the 1979 to 1982 timeframe. And yes, unemployment in the US climbed during them. But as soon as the recessions were over, unemployment dropped sharply back to previous levels. Here: http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2008/6/6/unemployment_1_thumb1.jpg . Under Reagan (I see you still can't spell his name right) unemployment didn't stay high, as it did as long as socialists were in control in Germany. In fact, the German socialists kept it over 10% for over a decade during a time when US unemployment fell to 4%. Thank goodness Reagan wasn't a socialist.

Nor was he a democrat. You see, every time democrats take control of the Congress in the US, the same thing happens as happens in Germany when socialists gain control. The economy falters and unemployment rises … and then it remains high. There is a lesson in that, just as there is in the history of Germany and socialists. But you refuse to learn it.

 

[lomiller]

You are being dishonest. There were two brief recessions in the 1979 to 1982 timeframe. And yes, unemployment in the US climbed during them.

The 1982 recession was arguably the second deepest since WWII, after the 2009 recession. It took until 1986 for US unemployment to drop below where it was when Reagan took office. If you go by the 5 month moving average in your link that didn’t happen until 1989 when Bush Sr was in office.

sorry, 5 year moving average in your link...

 

[BeAChooser]

It took until 1986 for US unemployment to drop below where it was when Reagan took office.

And when did Germany's unemployment drop to where it was in 1979? It never has, you say?

 

[lomiller]

And when did Germany's unemployment drop to where it was in 1979? It never has, you say?

Cause, you know there was no major upheaval at all for Germany starting in the late 80’s...

Seriously, you are grasping at straws and shooting yourself in the foot every time you reach.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Why am I not surprised you ignored everything else? Why does it seem like you're trying to shift the direction of the discussion to Obama and Socialism rather than the topic at hand?

Barack Obama in one of his few candid off-teleprompter moments … "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

One quote taken to an extreme interpretation doesn't constitute evidence. Even if I were to accept that this is evidence that Obama wants Communist-style wealth redistribution, it's certainly not reflected in his policies. And before you respond with "LOL! Where did I say Obama wanted Communist-style wealth redistribution? " I'll kindly remind you that it's you who is constantly referring to Obama as a hardcore socialist if not a full-blown Communist.

Barack Obama from September 2001 … "the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. … snip ... one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change."

What? He's right. The Supreme Court never has ventured into the issue of redistribution of wealth. That doesn't sound like a zealous call for the "from each, to each" system that Marxism demands. Though, it'd be nice if you at least linked to that statement.

Then there is Obamacare …

Really? That's your evidence that Obama wants massive income redistribution? Gee, I guess the bailout of the auto-industry and the banks must be evidence that Obama is pro-bourgeoisie and in-favor of redistributing wealth to the top of the socio-economic scale.

Senator Baucus (the architect of Obamacare) … "This is also an income shift, it's a shift, a leveling, to help lower middle income Americans. … snip … This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America"

And?

And Obama isn't just trying to redistribute wealth within the borders of America. Consider the The Global Poverty Act, introduced by Barack Obama (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/the_global_candidate_proposes.html ). It is advocacy for wealth redistribution on a global scale.

Oh brother

Donald Berwick (Obama's appointment to head Medicare/Medicaid) … "Any healthcare funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized, and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate."

You are aware, despite what conservatives think, that all taxation has the tendency to redistribute wealth regardless of whether or not that was the intent, right? Just thought I'd point that out for future reference.

But I'm surprised at you, BAC, you didn't have a problem with the wealth redistribution occurring in the Bismark social programs, why is it that the US government doing it (on a scale far less than "massive"...whatever that means) is suddenly a problem?

 

[BeAChooser]

Seriously, you are grasping at straws and shooting yourself in the foot every time you reach.

Hey, let's hear from another economist ...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704679204575646994256446822.html

December 1, 2010

Why the Spending Stimulus Failed

New economic research shows why lower tax rates do far more to spur growth.

By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN [professor of economics at Stanford University]

… snip …

The intellectual and political left argues that the failed $814 billion stimulus in 2009 wasn't big enough, and that spending control any time soon will derail the economy.

But economic theory, history and statistical studies reveal that more taxes and spending are more likely to harm than help the economy. Those who demand spending control and oppose tax hikes hold the intellectual high ground.

 

[lomiller]

Hey, let's hear from another economist ...

another?

let me remind you that even you agree that economists that actually support your position are a small minority

I'm generally skeptical when I hear liberals making claims that "economists agree", given that most economists are taught in far left institutions and consider themselves democrats.

So, your extremist right wing blogs can cherry pick some that do support you, the evidence still says they are wrong. Again by way of reminder:

Germany employed stimulus in the form of government spending and has recovered nicely.

The US split stimulus between tax cuts and spending increases but overall slowed slowed spending growth and recovered slowly.

From this you extrapolate that more tax cuts would have helped?

 

[stokes234]

Hey, let's hear from another economist ...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704679204575646994256446822.html

Growth isn't the only factor that ever needs to be considered. Median GDP is often more important to utilitarians than mean GDP. If your country grows so much it earns infinite money per day, but its all in the hands of an elite few and your education, health, emergency services etc are all terrible, what have you gained?