Here we go again (Low low down payment)

[CA renter]

[quote=livinincali][quote=CA renter]
Absolutely! I want labor’s money out of politics, too; though fraud, waste, and abuse are more likely to happen between private contractors (among a host of other private interests) and public entities because the private stakeholders are less scrutinized and better protected than public employees. We can eliminate labor’s money just as soon as capital’s money is out (and every other special interest group’s money, too) — ALL OF IT. Until then, labor absolutely needs to have a seat at the table.[/quote]

It’s too bad the the one paying the bills (the common taxpayer) doesn’t have a seat at the table. Whether the politician is beholden to special interests or public labor unions the result for the tax payer is the same. Take more from us to give to some special group. Whether your corporate special interest or public sector union, in my eyes you’re both greedy leeches.[/quote]

Actually, there are quite a few taxpayer advocacy groups who are very active in politics. Again, they are just one type of many stakeholder groups. People like Howard Jarvis might like to lower taxes for landlords (who didn’t need it, and who didn’t pass the savings on to renters, as Jarvis had assured before Prop 13’s passage), but they do so at the expense of all of the other stakeholder groups [edited to add]…including other taxpayers. Different types of taxpayers (income, VAT, sales, property, corporate/business, etc.) are also competing stakeholders. Even the different types of income taxpayers are competing stakeholders — earned vs. unearned income, and the differences between and among those types of incomes.

Too many people tend to forget that without taxes and the infrastructure they support, people would not be nearly as prosperous to begin with. So taxes support the infrastructure, and the infrastructure enables businesses and their employees to make money…a portion of which goes toward tax expenditures which create and maintain infrastructure which enables the businesses to thrive, etc., etc. It’s a symbiotic relationship, not a unilateral one.

[CA renter]

[quote=harvey][quote=CA renter]If a person wants to be protected by limited liability laws, and if they want to put other people’s money at risk, then their compensation should reflect that. IMO, the top pay of an owner/executive in a limited liability corporation should be tied to the compensation of the lowest-paid person at the company. One could also include the compensation and security of shareholders and creditors. There are many possible ways to go about balancing risks and rewards.[/quote]

Wow.

Corporate limited liability protects shareholders. It means that shareholders can lose up to 100% of their investment, but not more.

You are a shareholder. Your pension fund is a shareholder. Millions of ordinary Americans are shareholders. Limited liability applies to all shareholders.

You are protected by limited liability because you cannot lose more than what you invested. If one of your investments fails, no one can sue you and ask for more money. If a CalPERS manager chooses a losing stock, nobody will come after you for compensation. That’s a good thing.

This sentence:

[quote]If a person wants to be protected by limited liability laws, and if they want to put other people’s money at risk […][/quote]

…is complete gibberish.

The person protected by limited liability IS the “other” person providing money.

[quote]IMO, the top pay of an owner/executive in a limited liability corporation should be tied to the compensation of the lowest-paid person at the company.[/quote]

Oh, so now I’m seeing where the gibberish originates. Of course, it’s your disdain for CEOs. Except that limited liability laws have nothing to do with executives or employees. They don’t protect executives from anything.

Yes, there are laws that protect managers from liability, but those aren’t what is called limited liability. These laws protect managers from shareholder lawsuits. They protect managers from being sued when businesses don’t do as well as expected. They free managers from the fear of making mistakes.

You once said that you are a manager. That means the shareholders have agreed to compensate you for services and have entrusted you to make decisions. As you know, sometimes things don’t work out because of things outside your control. Would you be a manager if you could get sued when your employees don’t perform or some external factor caused your project to fail? Few people would.

Legally, you are in the same category as the CEO, CFO, or any other manager. Yes, you are one of them! You cannot be sued by shareholders if they lose their investment. They can fire you but they can’t make you compensate them if they decide that you did a poor job as a manager. That’s a good thing.

Limited liability actually does much to protect employees. It is quite common for corporations to continue operating under bankruptcy protection – some of the major airlines have been operating for years during bankruptcy restructuring. Without limited liability, these companies would simply shut down and there would be no jobs.

You really need to learn about how this stuff works before you rant about dismantling the entire economy and replacing it with something you can’t even describe.[/quote]

There you go with your reading comprehension problems, yet again. Apparently YOU need to learn more about these things before you start flapping your gums about them.

[quote=CA renter]

And your reading comprehension problem rears its ugly head, yet again. I’ve never said that limited liability shouldn’t exist at all, just that the rewards and risks should be balanced. If the risks are limited, then the rewards should be limited as well. And I’m referring to the broader concept of limited liability, too, not just where debt and creditors are concerned. Liability for tort actions — and who is responsible for insurance and legal defense costs of an individual officer/executive/shareholder — also fall under this umbrella. Limit the liability, limit the rewards.

[/quote]

Once again, because you keep failing to grasp this: risks and rewards should not be divorced from one another. I am referring to ALL types of risks and rewards. I have repeatedly noted that I was referring to owners and executives/decision makers (who are often one and the same, BTW), and referred to a variety of ways that liability is limited. In the case of traditional limited liability, those debtors are the shareholders, and the creditors are lenders, vendors, employees, customers, and other parties who are affected by the actions of a company and its managers/owners.

What you’re advocating for (risks and rewards being divorced from one another) has already destroyed our economy. Almost every financial crisis happens because of a disconnect between risks and rewards. As a matter of fact, almost any man-made crisis is usually caused by an imbalance between risks and rewards.

How many trillions of dollars have been lost because of the financial crisis and all of the manipulations? Don’t forget all of the foregone interest earnings by those on fixed incomes, along with the lost purchasing power of fixed-income earners, including workers. It is well into the trillions, and still growing. The costs have just been shifted from those who caused the financial crisis to those who didn’t have anything to do with it (including public employees who’ve been scapegoated for the problems created by the financial industry).

And your example of BK being good because (SOME of) the airlines continued to function through BK is silly. The airline industry wouldn’t shut down just because some companies failed. If airlines fail, new ones would spring up almost immediately, or other airlines would absorb both the capital of the defunct airline and their customer base, as long as the demand for air travel remained the same.

[Anonymous]

It’s a sure sign you’ve backed yourself into a corner when you throw out the “reading comprehension” attack.

[quote]has already destroyed our economy. [/quote]

Wow, quite the hyperbole! Our economy is destroyed?

We may as well cancel Christmas!

You say trillions have been lost in the financial crisis? A bump in the road.

Orders of magnitude more have been gained because of the capitalist system that you incessantly disparage with your ignorance.

True, the Marxist utopias you glorify don’t lose trillions of dollars. They don’t have that much to lose.

[CA renter]

The reading comprehension attack is thrown out there when you make it clear that you aren’t comprehending what is written (it’s either that, or you’re trolling).

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]has already destroyed our economy.[/quote]

U.S. Economy Posts Strongest Growth in More Than a Decade
GDP Grows at 5% Rate, Supported by Consumer Spending, Business Investment

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-third-quarter-gdp-revised-up-to-5-0-growth-1419341481

Employment up in 41 states in November

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/12/19/state-unemployment-november/20623547/

Business growth, hiring, investment, manufacturing, commerce. I thought that none of these things happened in a destroyed economy.

It must be my reading comprehension problem…

[CA renter]

That says nothing at all about the millions upon millions of people who have seen their purchasing power, job security, old-age security, etc. decline over the past few decades.

“Growth” doesn’t mean much if ~95% of the economic gains have gone to the top 1%. For most of the population, the economy has been destroyed.

http://www.businessinsider.com/95-of-income-gains-since-2009-went-to-the-top-1-heres-what-that-really-means-2013-9

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]For most of the population, the economy has been destroyed.[/quote]

It’s cute how you say something completely hyperbolic, and then when you are called on it you actually try to defend it.

I was going to do some Christmas shopping at the mall yesterday but when I saw the situation I just decided to go home, purchase online, and pay for overnight shipping.

The 95% suffering in this destroyed economy filled the parking lot and then some.

Merry Christmas to you, and Piggs everywhere!

[spdrun]

5% and 3% GDP rises after a 1st quarter 3% drop. This quarter will likely be flat or anyway less than 5%. Durable goods orders don’t look too promising. Down 0.7% again — yay.

No matter. I’m actually hoping for a slowdown in late 2015 through 2016. Chaos is opportunity. Bah HUMBUG!

Signed-
Ebeneezer the Geezer

[scaredyclassic]

its kind of hard to tell how things are going in the middle of it.

if i had to hazard a guess id say things are weird…

[FlyerInHi]

“Destroyed economy” is totally inaccurate.

GDP now is well above the peak before recession. There was a recession, but no destruction.

Productive capacity has always been there, but lack of liquidity idled resources. The financial system nearly collapsed and the Fed restored liquidity and avoided a collapse.

Money is man-made and an artificial constraint. Nothing in the physical universe prevents people from working. But they won’t work without money.

[CA renter]

[quote=FlyerInHi]”Destroyed economy” is totally inaccurate.

GDP now is well above the peak before recession. There was a recession, but no destruction.

Productive capacity has always been there, but lack of liquidity idled resources. The financial system nearly collapsed and the Fed restored liquidity and avoided a collapse.

Money is man-made and an artificial constraint. Nothing in the physical universe prevents people from working. But they won’t work without money.[/quote]

Fixed!

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_recenttrends.htm

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infographics/us-national-debt

http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/NYSE-Margin-Debt-and-the-SPX.php

——–

And just consider for a moment that if interest rates were to normalize, that govt debt would destroy the budget (which is the real reason for the Fed’s sitting on rates for so long, IMO).

Just keep whistling past the graveyard…

[FlyerInHi]

CAr, that just means lots of people having savings they are willing to lend to the US government at low rates.

[CA renter]

The Federal Reserve is “lots of people”?

And it’s not “lots of people,” even outside of that. The money/power has been concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. That surplus money at the top (leveraged, on top of that!) is what’s driving all of the asset bubbles…including the bond bubble. The only question, IMO, is how long it can continue before it implodes. Speculators rely on other people to pay more for things than the speculators paid…who will be able to step up to the plate to relieve these speculators of their “investments”? It will be interesting to see who will be left holding the bag when all is said and done.

[CA renter]

An interesting discussion about how more people feel worse off today than they did during the Great Recession.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economic-reality-wiping-american-dream/

[The-Shoveler]

Then you got the Axis of Happiness.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102290355

Me I think if they raise the minimum wage that will lift from the bottom, I think that is starting to happen, too slow but its starting.

[Author]

Posts