or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Steve Ballmer cashes $1.3B in Microsoft shares, Apple was given first
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Steve Ballmer cashes $1.3B in Microsoft shares, Apple was given first - Page 3

post #81 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhende7 View Post

Ha ha, I'm getting a kick out of watching all the closet communists come out to play.

I must beg to ask, how to you think the individuals "who control the purse stings" came to be in that position? I can guarantee it wasn't by sitting on their lazy ass cashing in welfare cheques.

Apple is the product of Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak (two nobodies) tinkering with toys in a garage. Google. Facebook etc were all stared from an idea that an average Joe had, and knew what do to do with.

There may be an uneven distribution of wealth under capitalism, but everyone has a fair chance to get to the top.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

How do people go from nothing to controlling "purse strings" of their industry? Through achievement.

You guys are just showing your extreme ignorance of any kind of political history or polisci knowledge. But hey, what does the average American know about politics or history anyway?

Every European country, and most Asian/African countries (in other words most of the rest of the world), has had socialist periods, communist periods, and capitalist periods in their history and are well aware of the differences between all three. The USA has only ever been capitalist and it has routinely for it's entire existence ridiculed, demonised, criticised, and sometimes even destroyed other nations who don't ascribe to their politics or to capitalism in general. You guys just don't have the history or the knowledge to know what you're talking about.

The average American citizen doesn't even have the correct definition of "socialism" or social democracy," and has no direct experience with it. It's just a buzz word used as a pejorative in almost the same way that you would call a rude poster on the forum a name like *ssh*le or whatever.

Capitalism is not a meritocracy. If it was, money and IP would not be inheritable for starters. People can get in control of the "purse strings" without necessarily doing anything but being born into the right family, and if you go look up the facts of the matter, you will find that this is true for the vast majority of those currently sitting on top of the capitalist heap.

The basic unfairness of capitalism as a system for distribution of wealth and happiness has been documented over and over in everything from history books to fairy tales since it's very inception. The generalised blindness of Americans, and the fact that you may not have had access to a good political history class in college notwithstanding.
post #82 of 250
Sold microsoft stocks, bought Apple's!
Apple had me at scrolling
Reply
Apple had me at scrolling
Reply
post #83 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

Capitalism is the foundation of the USA. The people complaining here about it want a communist society instead of a capitalistic one.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

Spend your time more wisely: Look up a dictionary for what these words mean.
post #84 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by igxqrrl View Post

While I fully agree with your last paragraph, I'll take issue with your first couple.

First, just because you would not change your investing strategy in the face of a doubling of capital gains rates does not mean that others wouldn't and shouldn't. Investing strategy should always take tax rates into consideration. Few people in the top 1% have such little saved that it can all be tax deferred. The majority have significant assets in taxable instruments. This is particularly true of entrepreneurs with substantial company stock. The rest of us can at least take advantage of tax-managed mutual funds.

Wovel never said most of what you are refuting. They stated quite clearly that in their situation, they wouldn't feel the need to change their investment strategy based on the tax changes. They made no mention of how that would broadly apply to you as an individual.

There is also the fact that tax sheltered plans are not the only legal way to defer, or even eliminate, the bulk of taxes leveled on capital gains. But you are correct in stating that tax diversification should be just as important to most investors as asset diversification and allocation. YMMV.
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
post #85 of 250
Dennis: What I object to is you automatically treatin' me like an inferior!
Arthur: Well, I am king!
Dennis: King, eh? Very nice! And how'd you get that then? By exploitin' the workers! By hangin' on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society!
"Don't be a dick!"Wil Wheaton
Reply
"Don't be a dick!"Wil Wheaton
Reply
post #86 of 250
deleted
post #87 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

So how would you change the system? Give us some hard rules you think people investing their time and money into a company should be limited to. Should people not be allowed to be rewarded for being smarter than other people, even if that intelligence is about knowing when an opportunity arises? Should Bill Gates be capped at $100k a year, for example, simply because you don’t think that value is “sickening”? How do you think this would change how people and companies innovate if the chance to truly succeed in a free market is taken away?

Okay, here are a few suggestions.

**Greater democracy for shareholders. Corporate governance rules are skewed overwhelmingly in favor of management. It is very hard for shareholder groups opposed by management to propose a change in the by-laws. There should be limits on management's ability to use corporate resources to stifle opposition. The corporation belongs to the shareholders not management, so the corporations resources must be used to promote the shareholders' interests not management's. And it is in the shareholder's interests that all proposals to the board be fairly heard not just the ones sponsored by management.

**It should be illegal, unless the person is a majority shareholder, for the CEO to be Chairman of the Board. That totally defeats the concept of the Board overseeing the CEO.

**It should be illegal for CEOs to sit on each other's boards. This is probably the no. 1 reason why executive compensation has reached obscene levels. We profess to be a country that believes in free competition. There is no free competition in the market for executive services. That market is ruled by I scratch your back, you scratch mine.

**Compensation committees must have significant representation beyond the CEO's handpicked lackeys. It should include representatives of the employees, pension and mutual fund companies invested in the company, and other independent shareholder groups. And very important: no single bloc should have a majority of the comp committee's votes.
post #88 of 250
Godamighty, is this how it's going to be now? A generation of Limbaugh/Beck/Palin trained know-nothings screaming "Communist!" every time anyone mentions any options beyond a entirely phantasmagorical "free market" that, had it actually existed, would look more like the exploitations of the 19th century than anything recognizably modern?

The funny thing is, given the level of just bone deep ignorance on display, if we actually ever did throw what's left of the middle and working classes to the wolves and just went the full laissez-faire, these same people would be screaming bloody murder about how they'd been screwed by the government. Because millionaire Rush told them so. Wait, did I say "funny"? I meant "soul crushingly depressing."

Oh, and just for efficiency's sake, I am of course a vile elitist etc.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #89 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

You guys are just showing your extreme ignorance of any kind of political history or polisci knowledge. But hey, what does the average American know about politics or history anyway? .......

.......You guys just don't have the history or the knowledge to know what you're talking about.

......The basic unfairness of capitalism as a system for distribution of wealth and happiness has been documented over and over in everything from history books to fairy tales since it's very inception. The generalised blindness of Americans, and the fact that you may not have had access to a good political history class in college notwithstanding.

Other countries envy our success and try to emulate us, when possible. Even China, to the extent they can. South Korea went free market capitalism and is booming.

There is no other system on earth that produces as much wealth and freedom and liberty. We have flaws, but name another country with an Apple.

America is exceptional. Many of us went to college. Many still champion capitalism.

We have a mixed economy with chunks of socialism thrown in here and there. But broadly, we are a free market, entrepreneurial economy that thrives on capitalism.
post #90 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

You guys are just showing your extreme ignorance of any kind of political history or polisci knowledge. But hey, what does the average American know about politics or history anyway?

Every European country, and most Asian/African countries (in other words most of the rest of the world), has had socialist periods, communist periods, and capitalist periods in their history and are well aware of the differences between all three. The USA has only ever been capitalist and it has routinely for it's entire existence ridiculed, demonised, criticised, and sometimes even destroyed other nations who don't ascribe to their politics or to capitalism in general. You guys just don't have the history or the knowledge to know what you're talking about.

The average American citizen doesn't even have the correct definition of "socialism" or social democracy," and has no direct experience with it. It's just a buzz word used as a pejorative in almost the same way that you would call a rude poster on the forum a name like *ssh*le or whatever.

Capitalism is not a meritocracy. If it was, money and IP would not be inheritable for starters. People can get in control of the "purse strings" without necessarily doing anything but being born into the right family, and if you go look up the facts of the matter, you will find that this is true for the vast majority of those currently sitting on top of the capitalist heap.

The basic unfairness of capitalism as a system for distribution of wealth and happiness has been documented over and over in everything from history books to fairy tales since it's very inception. The generalised blindness of Americans, and the fact that you may not have had access to a good political history class in college notwithstanding.

You have some fairly substantiated arguments, but fail to draw them into a cohesive conclusion. Would you like to talk about history? Does U.S success not demonstrate the merits of Capitalism itself?? Does the failing of communist countries not demonstrate the merits of Capitalism???

Just because individual x inherits his/her fortune, doesn't rule out individual y from earning his/her fortune- the two are not mutually exclusive.

Liberal/communist sympathies demonstrate great "moral fibre", but do nothing to improve a country. The wealthy of America are already bailing out the rest of the country, why keep testing them?

And to demonstrate your ignorance (in thinking I am "an average American") I would like to point that i'm a tried and true Canadian, and have lived in Canada my whole life. I don't want to sound "ignorant" and assume you don't know much about Canadian politics, fiscal management, etc, but I'll give you the cole notes version:

We are "a more liberal America". Our wealthy pay a little more of the tax burden, and our tax rates in general are a lot higher. As a result, we have pretty strong social programs, health care, and a a crap ton of people leeching social assistance.

What have our grand liberal gestures helped this country achieve? Well a lot of people think we are nice....that means something I guess.
post #91 of 250
IF a person was smart to create something and then make billions..why not? that is the reward for ingenuity..We have more control, there is less creation, less jobs...

The idiot that says that education would be better if the wealthiest would be over taxed does not have a clue of how economy and the financial growth works, your thought is very close to what the FORMER Soviet Union thought and they went down the drains..

A company like microsoft created millions of jobs, therefore, billions of dollars are already going into taxes, local and national, plus billions are spent every year direct or indirectly by people connected with microsoft, these are billions of dollars!

If Steve Ballmer gets paid 1 bilion or 10 billion, he deserves it! he and microsoft, the same that apple and many large companies are creating billions of revenue in the world, I would not be writing this here if it was not for any of this companies..

The word? jealousy, it has created communism and many other form of governments that destroy free enterprise and in the process get the country in ruins...

I am procapital, I don't apologize, I am proud of this system, it is not perfect, but it is the closest to perfection.

For those who wrote nobody deserve the money they are earning, see that the contributions that this people make, not only in taxes, but in social activities are bigger than many countries budgets.

Instead complaining, just find a way to create more wealth, and therefore more prosperity. I came to the US without knowing English, now I am creating wealth.try to to the same, you are a victim or a creator, there is not middle ground, What are you choosing?
post #92 of 250
Three pages of political reaction to Ballmer selling some MSFT stock. On an Apple insider site.

For a moron running a company that doesn't matter, that's an impressive response.
post #93 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Stop embarrassing yourself.

Spend your time more wisely: Look up a dictionary for what these words mean.

He already has, in the Talk Radio Dictionary (the only one that matters).

BTW, taxes in the US are net regressive. A person could look it up.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #94 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Microsoft confirmed Friday that CEO Steve Ballmer intends to sell almost one-fifth of his stake in the software giant, starting with sales this week that total $1.3 billion

Well, those wishing for Microsoft stock to move are about to get their wish!

Time to follow the bosses lead
post #95 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaphodsplanet View Post

OMG.... this is one of the few decisions I would agree with Ballmer on.... hell... if I were in his position I'd sell half. Don't blame anyone who would rather pay 18% Capital Gains tax on $1.3B over 39.5%.... Thank you butthead BO.

Excellent and insightful point.
post #96 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quillz View Post

Microsoft is not a dying company.

They certainly aren't growing new revenue sources. They haven't had a new significant source of revenue - ever! And their cash cow of Windows/Office is under serious attack.

Example: http://gcn.com/articles/2010/10/20/n...loud-deal.aspx

Quote:
Before todays agreement, announced by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, New York had more than 40 separate license agreements, along with other, separate support deals. Under the licenses, the city paid for a the full Microsoft Office suite including Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook and other tools even if many employees used only Word and Outlook.

Under the new deal the city will pay only for the applications employees use.

Pay particularly close to that last line. I know we will be using this article in our upcoming renewal discussions for our enterprise agreement. MS is great at offering bundles of lots of things for big money - utilization of them and getting your moneys worth is another thing entirely.

The crack in the dike has appeared, and a few fingers here and there aren't going to help. While I have no doubt that Ballmers move is primarily motivated by the insane changes to our tax code that are coming, if Ballmer seriously believed in what he said his alluded to gains would still probably offset even the new capital gains taxes.

No matter how he protests, his move speaks volumes
post #97 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulsydaus View Post

I don't care even if you're SJ himself, the system that allows those kinds of payouts is sickening.

Unless your getting them
post #98 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

What has Warren Buffet achieved?

Seriously, you can't be that ignorant, can you?
post #99 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugsnw View Post

It stuns me as well. People simply do not grasp the enormous benefits that SJ has bestowed upon planet Earth by applying his vision and other talents into Apple.

It is worth billions. It's capitalism in action. Entrepreneurialism is America's competitive advantage.

We don't have equal wealth in this country because we don't have equal talent and ambition.

For all the bashing of capitalism and America, I find it fascinating that few manage to correlate that there might be a reason that indoor plumbing didn't resurge for the masses from the time of the Romans until the birth of America.

There were many reasons for that - but the "evils" of capitalism are not one of them. I'm just amazed at how ignorant of history and how biased people's perceptions of it are. Simply stunning

The mix if capitalism, freedom and social climate created a perfect storm that literally changed the world.
post #100 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

First $50,000 of income is tax free. Next $200,000 at 15%, remainder at 25%.

How about we drop the whole income tax thing and just tax sales? Then all those people being paid under the table get to pay their fair share.

We can eliminate the IRS and a good chunk of the "financial services" industry overhead from our economy as well.
post #101 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berp View Post

I tell you guys, a prosperous Amerika for me is two third sweat shop, one third moral rot. Apple does it in China while it could sweat it out in California, what a shame for the "gotcha" third in us!

If you think the gap between rich and poor is so bad now, I encourage you to go back in time to the middle ages and commiserate with the common folk of their day about how bad you have it now
post #102 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post

The country is under an unsustainable debt load. Neither party in the US is willing to reduce spending at all. Money has to come from somewhere and you can't squeeze blood from a stone. It really is that simple.

What's even simpler is if you don't spend it in the first place you don't have to pay it back.

Fancy that!
post #103 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

How about we drop the whole income tax thing and just tax sales? Then all those people being paid under the table get to pay their fair share.

We can eliminate the IRS and a good chunk of the "financial services" industry overhead from our economy as well.

A great idea if you're in favor of regressive taxation. Which, apparently, a lot of people are.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #104 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

How do people go from nothing to controlling "purse strings" of their industry? Through achievement.


There is adifference between being pro enterprise and pro business. Also capitalism and corporatisim.
post #105 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

If you think the gap between rich and poor is so bad now, I encourage you to go back in time to the middle ages and commiserate with the common folk of their day about how bad you have it now

Well there's a slogan: "America: Somewhat More Equitable Income Distribution Than Medieval Feudalism." Although of course it remains to be seen how long we can manage even that.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #106 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

BTW, taxes in the US are net regressive. A person could look it up.

You're totally right about that!

But, it's not like anyone is particularly interested in looking at data on these sorts of issues.....
post #107 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

You guys are just showing your extreme ignorance of any kind of political history or polisci knowledge. But hey, what does the average American know about politics or history anyway?

Every European country, and most Asian/African countries (in other words most of the rest of the world), has had socialist periods, communist periods, and capitalist periods in their history and are well aware of the differences between all three. The USA has only ever been capitalist and it has routinely for it's entire existence ridiculed, demonised, criticised, and sometimes even destroyed other nations who don't ascribe to their politics or to capitalism in general. You guys just don't have the history or the knowledge to know what you're talking about.

The average American citizen doesn't even have the correct definition of "socialism" or social democracy," and has no direct experience with it. It's just a buzz word used as a pejorative in almost the same way that you would call a rude poster on the forum a name like *ssh*le or whatever.

Capitalism is not a meritocracy. If it was, money and IP would not be inheritable for starters. People can get in control of the "purse strings" without necessarily doing anything but being born into the right family, and if you go look up the facts of the matter, you will find that this is true for the vast majority of those currently sitting on top of the capitalist heap.

The basic unfairness of capitalism as a system for distribution of wealth and happiness has been documented over and over in everything from history books to fairy tales since it's very inception. The generalised blindness of Americans, and the fact that you may not have had access to a good political history class in college notwithstanding.

T'is true. Time to get out my trusty old (Noam) Chomsky Reader. Thanks for the post. Plenty of food for thought there.
post #108 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

Okay, here are a few suggestions.

**Greater democracy for shareholders. Corporate governance rules are skewed overwhelmingly in favor of management. It is very hard for shareholder groups opposed by management to propose a change in the by-laws. There should be limits on management's ability to use corporate resources to stifle opposition. The corporation belongs to the shareholders not management, so the corporations resources must be used to promote the shareholders' interests not management's. And it is in the shareholder's interests that all proposals to the board be fairly heard not just the ones sponsored by management.

**It should be illegal, unless the person is a majority shareholder, for the CEO to be Chairman of the Board. That totally defeats the concept of the Board overseeing the CEO.

**It should be illegal for CEOs to sit on each other's boards. This is probably the no. 1 reason why executive compensation has reached obscene levels. We profess to be a country that believes in free competition. There is no free competition in the market for executive services. That market is ruled by I scratch your back, you scratch mine.

**Compensation committees must have significant representation beyond the CEO's handpicked lackeys. It should include representatives of the employees, pension and mutual fund companies invested in the company, and other independent shareholder groups. And very important: no single bloc should have a majority of the comp committee's votes.

You suggestions, while well-intentioned, do not amount to much.

1) Shareholder democracy -- one share, one vote -- sounds great, in principle. But over 60% of shares in the US (in the case of large companies such as AAPL and MSFT, over 75% - 80%) are held by institutions. Institutional holder votes will swamp the individual shareholder votes. Evidence also shows that they are short-term stockholders compared to individuals. Is that what you want?

2) There is a substantial amount of research in corporate governance that has looked at the question of separating CEO and Chairman roles. The bottom line is, it amounts to a hill of beans. There are other ways to achieve the goals (e.g., lead director who is independent), and many large companies are, indeed, moving to that now (incl. Apple).

3) Other CEOs bring a tremendous amount of knowledge of how things work to a Board. I'd rather have a good CEO there than, say, a nun or a union member or some 'diversity' candidate. The issue of CEO compensation is driven more by extensive use of comp consultants than it is by fellow-CEOs on the Board. And, by the simple fact that no Board says, "I have just employed an above-average CEO, so let me pay him below-average wages." If the goal is to make CEO pay and performance better linked to each other, there are other ways to do it.

4) In the post-SOX era, the two committees over which CEOs have the least influence are compensation and audit committees. At least, in well-managed companies such as Apple. You really should look at more recent data on this.

In any event, none of your criticisms apply to Ballmer. (i) His shares are from early days in the company; it's his, and he can do with it as he pleases. If anything, MSFT's Board actually reduced his bonus last year. (ii) The issue in Ballmer's case is not compensation, but the fact that they don't want to (or can't) get rid of him.
post #109 of 250
Apple has to be secret about it's purchases. If it isn't, Google will try to come in and buy the company just to spite Apple.
post #110 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

How about we drop the whole income tax thing and just tax sales? Then all those people being paid under the table get to pay their fair share.

We can eliminate the IRS and a good chunk of the "financial services" industry overhead from our economy as well.

I agree, 16,000 pages of American tax code is just legalized corruption, i.e., loopholes for the special interest groups...

With all the loopholes, corporations don't really pay 35% and the rich don't really pay their fair share!

Also, it is often said that consumers make up 70% of the US economy. However, the top 10% make up 50% of the economy.

Again, get rid of the IRS, the special interest loopholes and 16,000 pages of tax code.

The problem in America is that bankers in their $3,000 dollar suits are too willing to get on their knees and give BJ's to our elected officials and in return get regulations and tax law changed to benefit the bankers.

Until we can get the bankers to stop getting on their knees and sucking d**k and/or get the elected officials to stop receiving said BJ's nothing will change.

PS. I sent this to the Wall Street Journal, but for some reason they didn't print it!

Best
post #111 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

..... given the level of just bone deep ignorance on display....

Enjoy: http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN2...071129?sp=true
post #112 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

I agree, 16,000 pages of American tax code is just legalized corruption, i.e., loopholes for the special interest groups...

With all the loopholes, corporations don't really pay 35% and the rich don't really pay their fair share!

Also, it is often said that consumers make up 70% of the US economy. However, the top 10% make up 50% of the economy.

Again, get rid of the IRS, the special interest loopholes and 16,000 pages of tax code.

The problem in America is that bankers in their $3,000 dollar suits are too willing to get on their knees and give BJ's to our elected officials and in return get regulations and tax law changed to benefit the bankers.

Until we can get the bankers to stop getting on their knees and sucking d**k and/or get the elected officials to stop receiving said BJ's nothing will change.

PS. I sent this to the Wall Street Journal, but for some reason they didn't print it!

Best

Brilliant! Best post of 2010!
post #113 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

What has Warren Buffet achieved? .

He allocates capital so that it can be efficiently utilized. He creates great wealth and does good work.

He likely achieves more in an hour then most of us will in a lifetime, measured in terms of monetary value.

We are all better off when capital is deployed wisely, rather than being squandered or consumed.
post #114 of 250
Microsoft is a sinking ship; Ballmer is getting out!
post #115 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugsnw View Post

South Korea went free market capitalism and is booming.
.

South Korea and free market market capitalism? The government has loosened a bit, but the chaebols still run things, and they are not paragons of "free market" anything.
post #116 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-J View Post

He allocates capital so that it can be efficiently utilized. He creates great wealth and does good work.

He likely achieves more in an hour then most of us will in a lifetime, measured in terms of monetary value.

We are all better off when capital is deployed wisely, rather than being squandered or consumed.

Ah yes, the Wall Street Brain trust really allocated capitol efficiently so that we are all massively better off, as individuals, and a country. I mean, just walk down main street and see all that wealth that everyone has, and the full employment, etc.

Oh wait, the middle class got screwed, and Wall Street is back to paying out huge bonuses, and when their house collapses again, their paid servants (in both parties) in DC will bail them out.
post #117 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

Capitalism is the foundation of the USA. The people complaining here about it want a communist society instead of a capitalistic one.

Tell me, Sir, would you have sided with Jefferson or Hamilton in early American history? I've always thought the Federal Constitution was the guiding document.

The USA started in 1789, the same year that Adam Smith published his 'Wealth of Nations.' It is not the case that the USA immediately subscribed to capitalism. It was mostly an agrarian society at that time, where most of the important people were 'men of property.' The 'industrial revolution' that we can now look back upon was an unknown concept. The prevailing economic theory was mercantilism.

Nullis in verba -- "on the word of no one"

 

 

 

Reply

Nullis in verba -- "on the word of no one"

 

 

 

Reply
post #118 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking View Post

South Korea and free market market capitalism? The government has loosened a bit, but the chaebols still run things, and they are not paragons of "free market" anything.

Yes, please point your browser here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_korea

In various rankings from bodies that chart economic power, South Korea has beaten the U.S. In several areas such as fewer regulations on business and more open trade.

We don't want to be heading towards a European model on how to run our economy while these developing tigers are discovering and embracing our old ideals. We want pro-growth policies and less regulation so we can again unleash our collective animal spirits.
post #119 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugsnw View Post

Yes, please point your browser here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_korea

In various rankings from bodies that chart economic power, South Korea has beaten the U.S. In several areas such as fewer regulations on business and more open trade.

We don't want to be heading towards a European model on how to run our economy while these developing tigers are discovering and embracing our old ideals. We want pro-growth policies and less regulation so we can again unleash our collective animal spirits.

With all due respect...Germany seems to be doing pretty well. I think we should at least look at the best of all industrialized countries.

Certainly in health care policy, lay-offs, education and financial regulation. For example, America could learn a lot from Singapore, Finland and South Korea on say, Education. Just adopt one of these models!

Spain has enough solar power to replace one nuclear plant..that's good, right? France, well France is France! Nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there!

I too, believe in a fair and free market economy. But America, is not a fair market economy. It more closely resembles an oligarchy where the rich are indeed hollowing out the middle class.

Best.
post #120 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic View Post

A bit of jealousy? Are you are saying that If you were lucky or bright enough to start or join a company that becomes extremely successful that you shouldn't be able to get the appropriate financial reward even though you worked there from day one and for decades? If so, I am glad you have no say or control of squat!

Dude, you're handle is Realistic, that's funny in this context.
Grow up, I'm not jelous at all. As it turns out, I control millions of dollars worth of projects but do so in the public sector where the rewards are not quite as sickening. Your logic is flawed, Microsoft is a public company and most of that cash / stock options would have been authorised by a board of directors at some point. My comment relates to the corporate governece at board level that allows these kinds of obscene payouts, I can hardly imagine M$ stockholders would be too happy about this. My comment appears to be way higher level than where you're at right now.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Steve Ballmer cashes $1.3B in Microsoft shares, Apple was given first