Stop buying Coca Cola and Asprin

No... I still say... kill all women.

...and then let starving African children eat their corpses.

 

Saying Enron is representative of corporations is like saying Richard Nixon is representative of people.

CEO's don't determine their own salary. The board of directors do - and they are paying upper management out of their own pocket.

 

You're just highlighting my point.

In a shortage, water becomes extremely value because there isn't enough. The marginal benefit of one more unit is extremely high.

The marginal benefit of unskilled labour is low because there is so many of them. Paying them more, in a competitive market, will collapse a company, because there is no economic profit to spread around for humanitarian reasons.

*Economic profit, not normal profit.

 

Or, more likely, the workers would find out exactly how easy a factory with little to no capital is to move.

 

Homophobic remarks?

I'm sure everyone is so glad you put your two cents into this conversation.

 

http://www.faireconomy.org/research/CEO_Pay_charts.html

 

Thank you. People doing this criticizing have no idea how real economics work. They just have a broken, unrealistic model in their heads that comes from a lack of economic education. I seriously think micro and macro should be required courses in high school.

You brilliant people pointing out how CEOs are getting paid too much and how factory workers are being paid too little: there's a reason those CEOs are chosen to be the CEOs and you're armchair-economics-debating with an abundance of ignorance on your computer.

 

The CEOs bring more that much value to the company with their knowledge. The amount of money a good CEO will save a company with good business and economic decisions is immense. Otherwise, the boards and shareholders wouldn't be paying them that much. No one just wants to waste millions of dollars on someone who isn't doing any work.

The CEOs know they're that valuable too; if a company is paying them 6 figures when another company will offer that CEO 7 figures because he will save them 8 figures, the CEO will take that job and the company will be happy. The company that was going to pay the CEO 6 figures will bite the dust because, even though they're up 6 figures from not having that CEO and the other company is down 7 figures from hiring the CEO, the 6-figure company will be down 8 figures from not having the work the CEO would do for the company. The market pays you what you're worth.

 

hell I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing that these corportations are keeping Africa poor.

 

No, poorly-thought out loans from the IMF/World Bank, a corrupt system of government, little to no capital investment, a lack of stability to encourage foreign investment, and a labour force decimated by AIDS and other diseases are keeping Africa poor.

 

partly, and also company's that just higher economic hitmen to keep them poor so that they can have their way with its citizens. Don't know what Economic Hitmen are? Read the book, I think its called Confessions of an Economic Hitman or something close to that.

 

I've read it.

It's pulp literature for pseudo-left wing activists.

 

In other words, a lot of that comes down to their own poor choices and they're suffering the consequences of them:
taking loans they won't be able to pay back, popularly supporting destabilizing revolutions, and having tons of unprotected sex.

 

I've read it too and only someone completely uneducated in economics is going to believe that book 100%; some of it is grounded in reality but a lot of it, like the book A Million Pieces, is probably made up to get more book sales so the author can make more money.

 

The cure for this isn't throwing money at them (it will get squandered because they have nothing to invest it in because foreign developers and investors will charge too much interest because the risk of political destabilization is way too high) but they need to get a better education systems in their countries (so they know that supporting revolution after revolution won't do shit for them in the long run and will make better economic choices) and encourage more secularism in their society (so they don't take the dumbass Catholic Church's advice on condoms and keep spreading AIDS arround).

 

My, my. Aren't the pseudo-hippies having at it. Of course, we real hippies are all for free-enterprise, but we know capitalism is one of the great evils of the world.

 

You must realise that a VERY large percentage of the people who post on this website are intelligent enough not to apply the "hippie" stereotype to themselves.

 

Oh, I get it. They're posers who simply want to look "cool" by hanging out in the hippie forums. Well, it doesn't work. Talking about how "wonderful" corporations are shows your true colors. You ain't hip. Period.

 

While I don't think labeling people is accurate or productive, I must say I do agree with Franklin on part of this, corporatism and the people who back it are most assuredly the antithesis of the "hip" philosophy.

 

The problem here is that hippies are trying to apply "hip philosophy" to economics but economics isn't a philosophy; economics is a science.