babble: W.F. Buckley Jr. on Executive Remuneration

FAQ | Forum Home

»	babble » walking the talk » labour and consumption » W.F. Buckley Jr. on Executive Remuneration

Email this thread to someone!

Author

Topic: W.F. Buckley Jr. on Executive Remuneration

praenomen3
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4758

posted 20 April 2005 07:36 PM

The National Review comes out swinging on executive bonuses:

"Capitalism Has a Boil"

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/wfb200504200907.asp

From: x | Registered: Dec 2003 | IP: Logged

Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 20 April 2005 09:22 PM

Of course, if workers tried these shenanigans, there would be jail time.

From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002 | IP: Logged

Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 21 April 2005 12:24 AM

What I always wonder is how many layers of pretty-big execs there are under any given absolutely huge exec.
I mean, you got some CEO who's making like 20 million plus ludicrous expenses and whatever they can embezzle. Sure, it's pretty meaningless next to the company's losses in the billions. But in a hierarchy, example is set from the top. The culture of greed works its way down. In a company that size, how many VPs are pulling out five million? How many executive this-and-thats are pulling out a couple million? How many accountants are embezzling a million? How many upper-middle managers are padding expense accounts for a hundred thousand and taking unnecessary "business trips"? Does it start to add up to the difference between a healthy company making a decent profit, and a company with major red ink? Does it start to add up to the difference between a company with a stable, decent-paid workforce and a company that guts its in-house expertise with downsizing and pays the remainder crap?

And how many of these people have little function but to leech money from the company, play politics and shit on the line employees doing the actual work?

From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002 | IP: Logged

ReeferMadness
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2743

posted 21 April 2005 09:07 AM

Where are Cromwell, Draxon and Springer when we talk about this type of thing?

The article portrays this in terms of its effects on shareholders and the image of capitalism. The reality is that sooner or later, we all pay for this nonsense, in higher product costs, lower wages, lost jobs, etc. Still, it's tough to get people to feel the same outrage as with government scandals like Adscam. It seems they believe that unless they are shareholders or employees, it's someone else's problem.

From: Way out there | Registered: Jun 2002 | IP: Logged

skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 21 April 2005 09:58 AM

Buckley could have thrown in the salaries of the Big Pharma CEOs, which have for some time been even higher than those -- $16 mil to a Big Pharma exec would be pocket change. And health-care is breaking everyone's budgets, you say?

Although I do believe that Buckley is in many ways an old-fashioned conservative and has a few more moral and intellectual brakes on him than do the new marauders (I speak in both political and economic terms), there's still more than a bit of chutzpah in his taking this stand. When times are good for robber-barons like Conrad Black, eg, Buckley has been more than happy to be buddies with them. Usually, they have to take a great fall before he remembers that what they are doing is just too terribly vulgar for his sensibilities.

[ 21 April 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]

From: gone | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 21 April 2005 10:38 AM

Sdadl, I agree but for the old lion to come out on this, maybe we have reached some kind of tipping point in the opinion of the ownership class. Is it possible that since the embarassment of riches has made WFB blush that perhaps its time to engage in some PR on the corporate stratospheric level?

Nahh. Greed wins out! Like Ebbers and Lay and such they'll take and take until they're physically unable to take anymore, Buckley's tut-tutting nothwithstanding. You have to agree, it had to get pretty obscene for Bill to finally say, "gentlemen, when is enough, enough?"

But I have to take WFB to task for this:

quote:
Edison had the epiphanies, but was no good at all at exploiting them. Imagine if Gates had come up with the patent to the light bulb.

Anyone who knows how Edison conducted his business knows he was the consummate capitalist enterpreneur.

From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005 | IP: Logged

Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 21 April 2005 01:14 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
And how many of these people have little function but to leech money from the company, play politics and shit on the line employees doing the actual work?

There has to be some purpose for an MBA.

From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002 | IP: Logged

skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 21 April 2005 01:37 PM

Cougyr, I don't know whether to give you a

or a

for that all-too-true assessment.

From: gone | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582

posted 21 April 2005 01:48 PM

*slight thread drift* In the Senate confirmation hearing on Bolton's nomination to the UN, I have been somewhat heartened by the discomfort displayed by the senators over Bolton's treatment of subordinates. One guy protrayed him powerfully as someone who "kisses up and kicks down". For me, the point is not so much his treatment of underlings as it is the cause of his fury with them -- in one case an analyst (CIA, State Dept.?) would not confirm that Cuba was working on biological weapons, as Bolton wanted him to. Anyway, I'm liking the fact that Bolton is being recognized as an SOB who shits on his subordinates and has temper tantrums when he doesn't get his way. *end of thread driftt*

From: away | Registered: Jan 2003 | IP: Logged

Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 21 April 2005 03:31 PM

Yeah, and what's the message there? People like that get promoted.

From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002 | IP: Logged

fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582

posted 21 April 2005 03:56 PM

Yabbut, maybe he's reached the end of his promotability. The one, maybe two, Repugnicans who are having second thoughts about him seem to be offended by his conduct. So, maybe, just maybe, there are limits to assholiness even for Repugnicans. [Sheesh, there's not much to be heartened about these days, this is what I'm reduced to.]

From: away | Registered: Jan 2003 | IP: Logged

ReeferMadness
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2743

posted 22 April 2005 12:32 AM

MBA stands for mediocre but arrogant.

From: Way out there | Registered: Jun 2002 | IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time

Hop To: