GM paying new woman CEO less than half of previous CEO

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I wish I had the luxury of dismissing theories without studying them 'cause they don't make no sense to me. But then I'm in the honest pursuit of knowledge, not performing a rear-guard action to a failing system I worship.

I'm starting to wonder if you're a Basketcase DL with all your "it's so simple, just look around you" simpleton's logic. It's like you're incapable of understanding anything but pure empiricism, which is about as useful for understanding society as studying a painting without opening your eyes.

 

[luiz]

Failing system I worship? Really? Am I the one throwing references to antique philosophers to try to explain modern society? Am I the one adhering to a nutjob political program / religion, which has failed miserably every time it was tried?

I really don't understand how you can reach such heights of denialism. Capitalism is triumphant. Nobody who matters even a tiny bit doubts it. Russia is capitalist; China is capitalist; Vietnam is capitalist. Even Cuba will be capitalist in 10 years. What do you got? North Korea? Where exactly is capitalism receding and communism advancing? Are you for real?

This "failing system" called capitalism was supposed to fail, according to the followers of your crazy prophet, over a century ago. Every crisis was "the last crisis of capitalism". The late 19th Century crisis, WW1, the Great Depression, the oil crisis, and now the Great Recession. But unsurprisingly the capitalist economies recovered from all them, just like they're recovering from this one. The American economy is increasingly healthy, with robust growth. Anyone who thinks communism or even the end of capitalism will result from the 2008 crisis is not only wrong, but rather insane.

And if you want to discuss me personally. I do understand the LTV. I do understand Marxian economics, to the extent they can be understood and are not pure garbage. I am educated; probably more than you. I am successful worker, certainly more than you. I'm in peace with the world I live in. I don't follow 200 year old recipes. I don't believe in prophets.

 

[Borachio]

According to Zizek, capitalism works precisely because it's in a permanent state of crisis. At least, that's what I understood him to say.

Though quite whether it's true or not, I'm really not qualified to judge.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

And yet you cannot help but beat your chest at how much better you are than me. Got something to prove? Or are you worried I might be getting uppity?

Like I said, as can be gathered by your pathetic rant, you really don't understand what you're talking about. Exhibit A.

 

[Flying Pig]

I was quite enjoying the discussion a minute ago, what happened?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I was quite enjoying the discussion a minute ago, what happened?

Luiz got intimidated by Marxism and had to remind me of my place, lest I forget it. If everything he said were so apparent, it wouldn't require the panicked reaction he delivered.

 

[Cryopyre]

Failing system I worship? Really? Am I the one throwing references to antique philosophers to try to explain modern society? Am I the one adhering to a nutjob political program / religion, which has failed miserably every time it was tried?

I really don't understand how you can reach such heights of denialism. Capitalism is triumphant. Nobody who matters even a tiny bit doubts it. Russia is capitalist; China is capitalist; Vietnam is capitalist. Even Cuba will be capitalist in 10 years. What do you got? North Korea? Where exactly is capitalism receding and communism advancing? Are you for real?

This "failing system" called capitalism was supposed to fail, according to the followers of your crazy prophet, over a century ago. Every crisis was "the last crisis of capitalism". The late 19th Century crisis, WW1, the Great Depression, the oil crisis, and now the Great Recession. But unsurprisingly the capitalist economies recovered from all them, just like they're recovering from this one. The American economy is increasingly healthy, with robust growth. Anyone who thinks communism or even the end of capitalism will result from the 2008 crisis is not only wrong, but rather insane.

And if you want to discuss me personally. I do understand the LTV. I do understand Marxian economics, to the extent they can be understood and are not pure garbage. I am educated; probably more than you. I am successful worker, certainly more than you. I'm in peace with the world I live in. I don't follow 200 year old recipes. I don't believe in prophets.

I hope you are trolling. If so, well done. If not...

Well, if not, look at it this way, I just confused your beliefs with a person who feigns obvious ignorance for fun.

Fundamentally though, who gives a damn if capitalism is triumphant? Humans have been reigned over by all sorts of different methods of economic organization, each triumphant in its time. Feudalism enjoyed over a thousand years of dominion, and yet I would not advocate for it.

Capitalism is inherently unstable, yes, but even if it was inherently stable it would be worth fighting.

 

[Borachio]

But is what we're experiencing now really capitalism? It's certainly not a pure capitalism, is it? Unfettered by regulation.

There seem to be periods of over-regulation interleaved with periods of under-regulation. A permanent state of staggering from one crisis to another, each with different and multifaceted causes.

Maybe.

 

[Cryopyre]

But is what we're experiencing now really capitalism? It's certainly not a pure capitalism, is it? Unfettered by regulation.

Depends on your definition of capitalism.

If defined as private ownership of the means of production, we're experiencing capitalism just as it normally functions.

If it's the Laissez Fairyland definition, then no. But that definition is itself ahistorical (or at least, tries to distance itself from history). If the markets suddenly became unfettered and free, we'd still bear the weight of centuries of imperialism and conquest divvying up public lands to private hoarders. We'd be starting a race with a small handful of people already past the finish line.

 

[luiz]

Luiz got intimidated by Marxism and had to remind me of my place, lest I forget it. If everything he said were so apparent, it wouldn't require the panicked reaction he delivered.

Oh, excuse me, you were so polite accusing me of being a DL of God-knows-who and worshiping a failing system. You want to discuss me personally, fine, but then don't act offended if I also discuss you personally and compare ourselves.

Show me exactly where I misunderstood Marxian economics. And what's more, explain how capitalism is a "failing system". Why labor-hours "should ideally" determine price.

I have explained at great length and quite satisfactorily why the LTV is completely wrong; and in fact to claim that labor determines value is no more right or wrong as saying that carbon content determines value. You have not addressed that.

Lets be perfectly clear and honest. You are the fringe extremist, not me. I am in broad agreement with the economic theories accepted throughout the world by the vast majority of economists. Your position is that of a tiny, and shrinking, minority. You have a much higher burden of proof than I do, because you want to impose a radical reform program on the whole human race. I don't.

 

[luiz]

Well, if not, look at it this way, I just confused your beliefs with a person who feigns obvious ignorance for fun.

You chose a funny post to quote to accuse me of ignorance. Show a single statement of that post you quoted which is wrong. Or even controversial!

Fundamentally though, who gives a damn if capitalism is triumphant?

If it's triumphant you can't call it failing, which is what he did. To have a moral objection to capitalism is one thing; it's a political position. To call it a failing system is to be wrong, objectively speaking.

Humans have been reigned over by all sorts of different methods of economic organization, each triumphant in its time. Feudalism enjoyed over a thousand years of dominion, and yet I would not advocate for it.

Capitalism is inherently unstable, yes, but even if it was inherently stable it would be worth fighting.

I for one would never claim that this or that economic system will be the final one. I leave that for crazy prophets and their deluded followers.

What I can do is say, without a shred of doubt, that at present there is no sign of capitalism collapsing. None at the foreseeable future, zero. If this will still be the case in 100 years, let alone 1,000, is not for me to say. I don't claim divine knowledge and I don't believe in all encompassing theories of everything.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Is there a logical fallacy you won't make? Hardly conduct becoming of someone arguing the irrefutable logic of their system. You haven't disproved anything, you've just put forth your own opinion and appealed to authority - both yours and others - (hint, something being believed by the majority of a group doesn't make it true, especially if that group functions as theologians for the ideology; you wouldn't ask cardinals about their opinion on critiques of Christianity) and cited anecdotes as proof.

On the other hand, I've actually explained your theory as part of my own. Your argument can't deal with that, it can only slander it. Very telling.

I would take the rest of this apart piecemeal but it's just too...crazy. I have better things to do with my time than give medicine to the dead.

Depends on your definition of capitalism.

If defined as private ownership of the means of production, we're experiencing capitalism just as it normally functions.

If it's the Laissez Fairyland definition, then no. But that definition is itself ahistorical (or at least, tries to distance itself from history). If the markets suddenly became unfettered and free, we'd still bear the weight of centuries of imperialism and conquest divvying up public lands to private hoarders. We'd be starting a race with a small handful of people already past the finish line.

I like you, cryopyre, nice to see another person with their head on straight around here. You should stick around. But not in this thread, it's hardly worth our time any more.

 

[downtown]

Shouldn't people concerned with the CEO's pay be happy that compensation is now smaller? I mean, GM just got out of a hole and it needed taxpayer money to be brought back. A more modest compensation to the CEO makes sense.

And what you said on the second paragraph is also very important. A CEO's compensation is often mostly composed of bonuses and stock options; until those are fully understood we can't really tell how much they're making. Often a CEO will have a relatively modest base pay (like say 100 grand or even less) and receive millions in stock options. Does't mean they're underpaid.

I've only sort of read the rest of this thread, because discussions about communism vs capitalism bore me, but this post pretty much sums up what I think here.

I don't think we have enough information to decide if this is a gender discrimination case. Like others have said, Luiz's description of the pay structure sounds about right, and besides, we should probably applaud lower CEO pay anyway (at least for a firm that was recently heavily on govt assistance).

 

[luiz]

Is there a logical fallacy you won't make? Hardly conduct becoming of someone arguing the irrefutable logic of their system. You haven't disproved anything, you've just put forth your own opinion and appealed to authority - both yours and others - (hint, something being believed by the majority of a group doesn't make it true, especially if that group functions as theologians for the ideology; you wouldn't ask cardinals about their opinion on critiques of Christianity) and cited anecdotes as proof.

On the other hand, I've actually explained your theory as part of my own. Your argument can't deal with that, it can only slander it. Very telling.

I would take the rest of this apart piecemeal but it's just too...crazy. I have better things to do with my time than give medicine to the dead.

I appealed to authority? When I asked why labor should determine value, as opposed to a multitude of other things, your answer was exactly "because so-and-so stated as much"! When I explained why value is subjective I didn't appeal to any authority; the explanation is quite straightforward and once made the flaws of alternative theories are obvious.

"Your" theory is very old and has been debunked. It's logically inconsistent. The simple fact is there is not a single reason why it should be believed, and many why it shouldn't (basically prices don't follow at all from the amount of "socially-useful labor", or whatever you want to call it).

 

[Borachio]

But then we'd be comparing a theoretical ideal with an actual state of affairs.

So that the argument "prices don't follow from the amount of socially useful labour", while true (the actual state of affairs), doesn't debunk the theoretical ideal.

Not by itself. To do that you'd have to demonstrate that prices cannot possibly follow from the amount of socially useful labour.

(What Socially Useful Labour is, I'm really not sure.)

 

[Hygro]

Depends on your definition of capitalism.

If defined as private ownership of the means of production, we're experiencing capitalism just as it normally functions.

If it's the Laissez Fairyland definition, then no. But that definition is itself ahistorical (or at least, tries to distance itself from history). If the markets suddenly became unfettered and free, we'd still bear the weight of centuries of imperialism and conquest divvying up public lands to private hoarders. We'd be starting a race with a small handful of people already past the finish line.

Ooh. I like you.

edit: dammit Cheezy why you gotta say those words first!

 

[Hygro]

No, that's not what I said. I said that business owners are free to set the salary they desire for their executives, and for that they analyze the rest of the market, and that's a logic and non-arbitrary process.

The answer, of course, is to let the market decide instead of coming up with arbitrary and illogical values.

Okay, this is my small post before my huge one, but I want to highlight it separately.

Business people analyzing the market and allocating money accordingly is not the same thing as "letting the market decide" unless the business people with money allocating agency are the market. Marx uses the word "capitalist", Keynes sneaks in "entrepreneur". Neither collection of individuals is remotely sufficient for complete "market".

I think we agree on that, but it is what it seems you have written (especially given the in between quotes I left out).

So I was trying to see whereupon lay the contradiction that allows you to hold what appear to be opposing views.

Indeed, analyzing the market and responding in accordance with the market is logical. It is non-arbitrary. But that does not follow that the market itself is arbitrary. It does not follow that the foundational structures of the market itself are filled with non-self-correcting arbitrary distortions. That's why I said "design me such a market". People will always trend toward the game theoretical victory (word up microeconomics) but that doesn't mean their best choices and best options for victory are provided by their game/environment/market.

 

[luiz]

Okay, this is my small post before my huge one, but I want to highlight it separately.

Business people analyzing the market and allocating money accordingly is not the same thing as "letting the market decide" unless the business people with money allocating agency are the market. Marx uses the word "capitalist", Keynes sneaks in "entrepreneur". Neither collection of individuals is remotely sufficient for complete "market".

I think we agree on that, but it is what it seems you have written (especially given the in between quotes I left out).

So I was trying to see whereupon lay the contradiction that allows you to hold what appear to be opposing views.

Indeed, analyzing the market and responding in accordance with the market is logical. It is non-arbitrary. But that does not follow that the market itself is arbitrary. It does not follow that the foundational structures of the market itself are filled with non-self-correcting arbitrary distortions. That's why I said "design me such a market". People will always trend toward the game theoretical victory (word up microeconomics) but that doesn't mean their best choices and best options for victory are provided by their game/environment/market.

OK, so there are two separate arguments being made (if I follow you):

1- When a company analyses the market to set wages it is acting in a logic and non-arbitrary way. We agree here.

2-The market may not necessarily set wages in a logic and non-arbitrary way (I think that's what you're saying but I'm not sure). While I agree that the wages reached by market equilibrium are not necessarily perfect (what is perfect anyway?), I find it hard to call them arbitrary or even illogical.

But to expand on 2 first I need to know I got what you're saying right.

 

[Hygro]

OK, so there are two separate arguments being made (if I follow you):

1- When a company analyses the market to set wages it is acting in a logic and non-arbitrary way. We agree here.

2-The market may not necessarily set wages in a logic and non-arbitrary way (I think that's what you're saying but I'm not sure). While I agree that the wages reached by market equilibrium are not necessarily perfect (what is perfect anyway?), I find it hard to call them arbitrary or even illogical.

But to expand on 2 first I need to know I got what you're saying right.

Okay, we're on the right track here. Now in actuality even part 1 doesn't actually happen, but it does trend toward that (microeconomics explains micro things) so it's a good rule of thumb.

And yes, the part 2 is what I was saying. I'm going to give you a bit of a heads up and say that if you take part 1 as sufficiently true because competition requires it, and then use it to try to prove how the market then reflects those logical differences back and forth in a self correcting way that proves the market itself is more or less trending efficient, logical, and something you can defer to, I want to let you know that in all my previous responses I was shortcutting that conversation because I was hoping we wouldn't ahave to hash out why ahistorical marginal utility price theory doesn't actually prove that because part 1 exists (more or less, sometimes a lot less, sometimes a lot more) does not disprove my part 2 assertion.

Here's a teaser:

We agree that the best mutual fund is the one that makes you the most money for when you need it, right? I.e. protects you from losses and gives you gains, right? I think so, holding social utility constant.

Right now there are over $2 trillion in financial assets held by mutual funds. These funds advertise to companies big and small, and a board is responsible for picking the funds they trust. Generally this board is pretty ignorant about finance.

Meanwhile, Morningstar came up with a grid to classify funds. "Large-cap Growth. Mid-cap value" etc. The power of this classification is SO strong that mutual funds are generally contractually obligated to stay in one of the 9 categories or they lose their client.

That means their job is to move money from a narrow selection of stocks that all the other mutual companies are also stuck with, unable to use the most profitable methods to do their real job: grow and preserve assets.



Meanwhile, it's become popular in the past 10-20 years to recognize that indexing your money often outperforms any general manager, so most funds are fake managing (but really indexing). So while yes, other funds can trade against this to bring things back toward equilibrium, ignoring the real world economy consequences of the wealth effect on inflated stock prices that feed back into the system, it still holds that the biggest institutional asset managers are overwhelmingly pulling the market away from optimal pricing just to appease clients' preference from branding over results.

The second teaser is that the very foundations of our market economy are sitting atop bigger structural distortions than that creating a world in which the biggest challenge in LED lightbulbs is figuring out how to make them break, literally shrinking our aggregate supply curve limits in favor of personal profit, instead of celebrating 30-year bulb superiority and using that talent and industrial capacity for better things that beget even better things.

 

[Borachio]

Depends on your definition of capitalism.

If defined as private ownership of the means of production, we're experiencing capitalism just as it normally functions.

If it's the Laissez Fairyland definition, then no. But that definition is itself ahistorical (or at least, tries to distance itself from history). If the markets suddenly became unfettered and free, we'd still bear the weight of centuries of imperialism and conquest divvying up public lands to private hoarders. We'd be starting a race with a small handful of people already past the finish line.

This is a specious argument.

I've got to ask now what you mean by private ownership.

This might seem to be a rather stupid question, but even a cursory examination of modern society turns up a rather murky picture.

Generally speaking, most people will say that the shareholders own the means of production. But who are these shareholders? Often enough they're pension trust funds. And the owners of those trust funds are such a widespread and diffuse bunch of people there's really very little to differentiate the companies who rely on their funding, and hence are owned by them, from state run undertakings.

Then again, on the other side, under state ownership (if there is, or has ever been, such a "pure" system) who owns the means of production? Is it the people themselves or is it, in effect, the ruling elite?

What does it mean to own the means of production? Does it mean you can dispose of them just as you see fit; on a whim? Because that's not how a company that's been floated on the stockmarket works, is it?