TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- ..and meanwhile, thousands starved to death in .....
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

..and meanwhile, thousands starved to death in .....

This really irks me...... it really does

quote:

Saturday April 7, 5:37 pm ET CHICAGO (Reuters) - Occidental Petroleum Corp.'s chairman and chief executive took in more than $400 million in compensation last year, the company said in a filing, one of the biggest single-year payouts in U.S. corporate history. The largest part of Ray Irani's 2006 payout was $270.2 million from the exercise of options awarded from 1997 to 2006, representing more than 7.1 million shares, according to the company's annual proxy statement, which was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in March. Irani also received $93.3 million in stock and dividends from a deferred stock program when the company closed the plan in October due to increases in liability and expenses for the program, the company said. Irani's salary in 2006 was $1.3 million and his cash bonus was $1.4 million, according to the filing. But stock and option awards and other benefits lifted his 2006 compensation to $55.6 million, the proxy said. In the proxy, the company said that from December 1990 -- when Irani succeeded Armand Hammer as chief executive -- through 2005, the company's stock rose to about $40 a share from $9 and its total shareholder return was 699 percent. "When you look at this, this is solid pay for performance," said Richard Kline, an Occidental spokesman. "It serves the best interest of the corporation and the best interest of the shareholder." Occidental shares closed on Thursday at $49.95 on the New York Stock Exchange. According to the Wall Street Journal, only a few CEOs have ever made more money in one year. In 2001, Oracle Corp. CEO Larry Ellison received $706 million from exercising stock options and in 1998, former Walt Disney Co. CEO Michael Eisner received $570 million, according to the newspaper.

SOURCE

Sad really....

hmmm...Did he steal that money?
Or did he help create it?



Occidental's stock price has more than doubled since he took over as chairman. More than $23 billion in new wealth has been created for shareholders in the past 3 years (that means you if you own any mutual funds).

Not many people can do what this man has done. This is why the directors and shareholders place such a high value on his skills. Directing a huge multinational company isn't an easy thing to do. After growing the market cap of Occidental by 23+ billion dollars, he received less than 2% of that amount in compensation.

Sounds like the shareholders got a bargain to me. If I owned the stock, I would gladly pay up for that kind of performance.

quote:

Armand Hammer

Kidding, right?

Re: ..and meanwhile, thousands starved to death in .....

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX This really irks me...... it really does SOURCE Sad really....

Unless you live in the perfect unattainable socialist society, the winners of capitalism will always be blamed for the losers problems.

Did you realize that because of this CEO, whoever owned OXY stock, from small individual investors to institutional banks have all profitted. They created wealth for average people and big corporations alike. Get your head out of the socialist hole.

Last time I checked, many oil and gas companies lately have been making big bucks, no new information to me. More of a coincidence. Plus all the crazy payouts and corruption are boring repetitive day-to-day reoccuring type of events. I was only shocked at the shocking surprise of some of the TAs here. Nothing to see here.

I know gents, I am a capitilist whore when it comes to making and turning a few Dollars. But its just irks me that with all the wealth some have there are still starving people. I am not talking about the lazy focks that just collect Welfare or other types of Gov Assitance... but I am talking about the true poor.... IE; Africa, Middle East and yes, even some in the West.
Maybe its the old bleeding heart utopian liberal that is in me, but oh well, it is nice to dream......

If the oil companies are making such high profits that their CEOs are "earning" 400 million dollar annual paychecks, then they should not be getting ANY government subsidies of any sort.

Big oil gets billions of dollars a year in tax payer money when the industry does not need it to remain profitable.

This country will never have alternatives to oil if the government continues to give oil a competitive advantage, and an industry that is making record profits should not be getting government subsidies period.

But you won't hear any of the "capitalist" line toeing monkeys say anything bad about corporate welfare on this board.


I am no socialist, but you cannot look at CEO pay packages and say, on the whole, the system isn't broken.


MrS

Well the way I look at it is that if a company is making billions in annual sales, then why not pay a good CEO the bucks that they are being paid now. Being a CEO is a tough job and even though 400 mils seem a lot of money, to the owner making billions each year, its nothing because he
'd rather pay the CEO the bucks then do it himself.

There was some commentary on a nightly news show last night about CEO compensation and what not. One of the guests was from the Ayn Rand institute who discussed how those who are outraged at things like executive compensation are trying to make it a moral issue (i.e. the more money you make, the more immoral you must be or something like that). I wish I could find the transcript, though they only gave the guy about 30 seconds of airtime. For now, this will have to suffice.

quote:

Cross: "Shareholder Democracy" vs. Shareholder Rights (March 13, 2007) Irvine, CA--House leaders are promoting a new measure that would require all public corporations to hold annual shareholder votes to voice approval or disapproval of executive compensation. "While this measure is being portrayed as protecting the rights of shareholders," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, "it is in fact a violation of those rights." "If a majority of shareholders wishes to hold an annual vote to voice approval or disapproval of their board's executive compensation decisions, they have long been free to implement such a policy. But most companies and shareholders have judged that such votes are not in their interest, and it is not hard to imagine why--they do not want to give anti-CEO pundits and politicians yet more fuel to grandstand about 'excessive' CEO pay. "To force shareholders and companies to adopt such policies against their judgment is not to protect shareholder rights, but to violate them wholesale."

Now, someone like Bob Nardelli might be an easier target, but even then, I don't think it is the role of government to meddle in things like this when it should be the responsibilities of the owners of public companies (i.e. the shareholders) to implement policies and changes where they see fit. Additionally, stock price action is not always (in fact rarely) a perfect reflection of business fundamentals and management, rather it is more a reflection of investor sentiment. And more government regulation is rarely a good thing, imho.

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX I know gents, I am a capitilist whore when it comes to making and turning a few Dollars. But its just irks me that with all the wealth some have there are still starving people. I am not talking about the lazy focks that just collect Welfare or other types of Gov Assitance... but I am talking about the true poor.... IE; Africa, Middle East and yes, even some in the West. Maybe its the old bleeding heart utopian liberal that is in me, but oh well, it is nice to dream......

To tell you the truth, its a humanitarian crisis. Over 45,000 people, mostly children, die of hunger every day. Many people know about this, but noone gives a shit. Remember the famous rock festival aimed to raise money and bring spotlight to the issue? Well, many people showed up, got drunk, partied, left shitloads of garbage on the fields, threw in a few pennies and got back to their lives like its no big deal. Noone cares. Just like politics. If people dont care about obvious blatant political lies and manipulations and could care less to do something about it in their own country, and you then expect people to give a shit about some poor innocent children dying somewhere halfway around the world? These guys would rather watch Survivor or get high and drunk than doo anything to make the world better.

I appreciate your thinking, but you know ... its sad, it pisses me off because I see people's ignorance all around me, the ignorance on the environmental, humanitarian, political crisis. Human race is definitely screwed up. I have learned so many terrible things in my environmental course in college so far. Disgusts me.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Yep...It's farking terrible. But the "solution" is not to destroy the wealth others have created in order to redistribute it to the poor. Any attempt to reduce poverty this way will likely have the opposite effect...moving the middle class workers of those companies into the unemployment line. People need to realize what one person earns has no bearing on what someone else does or does not earn. The two are unrelated! When you earn your next paycheck, you aren't stealing food from the mouth of a poor Bosnian kid. That kid would be starving regardless of whether or not you showed up for work last week. If you want to blame anybody for world povery, you should blame the corrupt and overbearing governments of these countries...not an American businessman.

OK.. You have an opinion of what NOT to do.

What DO we do?

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium To tell you the truth, its a humanitarian crisis. Over 45,000 people, mostly children, die of hunger every day. Many people know about this, but noone gives a shit. Remember the famous rock festival aimed to raise money and bring spotlight to the issue? Well, many people showed up, got drunk, partied, left shitloads of garbage on the fields, threw in a few pennies and got back to their lives like its no big deal. Noone cares. Just like politics.

Yep...It's farking terrible. But the "solution" is not to destroy the wealth others have created in order to redistribute it to the poor. Any attempt to reduce poverty this way will likely have the opposite effect...moving the middle class workers of those companies into the unemployment line.

People need to realize what one person earns has no bearing on what someone else does or does not earn. The two are unrelated! When you earn your next paycheck, you aren't stealing food from the mouth of a poor Bosnian kid. That kid would be starving regardless of whether or not you showed up for work last week.

If you want to blame anybody for world povery, you should blame the corrupt and overbearing governments of these countries...not an American businessman.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Yep...It's farking terrible. But the "solution" is not to destroy the wealth others have created in order to redistribute it to the poor. Any attempt to reduce poverty this way will likely have the opposite effect...moving the middle class workers of those companies into the unemployment line. People need to realize what one person earns has no bearing on what someone else does or does not earn. The two are unrelated! When you earn your next paycheck, you aren't stealing food from the mouth of a poor Bosnian kid. That kid would be starving regardless of whether or not you showed up for work last week. If you want to blame anybody for world povery, you should blame the corrupt and overbearing governments of these countries...not an American businessman.

Hush! Don't you know that wealth is distributed by the government and not earned?!?!?

lol marc, your reply showed up before my post...Are you practicing Voodoo?



What to do? Well charity is always nice. You can donate funds or volunteer your time at a private relief organization. There are many groups that do terrific things for the people in poverty stricken countries. And because the money isn't filtered through 60 layers of government bureacracy, a lot more of every dollar gets where it is supposed to go.

Ultimately though, the real solution is probably going to be the most painful one short term...a revolution in those countries. The Berlin Wall didn't come down because some politician decided to remove it. It fell because the people of East Germany realized they were oppressed by their politicians. They were being denied their freedoms by a corrupt socialist government, and they demanded an end to it.

Really, perhaps the best thing we can "do" about it is nothing. If we continue to alleviate these symptoms of corruption, we are only prolonging the misery of the people in those countries. It may be better if they just got fed up with their circumstances and took matters into their own hands.

Viva la Revolution!



Oh, wait.....






Yeah thats it!

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt lol marc, your reply showed up before my post...Are you practicing Voodoo? What to do? Well charity is always nice. You can donate funds or volunteer your time at a private relief organization. There are many groups that do terrific things for the people in poverty stricken countries. And because the money isn't filtered through 60 layers of government bureacracy, a lot more of every dollar gets where it is supposed to go.

I saw you're post first, you are the one practicing voodoo!

Anyway, the problem with charity is that many governments and/or rebels will seize any goods going to the country. This happened in Liberia, especially. Charles Taylor loved taking from the starving children. Charity needs to be given, absolutely, but it will cost more money than most are willing to pay, to protect the goods from raiders.

I'm not too terribly surprised by this, nor do I see as incredibly outrageous given the substantial profits these oil companies are making.

But there are two things that come to mind:

1. Squirrel's right - our corporate welfare of tax breaks to these companies are a downright joke and should be removed completely.

2. Living wage - though not necessarily applicable to the oil companies, I do think it's interesting to see some corporations give a big fat "whaaa!" on it, which to me is a bit strange given their fat fucking CEO payouts. Granted, I concede living wages aren't the sure-fire answer to ending poverty, nor are they likely applicable to every/many situations. But I really do hope that giant corporations paying out oodles of bucks to their CEOs cease shedding tears if they are required to pay their workers a few more $.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 2. Living wage - though not necessarily applicable to the oil companies, I do think it's interesting to see some corporations give a big fat "whaaa!" on it, which to me is a bit strange given their fat fucking CEO payouts. Granted, I concede living wages aren't the sure-fire answer to ending poverty, nor are they likely applicable to every/many situations. But I really do hope that giant corporations paying out oodles of bucks to their CEOs cease shedding tears if they are required to pay their workers a few more $.

Hyopthetically, let's look at this from a different angle. Suppose a "living wage" were implemented. I have no idea what the living wage would be. What government hack-group is going to come up with some "official" study complete with fancy actuarial tables and whatnot? Is it higher in some parts of the countries than others? How is it calculated? Regardless, I am operating on the assumption that a "living wage" would be something significantly higher than minimum wage. Anyway, I digress...

Suppose you implement a mystica "living wage." I believe that in your heart you are wanting to basically pull (I really wanted to say take) from the top and help the bottom. But what happens when the higher wage costs hit everyone at the lower and middle-end, that aren't making billions in profits annually. There are many that barely operate in the black, and many that aren't even that lucky. At the margin, how many businesses could theoretically be put out of business? How many employees might not be hired because the incremental payroll costs are somehow a deal-breaker? Not to mention the potential for more of that hated outsourcing nonsense!

More abstractly, but certainly pertinent...if you implemented some new "living wage," how much could it potentially hurt the profit margins of the weaker players? How much might their stock value go down to reflect the higher cost of business? How much wealth might be destroyed in your mission to fight poverty? Might you hurt some of the very people you are trying to help?

Here's a quick (and probably not thoroughly thought out) idea:

What about greater accessibility to warrants and options for all employees? Sure, they won't ever amass as many as the C-level folks do in their carefully constructed, golden-parachute laden, legally iron-clad contracts, but they are more likely to work harder for the company, as well as likely be more loyal (i.e. a long-term employee), if he/she has greater ownership in the company. Workers will be better motivated and will be more productive. So, at the margin, productivity goes up, turnover goes down, labor costs go down and profitability could actually go UP! Additionally, the lower employment costs will help curb inflation (at the margin). Yay capitalism!

Of course they need to be properly accounted for and issued so as not to invite fraud. A company might choose to award them based upon performance benchmarks being met, certain criteria being met, etc. In theory it could amount to something significant over time.

And the playing field could be leveled ever-so-slightly...

I'd say that's one idea that (in theory) illustrates clear benefits over a government mandated solution. One major caveat however, is that it requires a very amicable invisible hand!

See--I'm all for everybody getting a bigger piece of the pie (or at least a bigger dinner), I just don't necessarily agree with how to get there. Now...what to do about the leftover folks that wouldn't likely be eligible for something like that. I suppose you would suggest a tax or some other method of income re-distribution?


What a ramble!

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I'm not too terribly surprised by this, nor do I see as incredibly outrageous given the substantial profits these oil companies are making. But there are two things that come to mind: 1. Squirrel's right - our corporate welfare of tax breaks to these companies are a downright joke and should be removed completely. 2. Living wage - though not necessarily applicable to the oil companies, I do think it's interesting to see some corporations give a big fat "whaaa!" on it, which to me is a bit strange given their fat fucking CEO payouts. Granted, I concede living wages aren't the sure-fire answer to ending poverty, nor are they likely applicable to every/many situations. But I really do hope that giant corporations paying out oodles of bucks to their CEOs cease shedding tears if they are required to pay their workers a few more $.

If you're referring to an indexed min. wage, corporations aren't stupid.
If they feel they're aren't getting the breaks they need to compete globally (or locally for that matter); they'll move somewhere where they can and take their jobs with them.
What do we suppose the number one reason was for Haliburton to move their corporate HQ? Taxes maybe?

When Enron tanked and bequeathed upon those publicly traded companies the Sarbanes-Oxley legacy, I can tell you with certainty that they all secretly had a string of Tourettes when the ruling came down.
I know in the corporation where I work, there were major changes that had to be made.
However, it's a clear example of how businesses can regulate themselves without needing government involvement in something where they have no clue other than collecting their taxes.

Government should never be an answer to anything. It's supposed to be there to protect the businesses, not run them.

I know you disclaimered yourself MisterOpus1, but thought I'd throw my 2� in for those that believe that government bailouts and subsidies actually solve anything...

I'm surprised that people think others who are successful should be punished

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree I'm surprised that people think others who are successful should be punished

Well, lets not punish them by leaving things exactly as they are right now. What will that achieve? Some of them are of course righteous, but others are living off other people's misery and suffering. Supporting dictarships by doing business with them is not helping people out. Sure it might be all fair in legal terms, but look at these people ...

I am not saying its all Americans fault in this issue as well and that we should redistribute the wealth, I never said that. I hate communism. Without getting into detail on the issue, I know some things can be done by our western society to make these people's lives better - like stop supporting the corrupt and dictatorship governments of Africa. If we do, then these governments will weaken. Instead of spreading democracy by the sword and ignoring wide-spread human rights violations and mistakes because these countries are our allies we need to start treating the humanitarian issue more seriously. Everyone can and should live happy and productive lives. There's enough food and resources for everyone on the planet to live happpy and sustainable lives.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Well, lets not punish them by leaving things exactly as they are right now. What will that achieve? Some of them are of course righteous, but others are living off other people's misery and suffering. Supporting dictarships by doing business with them is not helping people out. Sure it might be all fair in legal terms, but look at these people ... I am not saying its all Americans fault in this issue as well and that we should redistribute the wealth, I never said that. I hate communism. Without getting into detail on the issue, I know some things can be done by our western society to make these people's lives better - like stop supporting the corrupt and dictatorship governments of Africa. If we do, then these governments will weaken. Instead of spreading democracy by the sword and ignoring wide-spread human rights violations and mistakes because these countries are our allies we need to start treating the humanitarian issue more seriously. Everyone can and should live happy and productive lives. There's enough food and resources for everyone on the planet to live happpy and sustainable lives.

I hope you know how much contradictory you sound comparing this post to the stuff you wrote on the Afghanistan thread.

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree I hope you know how much contradictory you sound comparing this post to the stuff you wrote on the Afghanistan thread.

Ha! How contradictory is it that Americans are supporting the current Afghani regime that is filled with former war criminals, former Taliban members and sympathizers, drug dealers? Americans have actually supported and joined with even worse groups of people before though.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Ha! How contradictory is it that Americans are supporting the current Afghani regime that is filled with former war criminals, former Taliban members and sympathizers, drug dealers? Americans have actually supported and joined with even worse groups of people before though.

My remark wasn't about the Yanks, it's about you!

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree My remark wasn't about the Yanks, it's about you!

Enlighten me then.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Enlighten me then.

But.He.Already.Did.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.