Richest 2% hold half of world's assets

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]

Then why has CEO pay continued to sky rocket? <font color="red">couldnt have any relationship to record profits, could it? </font>
Why haven't these managers voted against the nearly $1 billion dollar pay packages? <font color="red">pay packges are established by boards, not by mutual fund managers. Directors have fiduciary liability for their actions, including pay packages See the Disney case </font>
Why not esp when CEO pay has time and time again been show to be unrealated to stock performance? <font color="red">Pay packages linked to stock performance (most notably options)have led to larger pay packages , not smaller </font>
Why do CEOs leave their jobs so often? <font color="red"> what is "often"? The circumstances of CEO job change are no different than any other corporate position.</font>

You're claiming this problematic rule isn't actually problematic, despite the problematic results of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The results are problematic in your view, not necessarily the view of stakeholders in the companies. When they are problematic there are remedies.

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

LMAO. You obviously arent an investor. Mutual fund share's arent "unreturned", they are voted by the mutual fund managers. It is clearly in their self-interest to vote for solid corporate governance. the same is true of the other large block of share ownership, pension funds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why has CEO pay continued to sky rocket?
Why haven't these managers voted against the nearly $1 billion dollar pay packages?
Why not esp when CEO pay has time and time again been show to be unrealated to stock performance?
Why do CEOs leave their jobs so often?

You're claiming this problematic rule isn't actually problematic, despite the problematic results of it.

[/ QUOTE ]


My question for you is why do you care?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because it matters[ QUOTE ]
These people are all engaging in private, mutually agreeable interactions. You realize that don't you?

[/ QUOTE ]
Bull [censored], the rules for corporate governance and the benefits that incorporation recieves are not a private matter they are public, enacted by public laws. Corporations can't exist without the government, and, as such, the government has a right to set the rules.

[ QUOTE ]
You may think they are fools, but at least no one is coercing their actions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps not in my sense of the word coerce, but certainly in the AC sense, there is coercion. [ QUOTE ]
Why not laugh from the sidelines? Why do you feel somebody has to *DO* something?

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, something should be done. In most countries, unreturned share votes are not counted as siding with the management, they are simply not counted. Imagine if every eligible voter who did not vote was counted as siding with the incumbent. Wouldn't that be a problem? Who could ever lose?

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll wager a large sum of money that the overwhelming majority of new companies created are not initially funded with the entrepreneurs own money.

[/ QUOTE ]

77% of people use their own money or family assets for business startup funding.
--US Census Bureau, September 2006

[/ QUOTE ]

Ouch. Ok.

Link? Couldn't find it on google and I need to see that to believe it.

Btw all, here's an interesting article that cites close to $100 billion in venture capital directed at startup businesses for the year nationwide.

article

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll wager a large sum of money that the overwhelming majority of new companies created are not initially funded with the entrepreneurs own money.

[/ QUOTE ]

77% of people use their own money or family assets for business startup funding.
--US Census Bureau, September 2006

[/ QUOTE ]

Ouch. Ok.

Link? Couldn't find it on google and I need to see that to believe it.

Btw all, here's an interesting article that cites close to $100 billion in venture capital directed at startup businesses for the year nationwide.

article

[/ QUOTE ]

Venture capital is not just given away. Company founders must have a contribution in the form of intellectual property and/or sweat equity in building an innovative business model that is worthy of addtional investment.

[Poofler]

Various entrepreneur stats

You're right to think certain types of business will see much third-party investing. Notably ones involving some sort of innovation that peaks investor interest. But most new businesses aren't interesting, just another (insert well-known business here) at the local level.

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
Venture capital is not just given away. Company founders must have a contribution in the form of intellectual property and/or sweat equity in building an innovative business model that is worthy of addtional investment.


[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly. Did I imply otherwise?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Venture capital is not just given away. Company founders must have a contribution in the form of intellectual property and/or sweat equity in building an innovative business model that is worthy of addtional investment.


[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly. Did I imply otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]

you have implied otherwise throughout this thread.

Eg: "This really isn't a catch-22. Aside from the plainly obvious saving of money over time, or hitting up family members for money, there a relatively unlimited supply of capital looking for a home out there" followed by VC links

This implies that venture capital is an equivalent substitute for personal capital.

[valtaherra]

Ok I see. I didn't try to imply that venture capital is easy to come by, for it is intuitively obvious that forming an attractive business or product idea is very difficult. Posting VC/SBDC links simply demonstrated that starting a business is in no way a catch-22 situation.

But anyways, I'll just state clearly then that I am not implying that.

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the problem is, it's true he's not really holding a gun to the worker's head, but that doesn't mean it's A-OK either. if you were not born into money, or know people with money, you will not have capital to risk in the first place. so you can't really call it a choice, it's misleading.

this is one issue that may change my mind from a right-anarchist to a left. we'll see.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people do the old-fashioned thing and earn money.

[/ QUOTE ]

And to earn money you have to work for a capitalist. So what you're saying doesn't make sense, do you see why?

It's great if you have family to give you money or some other place, but a lot of people don't have that.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The capitalist are, as the ACist like to say, holding a gun and saying: be exploited or starve.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lol. There's no gun, real or figurative. Almost everyone must work in order to survive. Very, very few are in a position to never have to work a day in their lives. The capitalist offers the worker a deal: Take a smaller cut of the revenue up front, or risk your capital the way the entrepreneur is. Since the worker doesn't want to risk his capital, he takes the deal. No exploitation.

[/ QUOTE ]

The worker most likely does not have the capital to risk in the first place, so that's not a choice. it's a catch-22.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure how useful this is. True, most people aren't born with enough wealth to start their own companies, but not personally having all the wealth necessary to fully start a company hasn't stopped people in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

Books about starting companies with small amounts of money

A little goes a long way

[ QUOTE ]
We want to let you in on a secret: it doesn't really matter how much you start with. Whether it's $5,000 or $50,000 matters less than things like your ability to manage a growing operation. When it comes to the Inc 500, start-up capital is not the leading predictor of success. Get this: companies that were started with less than $1,000 were about as likely to be profitable as those that were started with more than $100,000.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great companies started with less than $1,000