"All UnitedHealth's stockholders would have to do..."

i love thom hartmann... and thank him immensely for the ongoing eduction he provides via his radio program...

but... stockholders don't do anything... maybe in a ceremonial kabuki manner... and maybe a few high percentage stockholders at a corporation or two do...

but... it's the board of directors that hires and votes on ceo pay... i'm not disputing any of thom's musings either...

but the directors... are usually directors and ceo's of other corporations... the stockholders are simply hoping to share in the earnings.... and are willing or unwilling players in the same game...

if you're invested in ABC Corp., and your holdings and / or dividends provide well for you... you may not care the captain of the ship is a socio-path...

when reagan fired the air traffic controllers... that was the opening shot on pensions... then we were sold the captive investment scheme of 401k's... made attractive initially by company matches...

but... like cable and atm's... once people became lazy and addicted to them... 401k's are simply now a way to hold people's retirements hostage... and have the masses rooting (maybe in private) for good ol' corporate america to keep steamrolling over life on the planet...

years ago... gm bought ross perot's eds corp... and he got a seat on the board of gm... but... he tried to shake things up... and i've already lost 75% of you for mentioning perot's name... but he's had it so right for so long... how the republicans have consistently re-bankrupted the treasury... nafta... etc., but back to gm... they finally bought him out because they didn't want change anything... that was the late 80's i think... 20 years later... gm is kaput...

can't entirely blame the ceo's... they don't hire themselves... other people do... and other people vote their pay packages...

I think these are some good questions, with good answers. Now if we apply this to the rest of the world leadership issues, then it seems we're really on to something. Because psychopaths do not really care about money - it is power and control they seek. Money can be one avenue towards that end, another is the political road. In oppressed Poland during the 1940's, Andrew Lobaczewski and a team of global (and many anonymous) scientists developed a study of this all important understanding of human evil. It's "Political Ponerology" and probably one of the most important if not the most important discoveries for humanity. It's a study on how psychopaths influence and turn upside down the words thoughts and deeds of normal people. when you take this on a macro-social scale, as well as something occurring throughout human history, we can really see why the world is the way it is. The study has only been released in the past 4 years, so few have heard of it. It's worth looking up.

Sioux, thanks for the critique below. I re-read your comments and agree: i.e., it is jaundiced to single out only one aspect in any cultural issue and spirituality is more diverse than my comments note.

I regret doing so. My comments here are limited by personal responsibility to other things in my life, so I try to get to the main point as quickly as I can and surely miss a more balanced and comprehensive ordering. If I had more time, I would rectify those omissions in the future, but I do not. Thanks for pointing it out. You are right on the money and I greatly respect and admire your comments here on CD.

I don't know much about astrology, but what Ive read does not accurately depict my sign: I am a goat who dislikes conservative values and business, but on the accurate side I am loyal to friends and partners (although currently single), I travel often to other regions of the globe and work with indigenous healers and groups to support the ancient traditions of First Peoples and their land rights; and also seeking ways to partner with indigenous elders to preserve their diminishing cultural traditions, and languages: once the language is lost so too, is the tradition, so it is important to counter the imperialists at every turn; I work in the healing arts so gain much about my own art and craft through these cross cultural encounters.

Writer's on astrology assert my type as conservative and not liking change; nothing could be further from the truth so I question its validity to my own experience and life, but hold it out as valid to anyone that finds promise for unlocking meaning in their own journey.

Best regards...

Almost anyone can be a CEO if you have the right people around you and listen to them. A CEO has one of the easiest jobs in the world; because there are so many resources and perks available.

I believe the problem is that management and boards of directors set the pay and compensation of their executive pay. That's like letting the fox mind the chicken coop. It would be better to allow the share holders to vote on executive pay at annual meetings. CEOs and boards of directors are basically thieves setting their own agenda at this point.

Calling CEOs “sociopaths” is too simple and misses the underlying problem:

a society that has been manipulated into accepting the insane as “normal”: an economic system based on the “holy trinity” of (endless) growth, competition and market ideology.

“George Markley”, “Bliss Doubt”, “JenniferBedingfield”, “NateW” and “Mordechai Shiblikov” – I think you have all pointed in the right direction so allow me to use some of your remarks as a starting point for my arguments:

“When was it written in scripture that making money is the end all of human endeavor?”

This is perhaps the most important question in this context: The job of CEOs is “to make money”, to generate maximum profits for their shareholders and in doing so, for themselves, too. This is considered to be “rational” behaviour (“self-interest”).

In his groundbreaking book “Small is beautiful” E.F. Schumacher (back in the 1970s) taught us, that this kind of capitalism (economy) is doomed to fail in the long run, because it has no self-limiting principle and Erich Fromm (“To Have or to Be” (1979) – one of the most important books ever written) explained that in early forms of capitalism when (Christian) morality was still an issue in the organisation of society ( e.g. lending money at interest was forbidden and called “usury”) the central question was "What is good for man?" but as capitalism became more powerful it changed to "What is good for the system (and its architects)?

His conclusion was, that the economic system needed to enforce egotism, selfishness and greed in order to function (to ensure ever encreasing consumption and profit) and that this self-damaging behaviour would eventually create a sick society and destroy the environment. Fromm also pointed out, that once “economic” behaviour became separated from ethics (see "financial crises” and corporate scandals) and human values, the total victory of the economic machine, which was supposed to run according to its own laws (“rule of the market” in modern parlance) was only a matter of time. Karl Polanyi warned that in the end, society would become an adjunct to the market (“The Great Transformation”) and he was right.

YOUR COMMENTS:

“It is the ability to go after competitors, get them for the price you want, strip them of assets and put them out of business, or otherwise keep them from being real competitors.”

“It's getting even clearer that excessive self-interest and materialism can result in total self-destruction.”

“The United Scams of America, the United Sociopaths of America - call this nation what you want. This is the exquisite world's capitol [sic] of primitive acquisitiveness and the rip-off raised to Shakespearean levels.”
(Mordechai – strong words as always, but right on target...)

We must question the foundations of our economic system not just lament the symptoms of the disease like the grave economic injustice / rising inequality:
the top 300.000 Americans now have the same income as the bottom 150 million; Josef Ackermann, head of Deutsche Bank “earns” more than 1,500 $ PER HOUR, the crooks at Government Sachs "make" probably twice as much, etc.) And yet, media debates about “greed” and bonus systems as incentives to be “greedy” are misleading, in my opinon.

The root causes lie deeper, in the basic assumptions of accepted economic thinking:

1) Is “competition” really a good thing? Competing for what, exactly? Cheapest labour cost? Greatest Efficiency? Lowest Prices? Who determines the rules for the competition? At whose expense? Why are social and environmental costs not factored in? (profits privatized, costs socialized)

If maximum (and ever increasing) profits are the ultimate goal, then “competition” cannot be a good thing, on the contrary: in order to squeeze out ever more profits, all moral and ethical considerations (which make us human) must be discarded as “trade barriers”, etc.

A special jargon has to be created in order to rationalize and sanitize the madness: e.g.“financial innovation” (racketeering and massive fraud), “free trade” (exploiting the weaker countries in a modern form of colonialism and through debt bondage - WTO, IMF, World Bank, etc.)

But still, based on socio-anthropological findings, Fromm thinks that man is an essentially moral and social being, which thrives on solidarity, compassion, love and shared emotions with other people, not material abundance or lust for power.

The problem is, the ruling power elite have long ago abandoned their moral compass (as an obstacle to business goals) and substituted it with the "profit & power barometer" but this does not make them sociopaths. They are the product of a system that encourages and rewards anti-social behaviour (in the sense that it is bad for the broad majority of citizens (the "herd”), but good for a small, dominant elite.)

The hysteria, which the (abuse of the) word “socialism” is able to generate in the US media, is both amusing and frightening for a European spectator. That US citizens put up with staggering sums of taxpayer money wasted on corporate welfare (now in the trillions, after the Wall Street Mafia has plundered the nation) but get cheated out of their own social security (most of all affordable public health care) speaks volumes about how this society has been brainwashed...

That endless “economic growth”, as another absurd principle of modern economic policy, can only lead to disaster (since it means using up our natural capital even faster at the expense of future generations) must be abandoned, should be clear by now (given the alarming signs of climate disruption and environmental degradation we are already witnessing) but our politicians are not able to think outside the box....they have become robotic servants of the neofeudal system...

In order to achieve a sustainable economy, the structure of industry and finance must be regulated (no one may be “too big too fail”, become so rich & powerful, that they effectively control the government...) and without a reasonably fair destribution of income, the inherent economic instability of a capitalist sytem will only get worse over time...

Your real freedom is in your own abilities. When you go to work for a corporation you relinquish your future to them. They will use you as long as you bring them value for their own purposes ( their bottom line ) not yours. When they are done with you they will spit you out. The only power corporations have is what we give them willingly. Take charge of your life and dont hand your future security and livelihood to them. They are amoral and will demand loyalty from you but they will not reciprocate.

Thom Hartmann should be required reading.

Corporations float the wrong people to the top of the power structure for the wrong reasons.

Corporate "personhood" must be revoked and charters amended to permit profit, but not at the expense of the commons, ecology, or human and community rights.

As long as state-corporatism is supported with our dollars and votes, nothing will change (voluntarily).

The first thing we have to change is ourselves.

As far as qualifications go, they all seem to come from wealth, which is why I think these people would have become gangsters and pimps had they not been raised in circles of privilege. And these people ARE in short supply, and their number is dwindling.

Think about it. How many people are born into such wealth?

I knew a CEO. He was easily the phoniest person I ever met. He smiled as if he were a wolf bearing his teeth. And he contributed nothing to the welfare of the company. He was a paid figurehead who golfed during the day. He bled the company dry, and then left to be shuffled into another company by an old pal. The man was a vampire.

first, i think the label "sociopaths" for CEOs is incorrect. they are narcissists who, a therapist once told me, are "sort of sociopaths in pinstriped suits." they don't break laws (overtly) like sociopaths, because image is very important to them, and going to jail (which many sociopaths do) is very unpleasant and un-image-enhancing. we have a lot off narcissists in our society, and they are drawn to politics and corporate-climbing particularly, due to the power, money, and attention gained.

that said, we should all stop reading other people's opinions (mea culpa) and read orwell's animal farm again or for the first time, because it's really the only book you need to understand politics, corporations, media, human behavior, etc. and it's very very short--100 pgs or so! there's lots of them in used book stores, too, because so many teachers assigned it to students who never actually read it, and therefore had no interest in keeping it.

then you'll know how it will actually all turn out.

Here's another perspective:

The reason CEOs are so highly paid is because they can arrange to be so. They're skilled at the highly valuable business skill of putting the business in the way of wealth. So they're getting paid on that skill; and then they're using that skill, on top of that, to arrange flows of wealth to them.

And if you wish to see it in terms of a "job market for CEOs", here's why that's an incorrect metaphor for what transpires when a company needs a CEO:

The way a CEO comes into a company is either by networking ("we saw how you handled things at Yahoo"), by founding (being a part of the startup), or by nepotism.

Resume submission and interview? You have to be joking. Maybe that happens, but not in the vast majority of cases.

What's the common thread among the three above scenarios? They all capitalize upon the CEO's social network, which is highly individualized and highly personality-dependent.

No two CEO jobs are even remotely equivalent, because the job is just as much about leveraging human capital as it is about "pure business" (whatever that means).

Nor are any two CEOs roughly equivalent. You can measure the business acumen of CEOs, perhaps, in terms of their track record, but the fitness of any given CEO in a company is a function of who they've already schmoozed with and what kind of personalities they best mesh with. Leadership creates the style of company; but a leader stepping into an established company had better be something similar to the established style.

Thus for each open CEO position, there are precious few actual candidates. It's not a real market.

We're not dealing w/ a scarcity market because of a limited amount of sociopaths to go around. We're dealing in a commodity (CEOs) that has to be seen as a multitude of micro-commodities competing in a micro-market (each CEO job).

In other words: if any given CEO job only has 1 or 2 possible candidates, and if CEOs are absolutely demanded (i.e. there is no case in which we can go w/o one), then CEOs can ask whatever salary they want.

I think it would be more appropriate to call these CEO's psychopaths rather than sociopaths. Sociopaths tend to be disorganized and to act rashly, whereas psychopaths are well organized and their actions are well planned out. Like sociopaths they are without conscience and manipulative, but they can, and do, rise to the top of their field, especially in a society that favors the success of this type of power grabbing person. They know how to play the power game, that's for sure.

I also feel that the article underestimates the number of psychopaths in high places. I would guess psychopaths would be more likely to succeed in both the military and politics, as well. All or most of Bush's handlers were likely psychopaths.

David Korten, in his book WHEN CORPORATIONS RULE THE WORLD, warned about ruthless CEO mentality many years ago when his book was first published in 1995. What he and Thom Hartmann are pointing out actually holds true. And from what I see, corporations are gaining momentum to economically and politically run the planet. It's like a loose federation of sociopathic lords, and the most successful ones are the most ruthless ones. This loosely organized federation of predatory corporations are more and more putting governments in their back pockets. Call me a cynic, but it looks to me like the ravaging effects of global warming might be the only thing that stops the global machine that is afoot. Any way it gets sliced, it seems that massive human suffering isn't far into the future. I wish we humans could find wise solutions without so much suffering. I guess I'm both a cynic and a dreamer.

Does Thom also open up speculation as to other careers and who are those that make out from our highly stratified educational system? Who makes up the bulk of politicians, academics, and policy wonks?

Instead of becoming more egalitarian and the supposed meritocracy we are fabled to be we have a reverse system in place that takes from the poor to enrich the wealthy.

Here in New Mexico we have the "Lottery Scholarship," takes from the poor and gives to the rich, what other regressive schemes are there in place, home ownership in the 1950's-1990's, Funding the exile Cuban population to the tune of $947 million from 1960-1974, as well as other so-called exile communities??

The artificial wealth built on the backs of the slaves, working class, etc. lets not be a-historical and dig a bit further Thom!!

Where are all the class-action lawsuits?

Class warfare at its finest!!

The sociopaths rule! The inmates are truly running the insylum--yet. We must do all our creative minds and efforts can muster to stop it!

See the movie

"The Corporation"

(it's a study in how corporations are sociopathic - almost all of it good, a couple of places with a grain of salt, but a right-on film.)

This is in response to the posts of BodhiHawk, Siouxrose and Ted Markow - actually it's more like I'm thinking aloud, rather than countering what you said regarding 'New Age', 'Law of Attraction', etc. I can't really decide where I stand on this - perhaps, like Ted, I have "a foot in both worlds" for the same reason - that is, I need to stay hopeful of a better future for all. I attended a meditation meeting yesterday, where there was a talk about wealth and our thoughts. I pointed out that individual affluence, when disconnected from the reality of millions of other human beings, is not of much value, especially when it disregards the environment and condones overconsumption. At least one person thought I was some kind of Marxist - and personally, for some reason, I don't like to be thought of as a Marxist, as I have this image that Marxists don't care much about individual freedom and spirituality (I could be wrong, but it's not important). Anyway, here's why I think we cannot discount the power of thinking:

First of all, "thinking" or "visualizing" is different from "delusion". It's delusion that gets us into trouble. Believing in any kind of ideology - capitalist or socialist or communist - without taking personal responsibility will make us powerless. That's why you see so many 'Joe-the-plumber's' defending the very system that exploits them. History also tells us that believing in a communist ideology hasn't delivered the utopia that was promised. I think one of the reasons was that there were far too many "followers" and too few "leaders".

Criticizing an obviously faulty system without presenting a compelling vision of an alternative way of doing things, or better yet, showing what can work, has limited value. Having a vision and taking action to make it a reality will require a certain amount of positive thinking. After all, if you don't believe deep down that change is possible, how can you bring about change? (I'm not talking about the "change we can believe in" - I mean REAL change). That said, attacking a faulty system does have its value - when you do that, and you see others expressing similar thoughts, it's a first step - you know you are not alone in this fight. But taking it to the next stage takes a certain vision and action - they both depend on positive thinking and a belief that change is possible. At a personal level, "being the change you want to see in the world" is extremely important for a leader. At times like this, we cannot wait for the ONE leader, but instead, we need lots of leaders at various levels. Here's another quote from Gandhi: "When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it--always." I take it as positive thinking.

BodhiHawk calls CEO pay as 'the cart' and "a broken political system" as the horse. Well, I would say that the general feeling of powerlessness and giving up responsibility after voting is THE HORSE and the 'system' is the cart. When there were better alternatives (Nader, McKinney) and people failed to see their worth, whose fault is that? It's the same people that got behind the Terminator forcing a 'recall' of Gray Davis, thinking that they were taking some major political action - but I would call that 'delusion' and buying into the hype. Opting for the lesser of the evils will also "attract" exactly that.

The way I see it, 'New Age' thinking doesn't have to do with prosperity alone - it could also involve an egalitarian way of thinking. After all, when you truly feel everything and everyone are connected, how can you disregard the suffering of others and damage to nature? When we begin to understand what 'ego' is, we'll be that much more effective in not offending or threatening others with our ideas, and thereby building a critical mass. Being alert and not falling for the exhortations of demagogues (as happened during some of the past "revolutions") requires a certain intelligence. I see no contradiction between an intelligent, alert citizenry and "living in the now". Accepting responsibility doesn't have to lead to a feeling of victimhood. Also, coming out of a desperate situation is easier when there is a positive feeling. The mistake that many people make is to limit their 'visualization' only to themselves or to blindly follow a demagogue. I also think there could be some validity to the concepts of karma - individual and collective. Collectively, western societies have probably done more harm than good to nature and other people. Recognizing this could help avoid future mistakes. The most recent example of a massive bad karma was allowing the invasion of Iraq to take place. Well, if the MSM was largely culpable, then we need to take responsibility for not having alternative media. It's a battle of ideas out there. If there is not a critical mass for the kind of change we would like to see, we do need to take some responsibility. And my personal experience tells me that offending other people's egos is not going to win me more 'converts', no matter how convinced I am about my ideas.

By the way, all this could be 'New Age' only in the West, and maybe not so elsewhere. So, let's not make 'New Age' into another derogatory term like 'liberal' - which, by the way, is a very respectable term in many countries.

I've known a few small businessmen, and they are mostly bores. Many of them would gladly be sociopaths if they had the ability to head large companies. It's capitalism that puts these monsters in charge. When are we going to bite the bullet and realize that our form of capitalism must be destroyed? When was it written in scripture that making money is the end all of human endeavor?

pffffft

Having lived in the CEO world for 12 years it's not that the Board needs sociopaths to run the company as much as the Board are sociopaths too.

It's all about corporate coups and alliances.

I noticed quite some time ago that the big wheels in corporate america are in mergers and acquisitions. It isn't the management of people and money that gets you the multibillion dollar salary. It is the ability to go after competitors, get them for the price you want, strip them of assets and put them out of business, or otherwise keep them from being real competitors. In the event that the targeted competitor won't sell out, then the objective is to use predatory pricing to bankrupt them, even if it hurts your own company badly for a while. I think that is the nature of the sociopath element required for the job, the ability to abide in that deadly stand-off. The other big skill would be to get what your business needs from government, whether it is labeling laws that benefit your business but keep the public in the dark, or environmental laws that allow you to do harm in order to make profits, or laws that squash the rights of labor (the other, undervalued end of the capitalist equation). I imagine that it does take a very unique individual to be that fast, furious, heartless, stealthy, sly, tricky and completely free of any moral compass.

So what can us peons do? Refuse to buy their products and sell their stock. Avoid voting for their supporters? Perhaps a 110% income tax for averice,,,or break up the corporations before they break us.

Nail on the head - except for this part:

"By changing the rules of the game of business so that sociopathic business behavior is no longer rewarded..."

See, the problem is, sociopaths do not give a shit about rules and laws - that's part of being a good sociopath. Laws prohibiting murder do not stop the SPs from murdering, just as more laws prohibiting the raping and pillaging of America and its people will not stop the sociopaths - who also suffer from the unofficial mental illness Greedism - from raping and pillaging America and its people.

Especially when the American people do absolutely nothing after said raping and pillaging... except ask for more...

"The most democratic workplaces are the least exploitative, because labor has a power to balance capital and management."

I always "harp on" the following and yes, sadly, I am going to do so again.

There IS NO capital without labor.

Capital is not money though the big "financials" seem to think so, and in one way it is since they make money simply by buying and selling paper which produces NOTHING, that is to say, they are NOT PRODUCTIVE in any rational sense of the word.

CAPITAL is bricks and mortar and machinery and infrastructure and natural resources. It takes LABOR to produce CAPITAL, and the sooner the capitalists acknowledge this the better off we will all be. Without labor the capitalist cannot build his factory or his shopping center or his big box store. Without labor the capitalist cannot mine his coal or drill his oil wells. The CEO is nothing in the end but a paper pusher and an order giver. The CEO is NOT a producer or a developer of capital. Without labor the capitalist is more useless than a pimple on a workingman's ass.

There is a political motivation to concentrate wealth.

It is to destroy Social Security.

When one-third of all wages go to the top 1 percent, their Social Security taxes stop at near the 100,000 level.

If that 2 trillion dollars were spread out to the middle class making a maximum 106,000 per year, it would result in about an extra 120 BILLION to fund Social Security.

This is why the republics want CEOs (and you) to fulfill the great old "American Dream" of being allowed to make incredible sums of money. It will ultimately destroy Social Security.

We are in the Gilded Age of corporate feudalism.

The United Scams of America, the United Sociopaths of America - call this nation what you want. This is the exquisite world's capitol of primitive acquisitiveness and the rip-off raised to Shakespearean levels. The only genius left in the USA is the genius of self-destruction.

actually when genetic engineers are going about removing certain
genes from human dna wouldn't it make the most sense to remove
this one first as this one can do more damage to humanity
then any other? rehabilitating these monsters is not possible.
isn't funny how few of a species can harm so many of others?
tom thanks again. you just explained little georgie bush.
education? check. IQ nah!

Legislation can be crafted to end abuses such as corporate pay at the stroke of a pen. If you believe that there is no linkage to legislation and corporate pay, I urge anyone not offering a Thom Hartmann apologetic to go to opensecrets org and follow the money trail including Obama's.

Quid pro quo is standard with those 'investments' by corporations. The role of government is to provide a check against unchecked power. An example of unchecked power is executive pay. For those who can still think a non Hartmann thought, you might consider his disciples who see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil non-sense as a case in point.

I would also urge anyone interested in reading Hartmann's book The Prophets Way, and draw your own conclusions; unless of course you need QS to do your thinking for you.

I see that BodhiHawk is persisting with his "I hate Thom Hartmann " crusade in which he repeats the same charges without providing any examples or specifics.

Hartmann has been a critic of the corporation-centric status quo and a consistent if not perfect Progressive voice for years. I don't always agree with him but I do respect his point of view.

This particular posting belies BH's claim that Hartmann never "gets to the root" of an issue. He thoroughly examines the question of corporate pay as a reflection of the increasingly cruel and inhumane character of corporate behavior.

BH's observation about corporate pay being the result of Congressional inaction is nonsense. Corporations don't base their CEO compensation on what they think Congress will tolerate but on what they think the new CEO can deliver.

Also, corporations have been wining and dining Congressman, Senators, and government officials since the nineteenth century, long before exhorbitant CEO pay ever became an issue.

By trying to flagellate Hartmann with Chris Hedges excellent piece on corporate psychology, BH clearly shows that he doesn't understand either article.

q

Revolution for evolution....evolve out of the dark age of capitalism!

"If there is a "free market" of labor for CEOs, then you'd think there would be a lot of competition for the jobs."

Thom is committing a very common error above, equating a "free market" to a "competitive market". They are not the same.

A free market simply means that the participants are there of their own free will. This is quite different from whether a market is competitive. There are numerous websites that help illustrate these terms for those interested.

"my amateur economist hat on"

There is no sin in confusing the basic terms as long as you resolve not to do so in the future, once you know of your mistake.

As to the subject, I might suggest looking into "Interlocking Directorates" but then you have to make the specific case for it in each instance.

The CEOs should be required to wear a "Scarlet Letter". Probably "T" for theif. Maybe "WMD", "TW" might be better, ie. Toxic Waster.

The good news:

Obama has an "Antitrust Chief".

The bad news: She's focused on DEFENDING AT&T and Verizon.

Additionally, it doesn't appear that Wall Street Banks or Corporate Media are on her short list of businesses in need of an antitrust enema.

But then, you probably could've guessed that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/business/
26antitrust.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

Firstly, I would like to thank Hartamnn for using CD in promoting his new book Threshold from which the essay is culled. When it comes to self-promotion, and self-importance, Hartmann knows how to play the system to its hilt. You won't find a more committed 'true believer' anywhere on the planet than this man.

CEO pay is a crime largely because our Democratic and Republican representatives create carte blanche legislation that allows it. As long as corporate entities continue to fund the campaigns of our representatives, the system will continue to devolve exponentially. Along with campaign payoffs we find corporate payoffs providing free travel for senators and congressman on corporate jets, along with lavish vacations and other perks funding their bought and paid for lifestyle choices. With a broken political system such as ours, nothing is likely to change regarding CEO abuses regardless of how many books Hartmann writes against it. His focus is the cart rather than the horses who move the cart forward. CEO's will continue to feed from the polluted trough as long as our Democratic and Republican friends allow it.

Hartmann touches on the psychological underpinnings of self-interest which perpetuates the system of abuse, but fails to see the big picture. Rarely does he go to the root of the dysfunction. And the dysfunction is always mandated by our elected officials. Hartmann undercuts his own thesis every time he promotes a Democrat to office. He speaks with what my native friends call a forked tongue. He helps to get Democrats elected and then when they fail to deliver he offers a brief critique against them. Another self perpetuating bio feed back loop that changes nothing and provides cover for his mistaken support of people like Obama.

We might ask ourselves why? If you ever read Hartmann's book, The Prophets Way, you might find a clue to his belief system and thinking on the matter.

Hartmann is part of a new age, spiritual elite, that operates under the belief that tells us that our thinking creates our reality. This is in the same system of frames used by people like Marrianne Williamson, Ester and Jerry Hicks, or Dr. Wayne Dyer, to name a few, that believes that the way you think shapes transformational change in one's personal life, along with world wide transformation.

As a case in point, have you ever noticed on his radio show how he integrates affirmations (and lets be clear that using affirmations is a key belief of the new age movement) when he responds to those calling in asking him how he is doing, and he always offers this rejoinder in response, "I am good but I will get better." (Hartmann must repeat that phrase hundreds of times on his show.) Repeating positive affirmations is a key component of the New Age belief system that tells us that the words we use creates one's personal, and physical reality.

When you read these books (as I have done including The Prophets Way) there is a clear projection that we bring prosperity into our lives based on the way we think. But Hartmann has used it in other realms of engagment including politics. Now I am not against any one's belief system per say, but when it is used to manipulate multitudes by NLP principles to mobilize people, and their mobilization is unconscious, then they ought to understand the models of their manipulation and what it is based on.

I urge you people to read Chris Hedges recent piece, whose words are prophetic, and insightful. He talks precisely about this issue. As a point of juxtaposition to Hartmann, it tells us a lot about his career manipulating the masses to get Democrats elected, but with no significant movement of the progressive cause.

This taken from Hedges article is addressing the use of positive psychology used by corporations against those who do not march lock step with the company line, but the same standard can be applied to any organization or 'group think' agenda, including Hartmann's clever use of NLP to manipulate people to his ideology.

"Those who fail to exhibit positive attitudes, no matter the external reality, are seen as maladjusted and in need of assistance. Their attitudes need correction. Once we adopt an upbeat vision of reality, positive things will happen. This belief encourages us to flee from reality when reality does not elicit positive feelings. These specialists in "happiness" have formulated something they call the "Law of Attraction." It argues that we attract those things in life, whether it is money, relationships or employment, which we focus on. Suddenly, abused and battered wives or children, the unemployed, the depressed and mentally ill, the illiterate, the lonely, those grieving for lost loved ones, those crushed by poverty, the terminally ill, those fighting with addictions, those suffering from trauma, those trapped in menial and poorly paid jobs, those whose homes are in foreclosure or who are filing for bankruptcy because they cannot pay their medical bills, are to blame for their negativity. The ideology justifies the cruelty of unfettered capitalism, shifting the blame from the power elite to those they oppress. And many of us have internalized this pernicious message, which in times of difficulty leads to personal despair, passivity and disillusionment."

I urge you to read Hedges prophetic piece, but look through an inclusive lens to see how both sides of the duopoly use it, often to our collective demise.

Forgetting CEOs for a moment, in all my years of work, I've hardly had a manager who I respected as a human being or, for that matter, who I thought was an effective manager--at least from an employee perspective.

"An 'unregulated' marketplace is like an 'unregulated' football game - chaos."

Not quite. Even the chaos of unregulated free-for-all games is usually more truly competitive than the mega-corporate marketplace of unfettered capitalist enterprise. The latter is always "regulated" by its singular "greed is good" ethic. It's those unconscionable constraints for the common good that offend the libertarians.

First, the title is off. Paychecks are inanimate objects, CEOs are not. CEOs are sociopathic, not paychecks. And not all CEOs, but many are.

As Gail alluded to, sociopathy is not limited to the boardroom. We see many sociopaths in Congress, the White House, the Cabinet, K Street, and other institutions that are part of the governance industry.

These people are not there for us. Trust me. They are there to fulfill their career dreams, or personal dreams. Be it power (mostly this), travel, the high of rubbing elbows with big-shots (and of being big-shots themselves) - it draws the same personalities into high power positions. These people are insatiable, so just electing them or hiring them into executive positions is not enough. They want more - always more.

If we look closely at sociopathic people, I believe we would find at least one authoritarian parent (usually a father) or issues around abandonment. Thus, sociopaths are like little children who must please Daddy for their whole lives and of course, never will, so they keep trying by any means.

Sad. Dangerously, sad.

"An "unregulated" marketplace is like an "unregulated" football game - chaos. And chaos is a state perfectly exploited by sociopaths, be they serial killers, warlords, or CEOs."

Well then, if this is true, we must have a good number of them running our federal, state and local governments. But fortunately, there are many "mere mortals" who have been stepping-up-to-the-plate to prosecute these sociopaths.

Hartmann does a good job of expressing what everyone who's ever had to work in corporate America has known for years, especially since the Reagan administration. Compassion and concern for fellow human beings are burdens in the business world and genuine barriers to career success.

We know from glimpses into this corporate mindset that ambitious corporate neophytes learn quickly that possession of good skills may get one a job but demonstrations of cruelty and heartlessness will get one promoted (see the documentary "The Corporation" for some examples).

I'm convinced that one of the biggest obstacles which female executives must overcome is the generalized perception - especially among their male colleagues - that women simply cannot shed their humanity as quickly and as easily as men. Obviously many can (e.g. Condi Rice, Ann Coulter, Nancy Pelosi, et al.)

As I suggested, nothing in this article is news but it always bears discussing.

q

And one can notice this 'command and control' structure of sociopathic behavior filtering throughout the rest of the kingdom through the steadfast devotion people with specialist training--ie., good at only one thing, but very good at that one thing--have for their own paycheck. It's a simple 'cut and dried' sociopathy that regulates everyone. People are trained to do one thing good, and through the 'money supply', have that skill, that one good skill, converted surreptitiously to the dictates of the sociopathic high command. Be it doctors or auto mechnics...

Unless one can somehow declare freedom from their paycheck people automatically then, WORK FOR EVIL. Even as they think themselves--good. Aren't we all good??

CAPITALISM.