EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
- Obama Cans Regulator Who Crossed Wall Street
- Pentagon Bracing for Public Dissent Over Climate and Energy Shocks
Popular content
Today's Top News
Profiling CEOs and Their Sociopathic Paychecks
The Wall Street Journal reported last week that "Executives and other highly compensated employees now receive more than one-third of all pay in the US... Highly paid employees received nearly $2.1 trillion of the $6.4 trillion in total US pay in 2007, the latest figures available."
One of the questions often asked when the subject of CEO pay comes up is, "What could a person such as William McGuire or Lee Raymond (the former CEOs of UnitedHealth and ExxonMobil, respectively) possibly do to justify a $1.7 billion paycheck or a $400 million retirement bonus?"
It's an interesting question. If there is a "free market" of labor for CEOs, then you'd think there would be a lot of competition for the jobs. And a lot of people competing for the positions would drive down the pay. All UnitedHealth's stockholders would have to do to avoid paying more than $1 billion to McGuire is find somebody to do the same CEO job for half a billion. And all they'd have to do to save even more is find somebody to do the job for a mere $100 million. Or maybe even somebody who'd work the necessary sixty-hour weeks for only $1 million.
So why is executive pay so high?
I've examined this with both my psychotherapist hat on and my amateur economist hat on, and only one rational answer presents itself: CEOs in America make as much money as they do because there really is a shortage of people with their skill set. And it's such a serious shortage that some companies have to pay as much as $1 million a day to have somebody successfully do the job.
But what part of being a CEO could be so difficult-so impossible for mere mortals-that it would mean that there are only a few hundred individuals in the United States capable of performing it?
In my humble opinion, it's the sociopath part.
CEOs of community-based businesses are typically responsive to their communities and decent people. But the CEOs of most of the world's largest corporations daily make decisions that destroy the lives of many other human beings.
Only about 1 to 3 percent of us are sociopaths-people who don't have normal human feelings and can easily go to sleep at night after having done horrific things. And of that 1 percent of sociopaths, there's probably only a fraction of a percent with a college education. And of that tiny fraction, there's an even tinier fraction that understands how business works, particularly within any specific industry.
Thus there is such a shortage of people who can run modern monopolistic, destructive corporations that stockholders have to pay millions to get them to work. And being sociopaths, they gladly take the money without any thought to its social consequences.
Today's modern transnational corporate CEOs-who live in a private-jet-and-limousine world entirely apart from the rest of us-are remnants from the times of kings, queens, and lords. They reflect the dysfunctional cultural (and Calvinist/Darwinian) belief that wealth is proof of goodness, and that that goodness then justifies taking more of the wealth.
Democracy in the workplace is known as a union. The most democratic workplaces are the least exploitative, because labor has a power to balance capital and management. And looking around the world, we can clearly see that those cultures that most embrace the largest number of their people in an egalitarian and democratic way (in and out of the workplace) are the ones that have the highest quality of life. Those that are the most despotic, from the workplace to the government, are those with the poorest quality of life.
Over time, balance and democratic oversight will always produce the best results. 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.
By changing the rules of the game of business so that sociopathic business behavior is no longer rewarded (and, indeed, is punished - as Teddy Roosevelt famously did as the "trustbuster" and FDR did when he threatened to send "war profiteers" to jail), we can create a less dysfunctional and more egalitarian society. And that's an important first step back from the thresholds to environmental and economic disaster we're now facing.
This article is largely excerpted from Thom Hartmann's new book "Threshold: The Crisis of Western Culture."
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
100 Comments so far
Show AllAnd 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.
We're going to hell for this~
(If we're not there already.) The ONLY way we're ever going to be really good is if we overthrow this system, this sociopathic ideology that is in place.
That's going to take lots of lions with ROAR, not a bunch of dumbass sheep however good they are at making wool....
"Unless one can somehow declare freedom from their paycheck people automatically then, WORK FOR EVIL."
Good point, ned.
So, the question is: How do we declare freedom from our paychecks? Is it possible? Can we pare down our way of life enough so that we don't need a paycheck (some people have done this)? Can we pare down enough to leave our current corporate job and get a job in a more benign setting?
What if we were to all (or many of us) do this? What would happen to the corporations with sociopathic CEOs? What would happen to this whole sociopathic system if we were to pare down our lifestyles and consumption?
What is the real issue here? Who is in control? Who supplies the labor, the blood for the system? What is stopping us from doing what we should do?
If we understand this and do nothing to take back control, aren't we also sociopaths? Or maybe, mere psycopaths? Either way, it's a crazy system we're part of and we have a choice as to whether we want to be crazy players in it or take back our sanity.
http://www.yourmoneyoryourlife.org
Ted, I like you.
I'm working on it, we're working on it. One of the main things is to see through 'superficiality', to observe the mere postures. This is how you learn to understand what 'actual' (REAL) good actually is. Don't work too much for agreement, because that is only superficial a lot of times and cowards do this, constantly. Instead, work for UNDERSTANDING. Which would then be a deep authentic form of 'agreement'. Try not to be fooled.
Join the lions, our pack of wolves. I know you are.
thanks,
nedlud
Ted;
You ask: "How do we declare freedom from our paychecks? Is it possible?"
Short answer: NO. So long as we must subsist on the fruits of our labor (paychecks are a medium of exchange for that labor) we are bound to work & be productive.
Alternate question: Who controls the terms of our labor - and the paychecks that result?
Alternate answer: As an individual you are subject to the mercy and dictates of the employer who has complete control. But if all employees bind together, management is forced to reason and negotiate with the employees to achieve an equitable and mutually acceptable distribution of the proceeds of labor. It's called a union.
Union operations (like corporate management) can be ugly - but, in the long haul, it beats the hell out of slavery.
"Short answer: NO. So long as we must subsist on the fruits of our labor (paychecks are a medium of exchange for that labor) we are bound to work & be productive."
I think you conflate working with being productive. Much of what many people do is not productive work, IMO. And if you asked them in all honesty, I'll bet most people would agree. Productivity is a term that is completely subjective to the whims of the system that controls work. Who are we being productive for? To what ends?
Of course, I am at the mercy of the dictates of my employer, and I full well know this, as do most. That's just the way it is now, though, there are alternatives that may work, in an alternate reality (e.g. cooperative/mutual ownership, less time working, giving our time to things that matter). Pipe dream? Perhaps, but what dreams aren't pipe dreams as first?
I am in no way dissing unions - they've had, and continue to have, an important role in winning concessions for workers, across the spectrum. However, unions cannot change the power structure that is in place now - they are merely bargaining chips for the crumbs.
"Alternate question: Who controls the terms of our labor - and the paychecks that result? "
Ultimately, each individual in this society controls the terms of our labor because we provide the labor. Or, said differently: We provide our life energy, our one, single life's energy, getting our paychecks. I do, as does nearly everyone else in this society.
Let's drill down a little though (or, in Morphius' words, go down the rabbit hole). What is all that labor and all those paychecks producing? Who are they producing them for? Who gains the most from it? Who loses the most? And finally, what impact is all that labor and earning and spending having on our society and our planet?
I can't even begin to imagine how many words, how much time, or how much bandwidth has been spent by hundreds of people here on Common Dreams raging against the machine, yet what good does that do? Has it changed anything? At all? The machine doesn't care. Hell, the machine doesn't notice. It grinds on and it grinds us down in the process.
Now, ask yourself: Who is feeding this machine? Who oils its wheels? Who pushes its buttons? Who services its needs? And, more importantly: Who keeps this machine going strong?
We do.
Is there a way out? I think so. And it isn't just by joining a union. It's by realizing your part in it and altering your behavior accordingly. I have, and continue to. Not quickly, and not in a straight line, but I am doing what one person can do. If enough people remove themselves from the machine as much as possible, then the machine will slow down and we can demand changes - real, healthy change. If enough people don't, then we will see this journey to its final sordid destination.
'Try to be either poor enough so the bad use of money doesn't sway you, or be rich enough so the bad use of money doesn't sway you. In the first method, you are likely going to become a victim. In the second method, you are likely going to be a victimizer. But these are the two methods and the dangers associated with the two methods. All in all the first method is more spiritually sound because it generates more wisdom. That is if you can stand the level of personal suffering. But understanding does come of personal suffering, you become more intuitive rather than just rational. There is great value in the intuitve mode, though its effects are not always easily or casually observed and thus not fully comprehensible in ordinary human debates.'
ned,
Please don't fall into the either/or trap. Not being rich does not mean being poor. There is a middle ground called "enough" where we can live a very decent, comfortable, and fulfilling life. Quite a few have done it, and I am working toward it.
Suffering. Interesting. What does suffering mean? What does it imply? And, what are we doing now? What are many doing now? Have we been lulled into believing that we are not suffering? Maybe our bodies are fat and happy, but what about what's inside?
Let's be careful about the trap that this system sets.
You've got a lot of questions on your mind there today, friend. :)
Yeah, seems like that's all I have that counts nowadays.
"But understanding does come of personal suffering, you become more intuitive rather than just rational."
Suffering is not the parent of understanding, nor does it generate intuiton. Occasionally, a person who suffers uses the experience to develop capacities that might have gone undeveloped. Occasionally.
It is a nice fantasy. If it were true, we would long before now have been liberated by the accrued uderstanding and intuition of the millions of people who have suffered around the globe and through the ages.
A problem in disempowering the sociopathy is this: people who are brutal are good at it. We become good at what we practice regularly. Sociopaths practice their behavior all day, every day, and have done all their lives. The rest of us have not spent more than a few hours trying to manage such people. We are not good at it, we don't know how to do it, and we fail.
People who understand, are quite good at what they do. Better even, than the sociopaths.
Ted;
Good points! You've taken this to a deeper (& more legitimate) level than the capital/labor dynamic.
Your comment: "Is there a way out? I think so. And it isn't just by joining a union. It's by realizing your part in it and altering your behavior accordingly...If enough people don't, then we will see this journey to its final sordid destination."
A few people have.
For a remarkable example, look up "Hutterites".
They are a spiritually centered community that slipped the bonds of the "machine" over 400 years ago and have survived and prospered in North America for over 100 years. Their ethic is impeccable.
Good luck with your journey...
Snoop,
I know of the Hutterites, but not in depth. I guess, as with the Amish, they have cohesive, tight-knight communities based on faith and a strict way of life.
Maybe that's what is needed in the rest of our society. People do need to belong, and that doesn't change.
My point is that we can each do things to start to decouple from the system, yet over and over I come up against people who are looking to others for solutions. Maybe what I'm missing is the tribal piece, the sense of belonging, of community, that people need.
Interestingly, I am also involved in building community, so maybe I'm not seeing that most Americans do not feel like they are part of a larger community and need to before they take steps to change the way they live. Maybe, that's what's missing from my approach.
Food for thought. Thanks.
I know of no lasting community of people that is not bound by religion.
From the Amish and Mennonites to the Hutterites and their offshoot groups (e.g., the Bruderhof), monasteries and convents -- these groups have remained while no political or life style based group has been able to sustain itself over time.
Many people are appalled by excommunications, shunning and such; but the only way to guarantee the community's future is to have some kind of agreed upon codes.
Preventing erosion of the community by outside influences is of paramount importance. To let anything in, to allow anything to occur, is to cease being separate; and it is the separation from many that enables one to attach to the few in one's own group. It is not a group if it has no limits.
Many of us in urban areas live near people we do not know. Creating a sense of community in a neighborhood is a big enterprise. In the end, we all benefit from whatever we can do together, yet there remain countless people in every place who -- by virtue of different values, income, social class -- never include themselves in their neighborhood's offerings.
A religious community that takes care of its members from cradle to grave is a far different thing than our loosely knit groups who may eat together, garden together, and go our own ways at the end of the day, the end of a job, or the end of the mortgage.
human beings are naturally comprehensive, not specialist...
nature AND nurture~
Exactly. It is only by violating both the terms of nature, AND, of nurture, that we have become so god-damned fucking dumb on this planet!!!!
r.b fuller has pointed out that specialization and specialized language is a strategy of power to prevent any challenge, particularly from intelligence, by keeping the comprehensive view and thus the possibility of effective action for itself...
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
"Obviously many can (e.g. Condi Rice, Ann Coulter, Nancy Pelosi, et al.)"
Glaring omission -- Hillary Clinton.
And some would add the loon from the north as well as the Iron Lady of the UK.
Point taken about Clinton and Thatcher but I tend to think that Palin is just a dumbass.
q
True. But that just proves that shedding humanity and dumbassery aren't mutually exclusive.
"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.
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.
"First, the title is off. Paychecks are inanimate objects, CEOs are not. CEOs are sociopathic, not paychecks."
I believe that the title alludes to the fact that the astronomical pay being given to CEOs is symptomatic or indicative of corporate sociopathology.
q
Good point. Touché.
"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.
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.
I have had good managers, though have often noticed that managers like to talk about themselves.
In general, I have seen that the higher up the ladder people are, the more ego-centric they seem to be. Not in every case, but in general.
It really is a matter of personality and character. What our society defines as success is in many cases ego-centric sociopathy.
"In general, I have seen that the higher up the ladder people are, the more ego-centric they seem to be. Not in every case, but in general."
I agree.
I've also noticed - on at least four different occasions during my career - that good managers tend to fall prey to corporate politics because they concentrate on producing good work and not on making others look bad. Their competence makes them targets of corporate weasels.
q
In a system that rewards performance with status symbols, the people likely to rise up the corporate ladder are those who are most attracted to status symbols - idolatry. People who are attracted to shiny objects are rarely good with other human beings, and are not the most intelligent people on the planet either.
If this reward system doesn't change, then nothing else will. Until the earth has been stripped down to the bone to make trophies for sociopaths.
Sorry. Duplicate post.
q
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.
"This belief encourages us to flee from reality when reality does not elicit positive feelings."
Obviously a very attractive belief system with many adherents. The corollary, of course, is that flights from reality thus engender plenty of wishful thinking that works to the advantage of "change you can believe in" candidates -- among others.
Well, I'm not one to shoot the messenger, no matter if he is a flawed vessel.
Hartmann makes some good points, whether he promotes Democrats or not. I don't have to vote the way he does to see the validity of some of what he writes.
Thanks for the Hedges info - I'll read it.
And I agree up to a point that having a positive attitude doesn't necessary alter reality, except that it alters the reality of the owner of said attitude. I can see his point - the "be happy" philosophy is not reality. But neither is the "see all the shit around us all the time" attitude. Both attitudes suppress us from doing the work that needs to be done with a clear mind.
So, I continue to live with a foot in both worlds - the one that is, and the one that I want to see. That's what keeps me working for a better world.
In other words: I'm not going to let the sociopathic corporatists stop me from enjoying my life.
Sioux Rose
BODHIHAWK: Quite an in-depth and incisive analysis on your part. You did a better job than I in articulating powerful comparisons. Your post also touches on numerous debates I have had with others in the "New Age" realm. Actually, astrology (which holds my respect greatly) is very "OLD Age" stuff. Given that time via its orbital bodies circles, all Truths remain viable, and its evidence always comes full circle. The relevance of that analogy to your post is that all of the New Age "change your reality" devices do two things: first, they focus totally on the self. In this way, what gets published under the rubric of self-help/new age/spirituality mirrors the Right wing political mantra that "You're on your own." Nice fit. Second, there IS a power to positive thinking. Truly the mind IS builder. However, by focusing ONLY on this particular human endowment, all other ramifications, along with the awareness of mitigating factors (like personal and group karma) are lost.
It's my view that a sinister co-optation of the spiritual discussions of our times narrowed the subject matter to fit in nicely with Reaganomics. Each individual is expected to earn their own way, either through sweat, family $, or positive thinking. One can see this focus ONLY on the positive (which is also VERY popular in many Christian churches) was used by the Bush Junta in its illegal decision to block the TRUTH about Iraq from public/media broadcasts. To maintain the ILLUSION that all was going well required a whitewashing of what was REALLY taking place.
California has a lot of people who subscribe to this type of thought process, and thus when the state was recently on the cusp of bankruptcy, that self-deluded stubborn belief that: "It'll all work out" was very much on display. Were genuine changes made to offset economic realities? Borrowing continually against a bet on the future is another form of this delusion, and it's running the REAL economy into a symbolic sewer.
I've thought about approaching Michael Moore and suggesting he do a film on End Times. Bring up the historical record of other phases where persons were utterly convinced the end had come; and in terms of modern times, link it with the "prophetic trifecta" consisting of the NASA/weather scientists (who have bonafides behind their predictions), the make-war/M.A.D. advocates, who do what they can to court Armageddon in the form of a Middle East nuclear cauldron; and the Christians who believe the "Left Behind" narrative. This group's orientation could be juxtaposed with the shared belief on the part of many truly spiritual persons who are cognizant of numerous overlapping prophecies. I think such a documentary could be quite timely and influential in holding up the mirror that we recognize our own personal AND collective responsibility in shaping a viable future together.
What we term reality is the product of many streams of acion, thought, and energy. To signal out only ONE causative factor is not only limited, but it creates misconceptions about the true nature of our experience on the earth plane.
From the Chris Hedges piece you mentioned:
"This flight into the collective self-delusion of corporate ideology, especially as we undergo financial collapse and the pillaging of the U.S. treasury by corporations, is no more helpful in solving our problems than alchemy."
And this is what I am addressing. Everything I have suggested is as anti-corporate as possible. Yet, folks would rather wait in their corporate-induced cocoons of familiarity and fear (and the familiarity of fear) and wait. Wait for what? God only knows. The Leader? Some group or organization that will lead us all to the promised land? Godot?
Who the hell knows.
Hedges is right, we are self-deluded. SELF-deluded. If we think that the system will change on its own, or by dint of the people's protestations, we are very self-deluded.
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
The CEOs should be required to wear a "Scarlet Letter". Probably "T" for theif. Maybe "WMD", "TW" might be better, ie. Toxic Waster.
I like the idea of branding the letters into their cheeks and foreheads.
q
"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.
Revolution for evolution....evolve out of the dark age of capitalism!
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
q~
I don't know this BodhiHawk fellow, but I do know you and I think you are more correct. I think BodhiHawk has a rather naive idyllic view of governance, as it is now in this country and is not fully aware of how fascist and inseparable our 'government' is from the corporations. Perhaps he really attaches himself to the few functioning good individuals who are in office. He also does seem to have a real problem with Thom Hartmann. I suppose Hartmann does 'sell himself' (kind of a capitalist), though and that is an irritant to BodhiHawk and I can see why it is.
nedlud
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.
Hmm. I'm a little familiar with opensecrets.org and I don't recall any articles which discuss links between CEO compensation and Congressional inaction. Perhaps you could link to a specific piece to support your contention.
Generally, corporations are concerned with influencing regulatory legislation which they see as threats to their revenue sources and not as limitations on their expenditures.
q
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!
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.
We are in the Gilded Age of corporate feudalism.
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.