New economy

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Lots of possible ways (and I don’t ask anyone to agree with them):

-Nationalize vital resources

-Increase corporate tax rates

-Cap CEO and other upper-management pay

-Long-term investment in renewable resources 

-Funding research into clean(er) energy

-Universal health and wellness care

-Large-scale public transport

Boru

Have you read the Manifesto?  Marx & Engels advocated, 1)  An end to child labor, and 2)  A national income tax.

Yes, I’ve read it. 

Boru

[Spongebob]

I’d say, ‘Four of those seven ideas are about nothing BUT innovation, and the other three are about financing it.’

It isn’t so much about reevaluating how innovation is accomplished as it is about recognizing how it’s always been accomplished. For more than a century, technology has been almost exclusively driven by either governments or by private/corporate research largely funded by governments. The notion of the genius ‘garage tinkerer’ who single-handedly changes the world has become a fable.

Boru

List:
1-Nationalize vital resources
2-Increase corporate tax rates
3-Cap CEO and other upper-management pay
4-Long-term investment in renewable resources 
5-Funding research into clean(er) energy
6-Universal health and wellness care
7-Large-scale public transport

I don't see the four you are referring to.  I could see that maybe 4, 6 and 7 are about innovation.  I could see #7 emerging with the emergence of autonomous vehicles.  No more need to own a car, just request a ride and go wherever you want, free.

I think Apple and Microsoft would both disagree with you, and those two companies were the largest innovative force of the later 20th century.  However, the Internet was absolutely created and funded by government resources, and of course that's been the biggest driver of innovation and profitability since the 90's.  There's also massive government resources invested in all forms of renewables and even oil extraction.  But what has that gotten us?  Only the oil companies and a small percentage of tech CEO's got rich because of these things.  I guess you could put Bezos in there as well.  The vast majority of that wealth is not spreading out no matter where the investment comes from.  How do we change that?

My preference would be more taxation of corporations and that could be turned into free health care and free education, but we have massive political forces that won't allow that.  They also oppose any sort of regulation on industry, so that simply won't happen in the current political atmosphere.  Are those the best solutions?  If so, how do we convince people so?

Cap CEO and other upper-management pay - Wouldn't this work to disincentive people from "climbing the ladder" of success?

[The Grand Nudger]

Not anymore than knowing the upper limit of the salary for your next promotion does now.

[Spongebob]

Not anymore than knowing the upper limit of the salary for your next promotion does now.

Taking a higher level position often involves much higher responsibility.  CEO's especially.  I can remember back in the 90's, when CEO pay was starting to skyrocket, companies often justified these higher salaries with the argument that this was necessary to attract really talented individuals who could lead the company to the next level, whatever that is.  If any part of that is true, then capping CEO pay would diminish this in some way.  What would you say to a board who says we need to be able to offer the next CEO $100 Million but the cap is $2.5 Mil?

Understand that I'm no fan of these stratospheric salaries, but I can't just arbitrarily make the argument that they deserve less.  We need a genuine argument to counter this.  "Give that money to the maintenance crew and the company will soar" just isn't a compelling argument.

[The Grand Nudger]

There's nothing I could say to a board or to a company so poorly thought out and constructed that they suddenly need 100mil to satisfy something they have 2.5mil allocated to today.

They're already fucked. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a sinking ship full of corporate looters. It's really not an issue of compelling arguments like "give it to the janitor". Sure, give it to the janitor..if your metrics show you that investment in janitors brings you a return. If not, fuck the janitor. Worrying bout the wellfare of the little people at the bottom out of the goodness of our hearts is the business of government, ostensibly paid for by all the filthy filthy lucre this very talented ceo is creating in increased tax revenue.

(If you asked around, btw, you'd find it's a pretty commonly accepted fact that investing in employees is a more sound strategy than being extorted by execs. The kind of ceo worth 100mil to a company paying 2.5 would certainly have to understand that if they intended to deliver)

[Spongebob]

There's nothing I could say to a board or to a company so poorly thought out and constructed that they suddenly need 100mil to satisfy something they have 2.5mil allocated to today.

They're already fucked.  I wouldn't be surprised if it was a sinking ship full of corporate looters.  It's really not an issue of compelling arguments like "give it to the janitor".  Sure, give it to the janitor..if your metrics show you that investment in janitors brings you a return.  If not, fuck the janitor.  Worrying bout the wellfare of the little people at the bottom out of the goodness of our hearts is the business of government, ostensibly paid for by all the filthy filthy lucre this very talented ceo is creating in increased tax revenue.

Well, those numbers are just speculative, but somewhat representative.  It really does happen and has happened, often with disastrous results.  Do you remember when Carley Fiorina was hired by HP back in the late 90's?  She was given a steep financial incentive to come over with high expectations of the company soaring.  You can lookup the details on Wiki if you like but she was given significant compensation and of course, made some horrific decisions and was fired just a few years later.  But this is not an isolated event; it happens a lot and not always with bad results.  Sometimes it actually works.

If you aren't motivated by the janitor argument, what then?  The reason for this is to increase dividends, which is the be-all, end-all to corp. boards.  What other reason would they have to limit CEO pay?

[The Grand Nudger]

They don't have any reason to cap ceo pay at any arbitrary number. They have all sorts of reasons (counted in dollars and cents) to cap ceo pay at some ratio of their overall expenditures such that another dollar spent on the ceo doesn't give you less in dividends than another dollar spent on their underlings.

[Spongebob]

They don't have any reason to cap ceo pay at any arbitrary number.  They have all sorts of reasons (counted in dollars and cents) to cap ceo pay at some ratio of their overall expenditures such that another dollar spent on the ceo doesn't give you less in dividends than another dollar spent on their underlings.

That's no different than saying we should spend proportionally on a CEO who has the potential to expand our enterprise, which is what they do now and often results in massive CEO pay.  So, you are saying no change is needed then.

[The Grand Nudger]

That’s not what they do now. What they do now amounts to raiding and pillaging. Not just the employees…but the shareholders as well.

You’re looking at current ceo pay as an issue for the underclasses, and it is- but it’s an issue for the monied class as well. Which of the two compelling interests is more likely to amount to change, in your estimation?

[Disagreeable]

Soylent Green. I don't think my great grandkids will mind long pork.

We should all just stop eating living feeling breathing sentient beings.