Posted by moy23 on 10/11/2010 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 10/11/2010 12:03:00 PM (view original):
I completely disagree with that. It's entirely possible to run an efficient organization without having "turning a profit" as a main goal. And I notice you have to twist my words to claim I said they should only focus on immediate short-term costs in order to make your argument work.

so then how much money would one have to "turn in profit" to be set up for the future? please quantitate.

73 kagillion.

Seriously, moy, what a dumb question.

Posted by antonsirius on 10/11/2010 12:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 10/11/2010 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 10/11/2010 12:03:00 PM (view original):
I completely disagree with that. It's entirely possible to run an efficient organization without having "turning a profit" as a main goal. And I notice you have to twist my words to claim I said they should only focus on immediate short-term costs in order to make your argument work.

so then how much money would one have to "turn in profit" to be set up for the future? please quantitate.

73 kagillion.

Seriously, moy, what a dumb question.

I thought your response was dumb so provided a dumb answer. Please explain how its possible to run a business without turning a profit as a main goal? I'll pick it apart. If you take money to pay for say a social initiative then that money has to come from somewhere else.... maybe less employees, lower salaries, or from another departments budget It's all about turning a profit first.... that's how all non-government business stay in business. that doesn't mean a company ignores all other social factors like equal pay, going green, workplace conditions, etc. You are associating all ceos with Bernie ebbers, enron, etc... I don't believe they are all like that. It's an extreme imo. The bad Apple spoils the bunch.

Posted by moy23 on 10/11/2010 12:33:00 PM (view original):
Okay Anton - I get it. I read an article this morning that stipulated that 6 of 10 obama dems genuinely distrust businesses. Until now - I did not even consider this in your debate. I assume this is where you fit in - correct me if I'm wrong.

I'd like to say that most execs (the vast majority) imo make their decisions based on all factors... i.e. opportunity costs, etc. The ultimate goal is to maximize profit and grow the business, yes, but I believe that many of these same people have integrity and don't sacrifice all well being based on maximizing profit. Like my father-in-laws example - he looks at the bottom-line first but before he makes a decision he considers the impact on the community, employees, and patients.

Another CEO I know runs a $6,000,000 in sales catering company. When times got tough last year and he had to fire some people. His staff suggested they would cut back their own hours to keep their co-workers on until times get better. Thats what his company did as well as work with an outside agency to provide employees discounts on things like diapers, toilet paper, basic needs, etc and help lower his employee daily household expenses outside of work

Even TK for wis said to me while golfing that the hardest part of doing what he did here was factoring in that every decison he makes has an impact on some 40 or so livlihoods of his employees and their families.

I wouldn't say it's a question of trust or distrust.

I have a great deal of faith in humanity as individuals. I fully believe that CEOs, by and large, treat their employees well and are concerned about them, give thought to how their decisions impact loyal customers, etc etc.

But the CEO as a function within a corporation is required not to consider anything other than maximizing shareholder value. That's the job I "trust" them to do.

Now, humans are also great at justifying anything. So it's pretty easy for a CEO to defend whatever they decide to do in the name of "maximizing value". Give employees a decent, affordable health care package? That's "maximizing value" by keeping employees happier and more productive. Offer up a cheap plan that's total crap, a la McDonald's? That's "maximizing value" in the name of cost savings.

So expressions of concern don't really mean much, in the end. What they actually do is what matters. There are plenty of CEOs, like your caterer above, who I'd say count among the "good guys" based upon your anecdote. Maybe the problem is that we don't hear enough about them, and too much about the Fiorinas and Whitmans (let's not even start on the Wall St bunch) of the world. But it certainly seems like the "good guy" CEOs -- based on their actions, not their words -- are in the distinct minority.

Posted by moy23 on 10/11/2010 12:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 10/11/2010 12:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 10/11/2010 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 10/11/2010 12:03:00 PM (view original):
I completely disagree with that. It's entirely possible to run an efficient organization without having "turning a profit" as a main goal. And I notice you have to twist my words to claim I said they should only focus on immediate short-term costs in order to make your argument work.

so then how much money would one have to "turn in profit" to be set up for the future? please quantitate.

73 kagillion.

Seriously, moy, what a dumb question.

I thought your response was dumb so provided a dumb answer. Please explain how its possible to run a business without turning a profit as a main goal? I'll pick it apart. If you take money to pay for say a social initiative then that money has to come from somewhere else.... maybe less employees, lower salaries, or from another departments budget It's all about turning a profit first.... that's how all non-government business stay in business. that doesn't mean a company ignores all other social factors like equal pay, going green, workplace conditions, etc. You are associating all ceos with Bernie ebbers, enron, etc... I don't believe they are all like that. It's an extreme imo. The bad Apple spoils the bunch.

Seriously? You don't see the difference between having a main goal of maximizing profits, and then figuring out what you want to do with the money after the fact, and having specific concrete goals with specific concrete price tags, and then figuring out how to generate the revenue necessary to accomplish them?

You don't see how that is going to affect every single decision you make?

Posted by antonsirius on 10/11/2010 1:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 10/11/2010 12:33:00 PM (view original):
Okay Anton - I get it. I read an article this morning that stipulated that 6 of 10 obama dems genuinely distrust businesses. Until now - I did not even consider this in your debate. I assume this is where you fit in - correct me if I'm wrong.

I'd like to say that most execs (the vast majority) imo make their decisions based on all factors... i.e. opportunity costs, etc. The ultimate goal is to maximize profit and grow the business, yes, but I believe that many of these same people have integrity and don't sacrifice all well being based on maximizing profit. Like my father-in-laws example - he looks at the bottom-line first but before he makes a decision he considers the impact on the community, employees, and patients.

Another CEO I know runs a $6,000,000 in sales catering company. When times got tough last year and he had to fire some people. His staff suggested they would cut back their own hours to keep their co-workers on until times get better. Thats what his company did as well as work with an outside agency to provide employees discounts on things like diapers, toilet paper, basic needs, etc and help lower his employee daily household expenses outside of work

Even TK for wis said to me while golfing that the hardest part of doing what he did here was factoring in that every decison he makes has an impact on some 40 or so livlihoods of his employees and their families.

I wouldn't say it's a question of trust or distrust.

I have a great deal of faith in humanity as individuals. I fully believe that CEOs, by and large, treat their employees well and are concerned about them, give thought to how their decisions impact loyal customers, etc etc.

But the CEO as a function within a corporation is required not to consider anything other than maximizing shareholder value. That's the job I "trust" them to do.

Now, humans are also great at justifying anything. So it's pretty easy for a CEO to defend whatever they decide to do in the name of "maximizing value". Give employees a decent, affordable health care package? That's "maximizing value" by keeping employees happier and more productive. Offer up a cheap plan that's total crap, a la McDonald's? That's "maximizing value" in the name of cost savings.

So expressions of concern don't really mean much, in the end. What they actually do is what matters. There are plenty of CEOs, like your caterer above, who I'd say count among the "good guys" based upon your anecdote. Maybe the problem is that we don't hear enough about them, and too much about the Fiorinas and Whitmans (let's not even start on the Wall St bunch) of the world. But it certainly seems like the "good guy" CEOs -- based on their actions, not their words -- are in the distinct minority.

Thats where we disagree then. I think the "bad guy" ceos are the minority (but get all the publicity) meaning the vast majority of ceos are the "good guy" type. You feel the opposite. I agree with your assessment of humanity and that some corps use tactics like the McDonald's example.

I urge you to think about ceos you know personally.... I'm guessing they make decisions based on profitability and integrity #1, and factor in all the non-profit pros and cons before making a decision that affects employee lives, the environment, the community, etc. Many of these ceos have a hard time sleeping at night cause they have to make decisions affecting so many people.


Upon reading your post a second time... I also disagree that maximizing shareholder value "at all costs" is the "role" of the CEO. I agree the pressures are there.... but Unethical decisions that maximize profit are not part of their job.... and cost the company $ in bad pr when they are not collapsing an economy. Maybe some boards hired the wrong person for the job. I know every Mba course I took taught ethical decision-making. These guys took those classes too.

Posted by antonsirius on 10/11/2010 1:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 10/11/2010 12:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 10/11/2010 12:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 10/11/2010 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 10/11/2010 12:03:00 PM (view original):
I completely disagree with that. It's entirely possible to run an efficient organization without having "turning a profit" as a main goal. And I notice you have to twist my words to claim I said they should only focus on immediate short-term costs in order to make your argument work.

so then how much money would one have to "turn in profit" to be set up for the future? please quantitate.

73 kagillion.

Seriously, moy, what a dumb question.

I thought your response was dumb so provided a dumb answer. Please explain how its possible to run a business without turning a profit as a main goal? I'll pick it apart. If you take money to pay for say a social initiative then that money has to come from somewhere else.... maybe less employees, lower salaries, or from another departments budget It's all about turning a profit first.... that's how all non-government business stay in business. that doesn't mean a company ignores all other social factors like equal pay, going green, workplace conditions, etc. You are associating all ceos with Bernie ebbers, enron, etc... I don't believe they are all like that. It's an extreme imo. The bad Apple spoils the bunch.

Seriously? You don't see the difference between having a main goal of maximizing profits, and then figuring out what you want to do with the money after the fact, and having specific concrete goals with specific concrete price tags, and then figuring out how to generate the revenue necessary to accomplish them?

You don't see how that is going to affect every single decision you make?

No company has a main goal of maximizing profits with no direction. They have a mission statement which is their goal. During the quest to achieve this goal they must consider profits in decisions or go out of business. Some socially inclined or goaled businesses may consider less profit to pursue their mission than say a company like bofa. I understand what you are saying about the affects on the decision-making process... I think you are making invalid assumptions about turning a profit at all costs without considering its mission or goal. There are usually multiple proposals presented before a CEO says go with that one for both nfp and for profit businesses. They look them over... figure out the cost-benefit and decide. Yes.... profitability is a big part of cost-benefit for all organizations.

A business needs to make a profit. A corporate CEO needs to make a profit.

Why is this confusing to everyone?

Posted by moy23 on 10/11/2010 1:51:00 PM:
No company has a main goal of maximizing profits with no direction. They have a mission statement which is their goal. During the quest to achieve this goal they must consider profits in decisions or go out of business. Some socially inclined or goaled businesses may consider less profit to pursue their mission than say a company like bofa. I understand what you are saying about the affects on the decision-making process... I think you are making invalid assumptions about turning a profit at all costs without considering its mission or goal. There are usually multiple proposals presented before a CEO says go with that one for both nfp and for profit businesses. They look them over... figure out the cost-benefit and decide. Yes.... profitability is a big part of cost-benefit for all organizations.

OK, fair enough. I do think some companies and CEOs, in effect, just make money to make money and forget/ignore "why" they're making it (again, we're talking about 'real' corporations here, not Goldman Sachs) but there's always something like a mission statement to hide behind.

Changing gears... how awesome is it that the mortgages that were being cranked out at breakneck speed to feed the mortgage-backed security scam machine are now turning out to be frauds that aren't worth the paper they were supposed to be (but often weren't) printed on?

No wonder the banks tried to sneak that foreclosure bill through Congress. They're about to be left holding the bag for their own incompetence and malfeasance. And that's not the way the world is supposed to work...

Posted by antonsirius on 10/13/2010 1:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 10/11/2010 1:51:00 PM:
No company has a main goal of maximizing profits with no direction. They have a mission statement which is their goal. During the quest to achieve this goal they must consider profits in decisions or go out of business. Some socially inclined or goaled businesses may consider less profit to pursue their mission than say a company like bofa. I understand what you are saying about the affects on the decision-making process... I think you are making invalid assumptions about turning a profit at all costs without considering its mission or goal. There are usually multiple proposals presented before a CEO says go with that one for both nfp and for profit businesses. They look them over... figure out the cost-benefit and decide. Yes.... profitability is a big part of cost-benefit for all organizations.

OK, fair enough. I do think some companies and CEOs, in effect, just make money to make money and forget/ignore "why" they're making it (again, we're talking about 'real' corporations here, not Goldman Sachs) but there's always something like a mission statement to hide behind.

Absolutely. when shareholders are involved there absolutely is pressure to increase profits and I guarantee some good execs lose focus and make unethical decisions. Plenty of examples here.

... now that we have some sort of agreement.... guess its back to arguing with hannity....umm I meant swampy.

Posted by antonsirius on 10/13/2010 1:20:00 AM (view original):
Changing gears... how awesome is it that the mortgages that were being cranked out at breakneck speed to feed the mortgage-backed security scam machine are now turning out to be frauds that aren't worth the paper they were supposed to be (but often weren't) printed on?

No wonder the banks tried to sneak that foreclosure bill through Congress. They're about to be left holding the bag for their own incompetence and malfeasance. And that's not the way the world is supposed to work...

As they should. It's their mess and they should have to deal with it.... unfortunately its gotta hurt us all in the mean time.


BTW... they are not just now finding out they are fraud.... it was known back in 2008 and probably way sooner.

The term fraud is a little misleading.

No one was lied to about terms. No one was allowed to lie on applications.

If you wanted a loan that allowed you to pay only interest for the 1st part of it and have a huge ballon down the line why is the bank that gave it to you a criminal?

Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/13/2010 6:44:00 PM (view original):
The term fraud is a little misleading.

No one was lied to about terms. No one was allowed to lie on applications.

If you wanted a loan that allowed you to pay only interest for the 1st part of it and have a huge ballon down the line why is the bank that gave it to you a criminal?

You are unreal.... so knowingly not using due diligence is not fraud? Turning a blind eye to loose lending practices is not fraud. Are you telling me a bank has no responsibility to ensure a borrower can pay them back? Or that if a barber claims he makes $500k a year on a no-doc the bank shouldn't ask for pay stubs or tax returns. Remember its the banks that approved the loans....not the other way around.


If the term fraud is bothering you.... how about gross negligence? I work in banking.....the banks got greedy and borrowers got stupid.

Negligence is bad. Fraud is a crime. The two are very different.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/13/2010 8:34:00 PM (view original):
Negligence is bad. Fraud is a crime. The two are very different.

In your overzealousness to protect your precious corporate masters, you come off looking like an idiot...again.

Here's a little reading for you, explaining the fraud that is being committed. www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/10/why-foreclosure-fraud-is-so-dangerous-to-property-rights/

Of course it's easy for you tea-baggers to blame the borrowers for the mess we're in instead of laying blame where it ought to be - the banking industry and deregulation.