Skip to comments.
In Defense of the Rich
Human Events Online ^
| 31 May 2006
| John Hawkins
Posted on 05/31/2006 12:28:22 AM PDT by Aussie Dasher
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-51 next last
To: Aussie Dasher
In Defense of the Rich Actually, I think the rich can afford to defend themselves.
Shalom.
21
posted on
05/31/2006 2:52:06 AM PDT
by
ArGee
(The Ring must not be allowed to fall into Hillary's hands!)
To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
"This is a shareholders' rights issue." Speaking as someone who held a fairly large chunk of Exxon during Raymond's tenure I was tickled pink at his stewardship of the company and the resulting return I enjoyed. I'd of given him twice as much.
How many shares did you own during that time?
22
posted on
05/31/2006 3:07:07 AM PDT
by
Proud_texan
(I'm gonna break my rusty cage and run)
To: Lurker; napscoordinator
I'm betting that a large percentage of those posting on and reading this thread, are XOM stockholders, through mutual funds.
Carry on.
23
posted on
05/31/2006 3:22:00 AM PDT
by
FreedomPoster
(Guns themselves are fairly robust; their chief enemies are rust and politicians) (NRA)
To: Aussie Dasher
Why aren't we screaming "Marxists !" from the rooftops ?
Especially when all conservatives are branded racists ?
BUMP
24
posted on
05/31/2006 3:40:41 AM PDT
by
capitalist229
(Get Democrats out of our pockets and Republicans out of our bedrooms.)
To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
I think we should cut your pay in half...I wouldn't notice a bit....
25
posted on
05/31/2006 3:50:17 AM PDT
by
dakine
To: Aussie Dasher
¼-?? issue is considerably more complicated than many believe. If the Reaganite Republicans represent the opportunity for anyone with the ambition, determination, and work ethic to become rich, why is it that the mega-rich - from Bill Gates to John Kerry to George Soros - all line up on the opposite (supposedly the Balzac) side of the issue?
In truth, the Reaganite model really does present the truth that any ambitious, determined, and hard-working individual can achieve riches in a truly free economic system. We have no such sytem in place, truth be told.
The reality is that both Reagan and Balzac have given us pieces of the truth regarding wealth and its accumulation. Both are correct, as far as they go, but fail to give the whole picture. To the pure Reaganites, we can ask why Bill Gates is so happy to cooperate with a regime (China) where all poltical, religious, and econimic freedom (for anyone not connected to the rulers) is denied. At the same time, we can ask the Balzacites why is it that a man of realitively humble means like J. C Penney was able to create a financial empire from the ground up - was it all through theft and evil deeds? Overwhelmingly, the evidence contradicts such an assertion in this case - along with many others.
While it may appear that Reagan and Balzac contradict each other, I expect that the truth is that they in fact compliment each other. If we were blessed to be able to talk to each man in detail about this issue, they might well understand each other's point, for both were anything but fools.
To: dakine
It wouldn't save anyone very much either. ;-)
To: Lurker
There weren't many people working themselves to wealth in France in 1820. Once they drove out the Huguenots, it was all down hill.
28
posted on
05/31/2006 4:07:11 AM PDT
by
Lonesome in Massachussets
(NYT Headline: 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of CBS: Fake But Accurate, Experts Say.')
To: Bogolyubski
We have no such sytem in place, truth be told. Give the poster a cigar.
L
29
posted on
05/31/2006 4:25:19 AM PDT
by
Lurker
(Real conservatives oppose the Presidents amnesty proposal. Help make sure it dies in the House.)
To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
Is Bush's job any less complicated or important than any corporate CEO's? In a sense it is a lot less complicated in that he doesn't have to worry about making a profit or pleasing his customers.
30
posted on
05/31/2006 4:28:02 AM PDT
by
from occupied ga
(Your most dangerous enemy is your own government)
To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
This could be said of any sports team couldn't it? Why do teams pay so much to a Michael Jordan? The fans want a winner!!! So it is with companies, the shareholders, employees, suppliers and customers all want them to flourish and make decisions accordingly.
Shareholders like voters ultimately are responsible for choosing their representatives. In both cases, apathy is the rule of the day.
31
posted on
05/31/2006 4:29:31 AM PDT
by
BillM
To: from occupied ga
I'll concede your first point -- but, Bush has to please voters & that seems to be a tougher job than pleasing customers.
To: BillM
You have a point when it comes to companies that are making a good profit, and growing. (Although it doesn't quite explain why CEO compensation is growing so much faster than other salaries -- even for VPs.) But some CEOs have made a ton of money even when their company is losing money, and spiraling down. (I'm not referring to turn-around artists who are brought in to repair the damage done by their predecessor -- I mean CEOs who can't jump and can't score.)
Small investors don't have much power over the Board.
To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
Bush has to please voters Not once he's elected. Currently he's not pleasing too many people - especially about his program to give amnesty to 25 million illegal Mexicans. With an approval rating of approximately 33% I'd say there were a lot more displeased than pleased.
34
posted on
05/31/2006 4:46:38 AM PDT
by
from occupied ga
(Your most dangerous enemy is your own government)
To: from occupied ga
If most CEOs could claim 33% market share, they'd be looking pretty good to their Board. A company can target a market segment, a President has to try to represent everyone (although he should at least please the segment of voters in his own party). Ross Perot was extremely successful in business; but he couldn't get elected President.
To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
There are over 6 billion shares of XOM outstanding.
99.8% of these shares are free trading.
54% of these shares are held by 1958 institutions (pension funds, Mutual funds etc)
This corporation is very widely held. Ony 0.2% of the shares are owned by insiders.
The shareholders always have options if they don't like management.
They can sell there shares or use proxies to change the directors.
36
posted on
05/31/2006 4:59:35 AM PDT
by
BillM
To: Aussie Dasher
Socialism does not allow for wealth creation, which is one of several reasons why socialism doesn't work. It's also the reason why Democrats so strongly wish to limit and control it. 'Course, envy comes into the picture too, which is probably why some conservatives jump on board.
37
posted on
05/31/2006 5:05:28 AM PDT
by
Sam Cree
(Delicacy, precision, force)
To: Aussie Dasher
On the other hand, liberals believe that in and of itself, wealth is evidence of wrongdoing
Just another way to keep their minions pissed off. Maybe We should lower the Libs pay-scale so they might feel better.
To: leadhead
Behind every great fortune there is a crime. There's crime in everything. I got to work early today, at the risk of speeding and cutting off this woman who tailgated me earlier.
39
posted on
05/31/2006 5:07:56 AM PDT
by
Fawn
To: ajolympian2004
"Always substitute the word "successful" for "rich" any time you hear a liberal using the word "rich." Nice point.
40
posted on
05/31/2006 5:07:59 AM PDT
by
Sam Cree
(Delicacy, precision, force)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-51 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson