[brownsfan]

This isn't a simple debate. I agree, outcomes should be based on individual input, (effort, talent, and luck). But I also see where those in power can configure things so that others have little or no chance.

One of the things that is wrong with the system right now is CEO and executive compensation. CEOs buddy up to the boards and become protected, and over compensated. I was watching Mad Money the other day, and Cramer listed 5 companies that if the CEO were to resign or be fired, you should BUY immediately. In all 5 cases he hinted, (in one case he outright said it), that the CEO had the board in his pocket.
I know, I know, the CEO worked his way to the top, he deserves to be paid $20 million a year with perks. He's worth it. *choke* And who does it serve when the CEO has the board in his pocket? The company does well? No. The stockholders get benefits? No. It serves the CEO and his staff.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Let's consider your example. A company is run by a CEO that has his board in his pocket, and as a result gets paid more than the market would dictate. Kramer says you should buy if the CEO leaves. That would imply that you should sell short if the CEO stays!

In other words, companies that don't act in accordance with market dictates will be less competitive, ultimately fall behind or even disappear.

In any case these are private individuals making decisions, albeit bad ones, with private money. No one is forcing investors to own those companies. The only equality of opportunity government should be concerned with is equality before the law.

[mc6809e]

I know, I know, the CEO worked his way to the top, he deserves to be paid $20 million a year with perks. He's worth it. *choke* And who does it serve when the CEO has the board in his pocket? The company does well? No. The stockholders get benefits? No. It serves the CEO and his staff.

These CEOs are just another example of employees legally stealing from shareholders.

Another way is to join together with other employees to form a labor monopoly. Then extort money from the shareholders by threatening to shut down operations.

[okie01]

And who does it serve when the CEO has the board in his pocket? The company does well? No. The stockholders get benefits? No. It serves the CEO and his staff.

Of course, it does. In this sense, corporations are just like people. Some boards (and companies) make good decisions. Others make bad decisions. Corporations are just as subject to the "rule of inequality" as individuals.

In the long run, the CEOs and boards and stockholders who make bad decisions will be punished. Those who make good decisions will be rewarded.

That's how capitalism works.