When the head of AT&T’s wireless division says this about Googlezon:
The proposal is a “reasonable framework” for the industry and demonstrates that carriers and Internet companies can reach agreements on Web policies […]
It’s pretty easy to tell that the Google-Verizon proposal isn’t going to help you or me.
And when some banker says this about Elizabeth Warren:
I get disgusted every time I hear her speak. It’s like she’s sitting in some ivory tower, not understanding the ramifications of anything she says […]Any person you put in that role really ought to have some industry experience.
It’s pretty obvious that we’d all be better off if she got the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection job.
Unless … they’re messing with our heads.
ETA: Seriously, I really wonder about these oh so brilliant titans of industry sometimes. You’d think they’d be smart enough to know that they should dis the internet policy they want (oh it’s not good enough, it’ll kill us, mutter mutter) and praise the consumer advocate they don’t want (oh she’s great! she understands our concerns perfectly!)
Villago Delenda Est
Any person you put in that role really ought to have some industry experience.
That is, should put the greed of the banksters ahead of any other possible consideration.
Man, these guys are just BEGGING to be put into tumbrels.
@Villago Delenda Est: I’m thinking: oubliettes.
Or maybe gibbets would have a better deterrent effect.
Ivory tower. I smell talking point of the day. What do you bet Joe Kernan on CNBC starts it out with his guests this am?
That banker’s comments sound to me like saying: “Any person you put in a law-enforcement role really ought to have some experience as a criminal.”
@Villago Delenda Est:
I wonder what it would cost to pay an old lady to knit and cackle on Wall Street.
Willing to bet anonymous banker owns more ivory than Elizabeth Warren. Bet his office is nicer too.
Why doesn’t she sit in a 100-million-dollar mansion, like the common
saltingsalt of the Earth banker does?
Because she hates America. SATSQ.
Actually that’s not what he is saying. To use your example, he is saying that any person put in a law-enforcement role should have had served in law enforcement prior to that. Now, what he means is that she should know that the rules she wants implemented are drastically different than the ones currently enforced. It doesn’t matter to him that the current rules are corrupted to begin with or are plainly outdated or insufficient. He is putting it in a way that says that Warren should have the concerns of the industry folks at heart rather than the general public who she is supposed to serve. In other words he wants business as usual.
No, he’s not saying that either. What he’s really saying is, “Fuck, what if we can’t bribe her?”
gotta love the tag choice the wapo gives warren in the front page header — ‘reformer or zealot’.
Yeah, that’s kinda the
long andshort of it.
Common complaint about business regarding this Administration.
The problem is what’s good for business, in terms of profits and shareholder value, no longer translates into benefits for the working stiffs down the corporate ladder. I really don’t understand why businesses don’t get this. They focus so much on how to make corporate profits, they don’t realize voter anger won’t be stemmed until they quit grinding the workers down. Of course this will entail a revision to business as usual. It would have to be undertaken by people, who do not understand how businesses currently work because they would have to reformulate a new way for businesses to operate, so that improvements to a businesses profits somehow “trickles down” to the working stiff.
This has inevitably led to a conflict because people, who understand how businesses operate, don’t understand why most people are so pissed off at businesses and want businesses to go hang themselves. The people, who do understand this, unfortunately don’t understand how businesses operate and what businesses need to do to keep raking in more profits quarter after quarter.*
*Disclaimer, I appreciate the need for businesses to always try and turn a profit, because if they aren’t turning a profit they won’t be business any longer, but at what cost to everyone else do they need to keep pushing for greater profits?
Comrade E.B. Misfit
@Villago Delenda Est:
I call “dibs” on getting to sharpen the blades.
Blame the push for greater profits on the quarterly earnings report released and the whole fish market developed around on these reports. The stock market demands that each successive quarter should have more profit than the last. Look at Enron for example.
There is a limit to profits that a business can generate in association with a decent and stable society. If you remove society from the picture you get what is currently called the financial markets in US and to a certain extent the manufacturing industry. If Goldman Sachs makes $1 billion in profit any year, just be sure to look for repercussions in the coming year or some way down the line. It’s going to happen, that some part of the society is going to be completely fucked up because of their profits. Theoretically greed doesn’t have a boundary. In reality there should be one or otherwise everyone suffers.
They call Warren a zealot. A zealot? Are you kidding me? That is awesome, it would be nice to have someone who is actually zealously fighting for consumers. These arrogant p.o.s.’s need humbling and if Warren gets their panties in a bunch, that is certainly a good sign.
What’s good for Citibank doesn’t mean shit for America.
When has this ever been the case? Other than the very basic needs of keeping the business operational and healthy, there rest of what’s good for shareholder value is never in synch with what’s good for working stiffs.
For example – a business that shows stable growth such that it stays steady with inflation (say 3% growth) would be a failure for shareholders, would get the CEO kicked out and replaced with someone who could deliver at least 10% growth – even if he got that growth by engaging in reckless short term pyramid schemes that endangered the long-term health of the company. Meanwhile the same steady 3% growth wouldn’t be that bad at all for the working stiffs – their raises would at least match inflation and they’d still have a job rather than being victims to a pirate’s “cut employees to make it look like profits are up” scam. A business with a healthy growth of 8% per year is much better for working stiffs than a business with an unsustainable 15% growth per year – but for the shareholders the opposite is true.
From the 30s to the 70s what was important to the working stiffs had equal weight with what was important to the shareholders. But outside that window that has never really been the case – in the 70s the focus shifted back to where it was prior to the Depression: on what’s good for the shareholders.
And why is it the billion dollar companies on the other side of the fence are supposed to be my savior? I don’t think either way on net neutrality is going to help the average consumer… it’s just gigantic corporations arguing about who gets more of the pie.
I’m telling you, if you tied CEO compensation to share price 3 years in the future, you’d see a lot less of the pump and dump behavior. I’d even be fine with golden parachutes as long as most of the compensation was deferred. CEO’s that love their company like Jobs and Gates would have no problem with building their brand. Slash and burn CEO’s like Fiorina would be out on their ass.
@bago: In some ways it already is. The stock options, which make up a large chunk of CEO compensation, don’t usually vest until a few years into the future from when the CEO is hired.
Warren won’t even be nominated, let alone confirmed. Too many ‘pragmatic’ Democrats will wet their pants on command of their higher donators.