coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
But you are asking does the CEO provide value here. The people who decide if the CEO provides value are the investors in the funds.
-
Features
Guys, don't worry . . . the Free Market is still working as intended
- Thread starter ksen
- Start date
But you are asking does the CEO provide value here. The people who decide if the CEO provides value are the investors in the funds.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,514
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Much like how the cable tv subscriber decides how much a CEO of the Cable Company should be paid because that subscriber has one or two options for a television provider?
From what I've read Gross lost a lot of money for investors betting that interest rates would rise. I've heard the figure -7.9%. So shouldn't Gross have to maybe reimburse the investors $290,000,000 instead?
coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
The question is to whom. To the investor question is the important one. The second one is dependent on the structure of the company.
coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
A TV subscriber decides whether the value of the channel subscription is worth giving them the money. They decide whether to go with cable, satellite, over the air, or guess what, no TV. How they pay their employees isn't a concern to the person buying the cable
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,514
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Sure it is. The corporate structure for a cable company is part of the expense of the bill. How could it not be as applicable as say a funds manager?
Ask both questions to the investors and you'll most likely get two different answers.
coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
Yes and no. If I have $100K to invest and I'm deciding where to put it the questions I will ask will be, "What are the administrative fees? What has been your return on the money after taxes, fees, etc" And then I have to compare those returns to other places I can put the money and see how it does.
coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
The specific pay structure is not part of the bill that I decide on. For the mutual fund the two important numbers are the administrative fees and the return of the funds. The pay structure affects the admin fees, but I care about what it is, not whether the company took the $230 million and gave it to one person or every person in the office.
If you don't think he's worth it you are free not to buy his fund. Then his salary is not your problem. It's not like the government took you money by force and Grubered it to him.
untermensche
Contributor
Do we really want a free market, or do we just want a fair market?
Do we want to play "free baseball" where there are no rules, or "fair baseball", where all teams must abide by the same rules?
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
In "free baseball" the players agree to the rules before playing the game.
In "fair baseball" an outside player says "I want to play but lets change the rules you agreed to first so that I can have a better chance since I'm not a very good baseball player on my own."
In "fair baseball" an outside player says "I want to play but lets change the rules you agreed to first so that I can have a better chance since I'm not a very good baseball player on my own."
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
That's a silly quibble veering way off point. He was commenting on how his abilities don't measure up to the rest unless the rules were modified to make baseball "fair" for him.
arkirk
Veteran Member
As who intended? Casino anyone? Have I got a deal for you. Please contact me and have all your money ready. I am prepared to take it.
No he wasn't.
untermensche
Contributor
Being too big to fail is the biggest changer of the rules.
laughing dog
Contributor
I left out corporatism because I have no idea what you mean by it. Claiming that Keynesian economics, supply side, demand side, monetarism and welfarism are not free market ideologies does not mean they are incompatible with free markets. In fact, Keynesian, supply side, demand side and monetarism as they are commonly understood to work within a free market system, as do some forms of corporatism. The only way to deny they are incompatible with free markets is to make the implicit assumption that the existence of government in any economy makes free markets impossible - a rather impractical and rather unique approach to thinking.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Let me describe the first few words of Keynesian economics, Supply Side economics, Demand Side economics, Monetarism, and Welfarism.
"The government shall influence the economy by..."
Now let me describe the first few words of Free Market economics.
"The government does not influence the economy..."
We've had this argument about the word "Capitalism", which according to you is anything short of full Marxism. But you don't get to throw in government management of the economy with Free Market economics. There is no way to stretch that definition far enough. That's because all the rest are a direct violation of the definition of Free Market. You cannot have a term mean its opposite.
There are libertarians who favor abandoning the term "capitalism" and only using the term "free market" because there are those who overload the term "capitalism" to mean all of the above ideologies. But there is no way to justify overloading the term "free market" because its definition is much more explicit and it is the government doesn't try to stimulate demand, and it doesn't try to stimulate supply, and it doesn't manage the money supply, and it doesn't try to stimulate GDP, and it doesn't enact policies to distribute money to the poor, and it doesn't enact policies to distribute money to the rich. All of those policies, all of those ways that the government would try to do something with the economy (always with the best of intentions of course since I don't want to blaspheme your god) are against the very basic definition of Free Market.
No, they are not compatible with their opposite.
"The government shall influence the economy by..."
Now let me describe the first few words of Free Market economics.
"The government does not influence the economy..."
We've had this argument about the word "Capitalism", which according to you is anything short of full Marxism. But you don't get to throw in government management of the economy with Free Market economics. There is no way to stretch that definition far enough. That's because all the rest are a direct violation of the definition of Free Market. You cannot have a term mean its opposite.
There are libertarians who favor abandoning the term "capitalism" and only using the term "free market" because there are those who overload the term "capitalism" to mean all of the above ideologies. But there is no way to justify overloading the term "free market" because its definition is much more explicit and it is the government doesn't try to stimulate demand, and it doesn't try to stimulate supply, and it doesn't manage the money supply, and it doesn't try to stimulate GDP, and it doesn't enact policies to distribute money to the poor, and it doesn't enact policies to distribute money to the rich. All of those policies, all of those ways that the government would try to do something with the economy (always with the best of intentions of course since I don't want to blaspheme your god) are against the very basic definition of Free Market.
No, they are not compatible with their opposite.