American Budget Cuts

Statistically insignificant would be generous. Misleading statistical bullshit would probably be more accurate. That said, I guess it is refreshing to have a yank suggesting that Airbus is "safer" than Boeing!! Yep, because total CEO compensation utterly dwarfs Boeing's total expenditure on aircraft safety and reliability... or maybe not.If there's one thing worse than right-wing stupidity, it's left-wing hyperbole. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

What???? Is this now the "let's be utterly ignorant of micro-economics" thread?

Errr, you were talking about profit. Why are you now talking about salaries? Perhaps to emphasise my point?

Perhaps number of Boeing flying vs number of Airbus flying would be a relevant statistic...?I will get back to the rest tomorrow as it's late.

1) Cart before horse2) Why are you assuming profit is "taken out"?3) When profit is "taken out", can you think of ways in which this would lead to growth of the company, hence enabling it to capitalise on economies of scale, hence further improving efficiency?ABE - just noticed this. Please do not confuse capital and profit. They are very different concepts.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

I'm sorry, am I communicating with a 5 year old? 'Cos I thought you were a fucking scientist, and I usually expect a little more intelligence in the replies I receive from scientists.What is this "money he made at Microsoft"? Are we talking about the wage he was paid? Are we talking about bonuses he received? Are we talking about the wealth created by selling shares in what was originally his own company?And what has any of this to do with the general concept of profit vs efficiency?Any chance you could get back to me on my three points?

Hmmm, so... When the CEO is paid $10,000 a year instead of $5,000 that's $5,000 dollars being lost to the company instead of being used for production of the goods and services the company provides. They wouldn't have to make any more money (resources) to pay the CEO $5,000 instead of $10,000 and recoup that extra 5 thou, so it's clearly an inefficiency.Is this your argument? If not, can you explain your reasoning behind the figures you have chosen? Ah, so I can increase the profitability of my own company by simply being more "profit motivated"? Please explain how I can gain this motivation, and how this will in turn improve the profitability. Which inefficiency would it be in my own company? I run a small IT supplies and services company, with a turnover of around $5m. I'm confused. Surely the larger the salary (a cost) obviously the smaller the profit. Please explain.

So you exclude the one element related to profit and we're back to salaries again, which have nothing to do with the company profit... Is profit something that "goes out"? I asked about this before but you ignored me then. I guess I'll expect the same again.

ok, before I get into this, just want to confirm the following: Ah, so all along you have not been talking about corporate profits but instead personal profits of individuals. So you are not complaining about corporate profits. You are not claiming that corporate profits are a sign of inefficiency within the company. And in fact, you are saying that personal profits (in the sense of CEO salaries) are a bad thing in that they are a drain on the company profits (which they are) and I assume then that you are regarding company profits as a good thing?Do I have this straight?

Why would anyone buy those shares if those shares do not receive a dividend? What do you think drives the capital appreciation of those shares? Why would anyone ever buy a share that does not compensate for the risk inherent in that share? I know you don't see the difference, and that is what I'm complaining about. You and Crash and Rrhain the other week have very little clue about all of this and yet let rip with emotional and hyperbolic rhetoric. It's no wonder the right find such behaviour hilarious.And in fact, I totally agree with you regarding the stupid levels of board level compensation. Actually, it's not the level that I disagree with the most but the no-downside reward structure that is in place. Same with trading remuneration in the banks. I was writing and advising on this very issue 11 years ago on the back of the emerging market crisis... and nothing has changed. By personal use, do you mean the use made of it by the pension funds? They form one of the largest groups of owners of share capital. Is that who you are complaining about?And back to my first point. Should shares not pay dividends? Who in their right mind would exchange an essentially risk-free dollar for a dollar share of some company, with no compensation for the risk?

I'm sorry but this is painful. Sell it for what? What do you think drives the fluctuations in the stock market?And no, most stock market activity is not "gambling".The ignorance here is staggering.

Sometimes true. But before you're ready to understand why this works, you have to understand the purpose behind the dividend. And you have to understand the nature of the companies not paying dividends. Paying a dividend will not always be the smart move. But this very much depends on the particular circumstances.Ever heard of the dot com boom? How much dividend payout was there as those shares climbed to extraordinary levels? How much cash was made by those clever enough to understand. And how much more was lost by those that think that not paying a dividend is a sign of good thing?

Funny, I was thinking exactly the same thing earlier today. For supposed critical thinkers, it's amazing how much ideology will dominate ones thinking. What's so stupid is that there are good arguments that can be made, but they are lost beneath the noise and bluster of naive hyperbole.

Yeah, perhaps I ought go trade derivatives for some time in what was the world's leading derivative house. Or maybe publish the first analysis of shareholder value growth of the FTSE-100, tracking every fucking company through every fucking rights- and scrip-issue. Or maybe help set in place the risk mechanisms in Barclays Capital that meant that over a decade later it was one of the only major financial institutions in the Uk not to require a bail-out....Oh, wait

Yep, agree with all that you say. The out-of-sight out-of-mind intangibles are rarely valued correctly, if at all. The trouble is, no matter how you package it, the average Westerner wants cheap shit, period. I've carried out far too many focus groups and in many different markets, and this is the one consistent output.