The CEO actually is hired and paid by the capitalist.You could say that if capitalist class is at the top and workers are at the bottom then CEOs/managers,etc are just under the top.Well, they tolerate this situation since their incomes are much higher than CEOs and usually, CEOs are in many cases family friends, successful sons and daughters with MBAs from Harvard, etc.

Product Information

— They may possess some shares and stocks but technically they are not the investors thus, they are not capitalists. The inheritance was earned by the person who left it in his will. Originally Posted by Harold14370 Originally Posted by Achilleas Originally Posted by Harold14370 What is so great about purchasing power parity?

If everybody made the same and had the same lifestyle, there wouldn’t be any incentive to achieve. Collectively, all the stock holders would be richer than the CEO if you gathered them together, but any individual stock holder is likely to be poorer than him. — It’s true that income distribution affects total GDP, but skewing it doesn’t always increase GDP. For those raised in American poverty though, it’s an incredible uphill climb with systemic and deep institutional obstacles that are insurmountable for most. Among the middle class and higher it’s probably not a huge problem. CEOs are not owners.

If only it really was this way. That doesn’t make me a capitalist not even an investor. The economy can’t produce vast amounts of real estate, or valuable works of art, or…. other stuff the super wealthy people will want to buy. As I know, inheritance usually is not counted for personal achievement.

As I know, inheritance usually is not counted for personal achievement. If he couldn’t leave it in his will, he might have retired early and youd have lost his productivity. Originally Posted by kojax Originally Posted by Harold14370 Originally Posted by Achilleas Originally Posted by Harold14370 What is so great about purchasing power parity? If everybody made the same and had the same lifestyle, there wouldn’t be any incentive to achieve.

It’s one thing to own some stocks as a mean of savings and completely different to act as an owner/ capitalist. If the only thing that gets even a smidgeon of reward is skillful investment, or extremely technical tasks that require a PhD, then what incentive does a person without a PhD have to work harder? They know for a *fact* they will never go more than a few inches further forward than they’ve gone. With a corporation, everyone who owns stock is a part owner.

I just deposit my money somewhere and I expect an «interest» (dividend on this case). .

<

p> Originally Posted by Harold14370 Originally Posted by Achilleas Originally Posted by Harold14370 What is so great about purchasing power parity? If everybody made the same and had the same lifestyle, there wouldn’t be any incentive to achieve. Where did it say the growth was more stable?

I hate bleeding heart vids, but also this «not zero sum» argument doesn’t refute it. That means you either have to be super man, or be totally unnoticed. Also most of the highest paid CEO’s are not MBA (Master of Business Administration). We are a business owners, but we have no CEO’s!!

OOPS If you were a huge corporation owner you would have many CEOs. So that kind of demand doesn’t tap into its productive potential, causing factories to sit unused. (Causing a recession.) Do you hint that the existence of fancy-goods industry leads to a some kind of underconsumption?Yes, It’s true that income distribution affects GDP growth. After they’ve made their millions, most of them retire within just a few years of getting promoted to CEO.

Collectively, all the stock holders would be richer than the CEO if you gathered them together, but any individual stock holder is likely to be poorer than him. There’s actually a huge literature arguing that since 70’s inequalities have risen while growth had serious drawbacks. There is a lot of zero sum thinking that went into the video.

For example, one of the CEO’s that has been in charge of Intel had his PhD in metallurgy (probably related to making microprocessors with thinner and thinner wires.)Also these CEO’s don’t keep their jobs for very long. help with essay writing
With a corporation, everyone who owns stock is a part owner. Unfortunately where and to whom you are born counts and is more predictive of individual achievement in American than in many other nations. For those raised in American poverty though, it’s an incredible uphill climb with systemic and deep institutional obstacles that are insurmountable for most. A flat income distribution would smash the economy to dust, but that doesn’t mean «the more skewed the better», either. Supposedly, that would lead to intense growth since savings would grow up http://www.shastacollege.edu/studentemployment and therefore investments would follow.

There’s zero sum thinking indeed and for good reason. If only it really was this way. It’s the American ideal for certain. That seems like a recipe for stagnation.

If the only thing that gets even a smidgeon of reward is skillful investment, or extremely technical tasks that require a PhD, then what incentive does a person without a PhD have to work harder? They know for a *fact* they will never go more than a few inches further forward than they’ve gone. Or at least, you may have some kind of jobless recovery/growth just as happened at 80s, 00s or even right know. How is that supposed to motivate people?The «foolishness» I was mentioning earlier steers consumption toward areas where the demand can be met.

The economy can’t produce vast amounts of real estate, or valuable works of art, or…. other stuff the super wealthy people will want to buy. Of course someone may argue that their wages are enormous (and of course there are) and they don’t deserve it (of course they don’t), etc. They are «just» experienced employees at the (very) top of the pyramid. That seems like a recipe for stagnation. So there could be thousands of owners who each own just a very small part of the company.

That means you either have to be super man, or be totally unnoticed. The highest paid CEO’s actually have degrees in a field related to whatever their company does. Originally Posted by Stanley514 Chief Executive Officer/ Managing Director/ Executive Director, are synonyms. Your post reminded me of this video:Wealth Inequality in America – YouTubeThe most interesting point is that when US had a more equal distribution, growth was more stable.

How is that supposed to motivate people?The «foolishness» I was mentioning earlier steers consumption toward areas where the demand can be met. If we have a look at US tax policy we will find that high incomes have been eased enough for certain decades. CEOs are (trained & experienced) managers responsible for leadership, high level decision making, etc.Capitalists may be at the board of directors even though this is not mandatory.

A flat income distribution would smash the economy to dust, but that doesn’t mean «the more skewed the better», either. So there could be thousands of owners who each own just a very small part of the company. I was expecting this answer. You can verify this by checking here:United States GDP Growth Rate | Actual Data | Forecasts | Calendarcheck from 1947 to 1970 and from 70’s to 10’s.

What Wasn’t Said in «Wealth Inequality In America» – YouTubejust for reference. The highest paid CEO’s actually have degrees in a field related to whatever their company does. There is a lot of zero sum thinking that went into the video. Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox Originally Posted by Stanley514 If everybody made the same and had the same lifestyle, there wouldn’t be any incentive to achieve. Originally Posted by Stanley514 If everybody made the same and had the same lifestyle, there wouldn’t be any incentive to achieve.

So that kind of demand doesn’t tap into its productive potential, causing factories to sit unused. (Causing a recession.) The owners are not always richer than the CEO, exactly. Originally Posted by Achilleas Originally Posted by Harold14370 What is so great about purchasing power parity? If everybody made the same and had the same lifestyle, there wouldn’t be any incentive to achieve. It’s true that income distribution affects total GDP, but skewing it doesn’t always increase GDP. The first case actually occurs since finance capital expanded it’s activities and «invade» in lower incomes, providing an alternative to classic deposits.My opinion is that people who own a tiny tiny share of stocks can not been considered as real owners.

Among the middle class and higher it’s probably not a huge problem. The CEO actually is hired and paid by the capitalist.You could say that if capitalist class is at the top and workers are at the bottom then CEOs/managers,etc are just under the top.Well, they tolerate this situation since their incomes are much higher than CEOs and usually, CEOs are in many cases family friends, successful sons and daughters with MBAs from Harvard, etc. So, they are trying to claim that the richest by far people in U.S. who consume lion share of all wealth are trained and experience professionals known as CEO and not business owners? I wonder how business owners tolerate such a situation… Capitalists may be at the board of directors even though this is not mandatory.

The term doesn’t refer to capitalists. After they’ve made their millions, most of them retire within just a few years of getting promoted to CEO. If he couldn’t leave it in his will, he might have retired early and youd have lost his productivity.

Your post reminded me of this video:Wealth Inequality in America – YouTubeThe most interesting point is that when US had a more equal distribution, growth was more stable. Their fee is technically a «wage», plus various bonuses. I lost in guesses whom exactly they mean as a «CEO» in this video, is it some new code-word for business owners and capitalists? Chief Executive Officer/ Managing Director/ Executive Director, are synonyms.

We are a business owners, but we have no CEO’s!! OOPS The term doesn’t refer to capitalists. Originally Posted by Stanley514 Your post reminded me of this video:Wealth Inequality in America – YouTubeThe most interesting point is that when US had a more equal distribution, growth was more stable.

Unfortunately where and to whom you are born counts and is more predictive of individual achievement in American than in many other nations. That seems like a recipe for stagnation. I am still an employee and my main income comes from my wage.Yeah, literally CEOs may have studied everything related to their company activities. Your post reminded me of this video:Wealth Inequality in America – YouTubeThe most interesting point is that when US had a more equal distribution, growth was more stable. Small businesses don’t need CEOs since everything can be kept under control by the owners.

CEOs are (trained & experienced) managers responsible for leadership, high level decision making, etc. Originally Posted by kojax The owners are not always richer than the CEO, exactly. Where did it say the growth was more stable? Originally Posted by Stanley514 As I know, inheritance usually is not counted for personal achievement. Also most of the highest paid CEO’s are not MBA (Master of Business Administration). — For example, one of the CEO’s that has been in charge of Intel had his PhD in metallurgy (probably related to making microprocessors with thinner and thinner wires.)Also these CEO’s don’t keep their jobs for very long.

That seems like a recipe for stagnation. The inheritance was earned by the person who left it in his will. There is a lot of zero sum thinking that went into the video. I may spend all my savings to buy Microsoft stocks but still I would have 0 influence on how the company operates.

Where did it say the growth was more stable? I hate bleeding heart vids, but also this «not zero sum» argument doesn’t refute it. But something went quite differently.The comment about growth and inequality is mine. Evidence?

Grants prefer to give money to poorer people, and you can live on grant money if you go to a tech school and have a part-time job. Your post reminded me of this video:Wealth Inequality in America – YouTubeThe most interesting point is that when US had a more equal distribution, growth was more stable. It’s the American ideal for certain.