Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
The executive committee should have the incentive to create success but, like most committees, they spend more time talking than taking action and when they do take action, it's indecisive action at best. If they can score some corporate welfare, they can represent that to the shareholders as being evidence of their shrewd business practices.


If anything, executives lay off workers to show their shrewd business practices and keep the shareholders happy (look at Ford for example). If corporate welfare was tied to no jobs being lost, they wouldn't be able to do so. It's no secret that Ford is losing billions of dollars on their North American plants despite getting corporate welfare. If you were a shareholder, would you be satisfied with your company losing billions of dollars even though they are getting corporate welfare, or would you only be concerned with the bottom line?
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 12:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
If anything, executives lay off workers to show their shrewd business practices and keep the shareholders happy (look at Ford for example). If corporate welfare was tied to no jobs being lost, they wouldn't be able to do so. It's no secret that Ford is losing billions of dollars on their North American plants despite getting corporate welfare. If you were a shareholder, would you be satisfied with your company losing billions of dollars even though they are getting corporate welfare, or would you only be concerned with the bottom line?

Shareholders are notorious for watching the bottom line but when a company is bleeding billions and the best corporate management can come up with is laying people off, shareholders start looking at their executives rather closely...

As I mentioned before, Ford's shareholders have started dismantling the company's foreign assets. I expect a number of executives may find their last contract will be exactly that: their last one with Ford.

The days of the visionaries like Harley Earl, Zora Arkus-Duntov, Henry Ford, Frank Hershey are all but gone. Leaders are replaced by bean counters.

-Mac
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 of 4

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Libs take on Tories for inaction on economy

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB