Quote:
Originally Posted by jms62
And you know for certain that each company was facing bankruptcy? More likely scenario he wanted his 100 million in options to appreciate to 150 million and really could care less about the people he destroyed. Your thinking is flawed and right out of the early 80's. Profitable companies have been cutting employees for YEARS now so the upper crust could profit more not even giving 2 shits about the future when no one has any money to buy anything becuase they GOT THIERS. This unmitigated greed affects EVERYONE and EVERYONES children/grandchildren. AN economy can not sustain itself when 5% of the people have 90% of the wealth.
|
I don't know that for a fact. It just seems logical that a company would seek to survive and thrive as well as possible for as long as possible. On the flipside, they have to make sure that their products, goods, and/or services remain competitively priced, or the company will decline. Unless you have either a monopoly or a company whose products are vastly superior (i.e. Rolls Royce) you have to run a company efficiently with solid profits. In a competitive environment, it's rare for a company to make astronomical profits.
So I don't think my reasoning was flawed - but I did make the above assumptions.
Paraphrasing you, a country cannot sustain itself when the top earning 5% are paying 58.7%, or when 47% of the people pay no income tax.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2...ble-dip-scare/