The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[wuapinmon]

We should withdraw all our money from Chase. That will show those a-holes. And the next time they need a bailout... We tell them:

No, I'm not an ideologue. I like financial institutions; they make money for lots of people, and when well-regulated, are vehicles for increasing overall prosperity in the world. I think rescuing them was the right thing to do...when Lehman Brothers went down it scared the crap out of everyone. If AIG and Goldman had gone too, who knows what could've happened. But, I think that the end of Bernanke's report, especially the part that I cited, should be the main thrust of any new legislation. We are a free market country, but the free market almost killed itself, so what do we do about these too-big-too-fail entities? I hope that all this Bernie-perbole will find a centrist place somewhere and force the Republicans to stop their adultery and the Democrats to recognizes that you can get blood from a stone by pulverizing it, but then it's gone.

But, should some companies get Ma Bell-ed? I think so. Media conglomerates, financial institutions, and probably cellphone companies, are getting too big and killing competition. Amazon might get there if it keeps dominating market share for another 20 years. Ultimately, was the Sherman Anti-Trust Act a good thing? I believe so.

[wuapinmon]

So what's your solution? I already gave you mine.

And yes, teller should not be a career job. There's a natural progression of promotion at a bank and the lowest position is teller. Granted most won't become branch managers without at least a finance degree, but there are plenty of better paying positions at a bank for someone that sticks it out and works hard.

Co-determination works well in Germany--a famously capitalistic, successful economy. I'd like to see it tried here. I'd prefer it if companies could be persuaded, rather than legislated, into so doing, but I doubt that'll happen.

[Paperback Writer]

He's (Al Franken] only a senator because he was moderately famous and moved to a tiny state. I imagine most D/E listers could go that route too. Didn't Tom Osbourne becomes senator? People vote for names they've heard of, Eddie Murphy's Distinguished Gentleman isn't that untrue.

Tom Osborne is probably not a good example to use of a D list celebrity using his name for political gain. While Osborne was well known in Nebraska for his success coaching the Cornhuskers his popularity went beyond football as he was also recognized for his community involvement. He was more than just a football coach, he held a doctorate and epitomized to many Nebraskans the ideal citizen. Osborne served a couple of terms as US Rep in the congressional district he grew up in (rural Nebraska).

But, should some companies get Ma Bell-ed? I think so. Media conglomerates, financial institutions, and probably cellphone companies, are getting too big and killing competition. Amazon might get there if it keeps dominating market share for another 20 years. Ultimately, was the Sherman Anti-Trust Act a good thing? I believe so.

Know what happened to Ma Bell? It's now AT&T and Verizon. There is a reason why cellphone companies are "getting too big" and it has everything to do with maintaining expansive networks and infrastructure. If one thinks his cell phone bill is too high now, just wait until AT&T and Verizon are broken up. One thing to consider when contemplating the Sherman Anti-Trust act: a reason that cell phone service is even affordable in rural areas is because of users in metro areas that subsidize the true cost. Having more companies competing will probably result in higher prices and poorer service in rural areas.

[Donuthole]

Yeah, i would have gone with Steve Largent over Tom Osborne. Bad call, HFN.

[Bo Diddley]

Co-determination works well in Germany--a famously capitalistic, successful economy. I'd like to see it tried here. I'd prefer it if companies could be persuaded, rather than legislated, into so doing, but I doubt that'll happen.

I had to google it. Interesting concept. I'd like to hear more about it. Looks like Germany used legislation to make it happen as well.

[wuapinmon]

Know what happened to Ma Bell? It's now AT&T and Verizon. There is a reason why cellphone companies are "getting too big" and it has everything to do with maintaining expansive networks and infrastructure. If one thinks his cell phone bill is too high now, just wait until AT&T and Verizon are broken up. One thing to consider when contemplating the Sherman Anti-Trust act: a reason that cell phone service is even affordable in rural areas is because of users in metro areas that subsidize the true cost. Having more companies competing will probably result in higher prices and poorer service in rural areas.

I know the history; don't forget Century Link. The universal service fund is a great thing, and could be continued via new legislation to avoid the problems you mention with rural service. I think it should be, honestly, and should probably include broadband--though I need to read more about that.

Verizon bought Yahoo yesterday. Verizon already owns AOL. Shant be long before they start buying content producers that aren't web-based, so they will own both the delivery systems and the content being delivered on them. That's illegal in many industries (e.g. motion picture studios can't own theaters---See United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 US 131 (1948)). They want to create a tiered level of competition on the web. They control huge swaths of broadband delivery along the eastern seaboard, a virtual monopoly, and yet, is broadband regulated in its monopoly the way other telecomm stuff was?

If Verizon and AT&T and CenturyLink want to submit to federal, or even state, oversight of pricing and profit, in exchange for being allowed to monopolize, that's a different conversation. Verizon netted $17.88 billion last year on revenue of $132 billion, which is probably a little higher than a regulated industry would be allowed to make.

Of course, regulated industries also have their issues: http://www.wsj.com/articles/utilitie...ore-1429567463

[wuapinmon]

Timely: https://www.msci.com/documents/10199...f-8022f9bb944d

Has CEO pay reflected long-term stock performance? In a word, “no.”Companies that awarded their Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) higher equity incentives hadbelow-median returns based on a sample of 429 large-cap U.S. companies observed from2006 to 2015. On a 10-year cumulative basis, total shareholder returns of those companieswhose total summary pay (the level that must be disclosed in the summary tables of proxystatements) was below their sector median outperformed those companies where payexceeded the sector median by as much as 39%.1For long-term institutional investors, this potential misalignment of interests between CEOsand shareholders may undermine the adoption of equity-based incentive pay that hasdominated executive pay practices in the U.S. for the past three decades. During theobserved period, long-term incentive pay was the largest element of CEO pay, accountingfor more than 70% of compensation for both summary pay and realized pay (whichincorporates stocks gains realized during the course of the year), according to ourcalculations.A large part of the issue is that disclosure rules mandated by the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission (SEC) focus on annual instead of long-term reporting. Inclusion ofcertain long-term data, such as a comparison of total summary incentive pay over the CEO’sentire tenure to company stock performance, could help better align the interests of CEOsand long-term investors. In addition, improved disclosure of one-time benefits such assigning bonuses and severance agreements in cumulative totals would likely increase thefocus on these often significant pay provisions.In general, companies very rarely include the sort of cumulative figures in presentations ofCEO pay that long-term investors would find most helpful. We derived such long-termmeasures from multiple filings but we believe the general lack of such integrated disclosureresults in an excessive focus on short-term share price gains, at the expense of long-termreturns. We suggest several ideas for improvement, such as the reporting of cumulative payand performance data over the CEO’s full tenure, to reduce the focus on the short term thatprevails currently.

[Bo Diddley]

I'm sure we wish there was a candidate with better qualities accepting the Democratic nomination for presidential candidate. Even so, it's pretty cool that a female is getting the nomination. We've come a long ways.

[Moliere]

I'm sure we wish there was a candidate with better qualities accepting the Democratic nomination for presidential candidate. Even so, it's pretty cool that a female is getting the nomination. We've come a long ways.

Almost as far as Pakistan!

[Bo Diddley]

Almost as far as Pakistan!

And India, Israel, Great Britain, Norway, France, and many others. It seems significant to me.

[Paperback Writer]

I know the history; don't forget Century Link. The universal service fund is a great thing, and could be continued via new legislation to avoid the problems you mention with rural service. I think it should be, honestly, and should probably include broadband--though I need to read more about that.

Verizon bought Yahoo yesterday. Verizon already owns AOL. Shant be long before they start buying content producers that aren't web-based, so they will own both the delivery systems and the content being delivered on them. That's illegal in many industries (e.g. motion picture studios can't own theaters---See United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 US 131 (1948)). They want to create a tiered level of competition on the web. They control huge swaths of broadband delivery along the eastern seaboard, a virtual monopoly, and yet, is broadband regulated in its monopoly the way other telecomm stuff was?

If Verizon and AT&T and CenturyLink want to submit to federal, or even state, oversight of pricing and profit, in exchange for being allowed to monopolize, that's a different conversation. Verizon netted $17.88 billion last year on revenue of $132 billion, which is probably a little higher than a regulated industry would be allowed to make.

Of course, regulated industries also have their issues: http://www.wsj.com/articles/utilitie...ore-1429567463

Enjoyed the shout out to Century Link. Which one is not like the other? $147 billion; $132 billion; $18 billion. My point is that larger companies and the corresponding economies of scale can result in lower prices to consumers not higher. With telecom, I don't understand the angst with monopolies. Do people yearn for the days of regional cell phone carriers, voice only service, and roaming fees?

[Topper]

I'm sure we wish there was a candidate with better qualities accepting the Democratic nomination for presidential candidate. Even so, it's pretty cool that a female is getting the nomination. We've come a long ways.

This is pure nonsense. If we are gender blind then it should not matter if what person we elect. It is cool we are electing an incompetent corrupt and dishonest woman instead of a corrupt incompetent dishonest man?

It would have been cool to elect a competent person.

[YOhio]

And India, Israel, Great Britain, Norway, France, and many others. It seems significant to me.

Yes. It would be even better if she weren't the embodiment of establishment corruption. We'll see if she can win in a year of massive populist groundswell.

[snowcat]

[YOUTUBE]yWe8KdLH3mE[/YOUTUBE]

[Bo Diddley]

Yes. It would be even better if she weren't the embodiment of establishment corruption. We'll see if she can win in a year of massive populist groundswell.

Agreed