Why CEOs aren't hiring
 

Interesting op-ed piece from the Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072502770.html

The writer missed one of the most obvious reasons. The CEO's are waiting until after November so that they can get more of their lapdogs in congress.

Regards,

D-Ray

Do you bet heavy when you've got a weak hand?

If so, we got a friendly little game Saturday nite, and you're welcome to set in. I think we're gonna be playing something called poker, don't know too much about it, myself.

What you're suggesting is that the corporations are purposely suppressing the economy in order to get more Republicans elected.

I figure that they've got both sides bought off in the first place, but there may be an element of truth to your argument.

But I contend that they're being cautious, with good reason. This election brings a lot of uncertainty, demand is still weak, and if you tool up and produce a bunch of widgets that nobody wants, you're gonna take it in the shorts.

Fools rush in. Besides, I don't see every CEO as another Hannibal Lecter.

Chas

You're right about them owning members of both parties. I meant to say "their favorite lapdogs."

I don't know about the weak hand though. Management has had a good hand for a long time, and they have drawn another ace with high unemployment. They're not all evil, but most are amoral. The expansion of profit takes precedence over every other thing.

Regards,

D-Ray

Think I'll finish my salad and go to bed with that thought fresh in my mind....

Dave

What do you suggest they do?

Hire a bunch of people they don't need and build a bunch of stuff that nobody's gonna buy?

I will admit, CEO's tend to be way overpaid, but that's another issue. Companies do go broke.

As far as I'm concerned, now is a time so sit on your assets instead of pissing them away. Then you will be poised to make a move when things open up.

Chas

Kind of hard to set the world on fire when you're busted.

If they all "hire a bunch of people" there will be more people who can buy things, creating demand. So long as they refuse to hire, or invest any money in their businesses the economy will remain sluggish.

What do you expect a bunch of unemployed people to do? Run out and buy a new car? Have their home renovated? Are they gonna hit the local High End Audio store and load up on McIntosh and Martin-Logan? Spend a weekend in the Hamptons? Dinner at Ruths Chris?----------When they got no friggin' job?

Dave

I'm with Chas on this one. There's no nefarious intent here, just a lot of nervousness and uncertainty about the state of the economy. Would it be better if all employers were to simultaneously start hiring? Of course, but that's not the way things work. Economics is all about the herd mentality, both in good times and in bad. It just so happens that everyone (including us) is pretty negative about the current state of affairs.

Thank you, Finn, I need all the support I can get.

Chas

It now appears that employers are sitting on $1.8 Trillion in cash and enjoying soaring profits, but they are permanently eliminating jobs - here at least.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072704791.html

As has been said before, corporations have not loyalty - not to their employees (or former employees), not to their country - only to their bottom line. As far as the bottom line goes, there is no such thing as enough profits.

Regards,

D-Ray

Like it or not, they have a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders. Admittedly, they are often short-sighted in what the best strategy may be in fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities. However, their main job is to make money.