|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Clyde Lee wrote:
>
> Does that mean that everyone on Social Security is involved
> in an illegal contract ? ? ?
Have you ever seen a social security contract?
>
> And every retiree on a Defined Benefits Plan ? ? ?
No, but pensions are unusual, and given unusual legal protection. If
this had been a pension, I would shut up. It wasn't.
>
> Frankly, with a 2800% increase in share value it would
> seem to me he earned a very "perky" retirement.
I agree. Give him a lump sum; give him stock. Don't just agree to keep
paying his bills forever.
Regards
DanG
>
> Clyde
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Clyde Lee Chairman/CEO (Home of SwingMachine)
> SYTECH Corporation email:clydelee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 7910 Westglen, Suite 105 Office: (713) 783-9540
> Houston, TX 77063 Fax: (713) 783-1092
> Details at: www.theswingmachine.com
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Daniel Goncharoff" <thegonch@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 9:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [RT] GE and Welch
>
> > I call a contract that means my assets are used to pay someone
> > indefinitely for not providing any work on my behalf abridging my
> > property rights.
> >
> > You may also want to consider that just because there is a signed
> > contract, it doesn't make a transaction legal.
> >
> > Regards
> > DanG
> >
> > Jim Johnson wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Daniel,
> > >
> > > Then you shouldn't own shares in a company whose bylaws/policies don't
> > > stipulate that all executive comp plans be put to a shareholder vote.
> > > That is rare to nonexistent. You need to understand how the process
> > > works. You elected the board and gave them the latitude to make these
> > > decisions for you. If you don't like that arrangement you can: sell
> > > your shares, use options, start your own conglomerate, agitate for
> > > board/comp policy reform etc. But the inference I make is that you
> > > would prefer to abridge rights of property ownership.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Jim Johnson mailto:jejohn@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sunday, September 22, 2002, 7:21:37 AM, you wrote:
> > >
> > > DG> As a shareholder of GE, I don't remember agreeing to this package of
> > > DG> retirement perks. In fact, I only found out about it because of his
> > > DG> divorce case. I certainly would have voted against it, as I don't
> > > DG> believe in post-retirement benefits of this kind (apartments, jets,
> > > DG> etc.) There should be a bonus at departure, partly cash, partly
> stock
> > > DG> with a long-term vesting period, fully disclosed to the
> shareholders.
> > > DG> Then we would have the ability to make a free choice.
> > >
> > > DG> Regards
> > > DG> DanG
> > >
> > > DG> Jim Johnson wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Hello BobsKC,
> > > >>
> > > >> you can't hold teachers accountable--they're unionized AND they have
> > > >> tenure. what's that all about?
> > > >>
> > > >> about money--PAC money mainly. the largest contributors to Democrats
> > > >> are unions, teachers associations and trial lawyers.
> > > >>
> > > >> the liberal philosophy continues to eat away at our way of life.
> even
> > > >> last night on the WSJ editorial board roundtable--when asked about
> > > >> Welsh's retirements perks, not one of those presumably free market
> > > >> conservative writers observed that what he got was given to him
> > > >> freely. Even they seemed to be tacitly buying into the implication
> > > >> that somebody (government I assume) should get involved in this. the
> > > >> title of van Hayek's book is chilling--The Road to Serfdom.
> > > >>
> > > >> Best regards,
> > > >> Jim Johnson mailto:jejohn@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Saturday, September 21, 2002, 10:29:59 PM, you wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> B> Unions. I watched the UAW refuse to give back a dime to Cat when
> things
> > > >> B> got tough in the early 80's even in the face of warnings they
> would move
> > > >> B> their Iowa plants. Well, they moved them. To France! My company
> provided
> > > >> B> two way radio and closed circuit tv services to those plants and
> it was a
> > > >> B> tough loss for us.
> > > >>
> > > >> B> There was a time for labor unions. That time was 80 years ago.
> Most of
> > > >> B> the money they pull in goes to organized crime and they have
> caused
> > > >> B> manufacturing to depart wholesale. Besides, I am suspicious of
> anyone who
> > > >> B> wants to work at a job where they tell you how much you can make.
> > > >>
> > > >> B> So, greed has driven out the manufacturing jobs. Our education
> system has
> > > >> B> lowered the bar for the few until the majority are getting a
> second rate
> > > >> B> education and can not compete in the world market place.
> Education is not
> > > >> B> the same as corporate earnings. You can't just lower the
> estimates. I
> > > >> B> worry a lot about our youth .. kids coming out of high school
> today are
> > > >> B> less informed that kids coming out of 8th grade 30 years ago.
> The damn
> > > >> B> bar better get put back up where it belongs and teachers held
> accountable
> > > >> B> and tested.
> > > >>
> > > >> B> Bob
> > > >>
> > > >> B> At 05:57 PM 9/21/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> > > >> >>Did the US have a choice in its conversion? It was convert or die.
> The
> > > >> >>manufacturing went elsewhere because they could do it just as good
> and a lot
> > > >> >>cheaper. The only other alternative we had was to become
> isolationists again
> > > >> >>and ban imports. Our agriculture is going the same way right now.
> Garlic
> > > >> >>is coming in from China at 1/2 the price it can be produced for in
> the US.
> > > >> >>The same with oranges, grapefruit and other citrus from Australia
> and South
> > > >> >>America. Are the grain markets in the same shape? Brazil,
> Australia, and
> > > >> >>other countries are producing product for less. How long can a
> subsidy
> > > >> >>last? Where is our vaunted fishing fleet. Are there any American
> flag
> > > >> >>vessels left afloat, outside of the Navy and coast guard. Do we
> produce
> > > >> >>shoes or clothing any more? We still have a thriving wine
> industry.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>I have a question. Who does the service industry service? We have
> banks
> > > >> >>that lend money to foreign countries that don't repay the loans.
> We have
> > > >> >>computer companies that import all of the parts they assemble here.
> So we
> > > >> >>did save those high paying assembly line jobs. The fast food
> restaurants
> > > >> >>are expanding overseas instead of in the US so those high paying
> service
> > > >> >>jobs at Wendy's and McD aren't going to shrink the unemployment
> rolls. The
> > > >> >>banks can now lose money in insurance, brokerage and other non
> banking
> > > >> >>endeavors. Even the federal government is sending our armaments
> for
> > > >> >>production overseas.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>Were is the talent coming from to operate the high tech companies?
> That
> > > >> >>talent is coming from oversees. We can't even produce an
> intelligent work
> > > >> >>force. There is one ever expanding area of the economy. Tattoo
> parlors and
> > > >> >>body piercing salons are popping up all over. Now there is a real
> future
> > > >> >>for your kids. Am I missing something here? Ira
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>----- Original Message -----
> > > >> >>From: "Earl Adamy" <eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >> >>To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >> >>Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 4:54 PM
> > > >> >>Subject: Re: [RT] Service vs Manufacturing economy
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > Gary, do you have a URL for that article, sure would like to
> read the
> > > >> >>whole
> > > >> >> > thing?
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > I have long believed that true economic strength is built upon a
> strong
> > > >> >>and
> > > >> >> > resilient manufacturing base. I have also been saying for many
> years that
> > > >> >> > the US would suffer deeply in the next recession/depression for
> having
> > > >> >> > converted to a service based economy.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Earl
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > >> >> > From: "Gary Funck" <gary@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >> >> > To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >> >> > Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 3:23 PM
> > > >> >> > Subject: RE: [RT] 10 year note near 40 year highs ?
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > >> >> > > > From: Daniel Goncharoff [mailto:thegonch@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > > >> >> > > > Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 9:37 AM
> > > >> >> > > > To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >> >> > > > Subject: Re: [RT] 10 year note near 40 year highs ?
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > I think there are two sides to this point. Isn't a
> service-based
> > > >> >>economy
> > > >> >> > > > more flexible than one based on large factories? It may mean
> that
> > > >> >> > > > changes come more easily, and that new industries can
> develop using
> > > >> >>the
> > > >> >> > > > excess information-based labor from weaker sectors.
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > In this respect, telecoms will be a good real-life example.
> It will be
> > > >> >> > > > interesting to see what happens to all the people getting
> laid off by
> > > >> >> > > > the telecoms firms that won't be growing for several years.
> If they
> > > >> >>end
> > > >> >> > > > up having no place to go, that would indicate your believe
> is
> > > >> >>validated.
> > > >> >> > > > If they find new jobs in a similar field, I think the
> economic hit
> > > >> >>will
> > > >> >> > > > not be very big at all.
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > In this week's Business Week, there's a rather disturbing
> article that
> > > >> >> > refutes
> > > >> >> > > the theory that a service based economy should be more
> resilient.
> > > >> >>Excerpts
> > > >> >> > > below:
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > NEWS: ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > The Educated Unemployed
> > > >> >> > > The jobless rate for managers and professionals is likely to
> rise
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > [...]
> > > >> >> > > Here's why joblessness is likely to rise: Across the board,
> companies
> > > >> >>are
> > > >> >> > > facing an unholy trio of low profits, weak demand, and falling
> > > >> >> > prices--with no
> > > >> >> > > relief in sight. Revenues for the companies in the Standard &
> Poor's
> > > >> >> > 500-stock
> > > >> >> > > index are down 2% over the past year, adding to the pressure
> on
> > > >> >>businesses
> > > >> >> > to
> > > >> >> > > cut costs by cutting workforces. At the same time,
> productivity is
> > > >> >>soaring
> > > >> >> > at a
> > > >> >> > > rapid clip--a 6% gain over last year at nonfinancial
> corporations.
> > > >> >>That's
> > > >> >> > > allowing businesses to meet flat demand with fewer workers.
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > Even more distressing, some of the sectors where the job
> market has
> > > >> >>stayed
> > > >> >> > > relatively strong--including health, education, finance, and
> retailing,
> > > >> >> > which
> > > >> >> > > together make up about 40% of the total workforce--are showing
> signs of
> > > >> >> > > cracking. And the already grim labor picture in the airline,
> energy,
> > > >> >> > > technology, telecom, and media sectors--some 7% of the
> workforce--keeps
> > > >> >> > > deteriorating.
> > > >> >> > > [...]
> > > >> >> > > This is the dark side of the productivity boom. During the
> second half
> > > >> >>of
> > > >> >> > the
> > > >> >> > > 1990s, output per worker rose, but soaring demand and
> revenues, driven
> > > >> >>in
> > > >> >> > part
> > > >> >> > > by the technology and telecom boom, helped boost hiring and
> push down
> > > >> >>the
> > > >> >> > > unemployment rate below 4%. Wages and bonuses soared, and it
> seemed like
> > > >> >>a
> > > >> >> > > golden age for workers.
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > But rising productivity without rising demand is a recipe for
> > > >> >>disappearing
> > > >> >> > > jobs. If companies can't raise prices, the only way they can
> boost
> > > >> >>profits
> > > >> >> > is
> > > >> >> > > to cut workers--and higher productivity makes that possible.
> > > >> >> > > [...]
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > >> >> > > realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > >> >>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > >> >> > realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > >> >>realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >>
> > > >> B> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > >> B> realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> B> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > >> realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > > DG> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > DG> realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > DG> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Plan to Sell a Home?
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/ySSFAA/zMEolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|