|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
At 09:32 AM 9/23/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>Frankly, with a 2800% increase in share value it would
>seem to me he earned a very "perky" retirement.
>
>Clyde
I agree completely. Whatever that package was costing GE, it was the
tiniest token of what he did for the company. Getting shareholder
approval for a perk package isn't a reasonable solution either ... no more
so that expecting government to come to the voters to decide where to place
a stop sign.
Bob
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>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 ---------------------~-->
Sell a Home with Ease!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/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/
|