The Republican tax cut has yet to trickle down to American workers at all and now some
economists are saying that we should restore the previous tax rates to corporations who
can't reign in their outrageous CEO pay.
Now look, okay, this all starts... it's a story you and I have told so many times over
the year.
Workers are making a dollar and for every dollar that the workers making, the CEO is
making $100,000.
I mean, that's basically the ratio.
Hasn't always been like this, but what ended up happening is they came up with a system
and the way the system works is the CEO puts together his board, his or her board of directors,
basically.
The board of directors, obviously they vote on whether or not a CEO gets paid, how much
they get paid, what are the benefits, how much stock option.
All of the great things.
These are their pals.
You understand?
This is like me saying Farron, would you be on my board and oh, by the way, would you
vote for me to get a big pay raise?
And oh by the way, would you vote for a great pension program?
So these boards, first of all, 99 percent of the time, they're never going to be voted
out.
Right.
You understand that?
You got a board 99, literally 99 percent of the time, they're never going to be voted
out.
I mean they have to go murder somebody to be voted out.
Tell us about these boards to begin with.
You did a great story one time that talked about how this board member goes to this company.
This board member goes, it's like this family, this incestuous family of people looking out
for CEOs of corporations, take it from there.
Right.
There was a, and I wish I remembered the source of it, but they mapped out this beautiful
chart and it showed that, you know, usually a board member for a corporation will sit
on four or five different boards because these are not full time positions.
You don't go in every single day and sit for meetings.
You meet once a month, maybe twice a month.
And so you have the same people and a lot of media companies are on here, that's why
we've got so many problems with the media, because they'll go on Monday and they got
their board meeting with Exxon.
Then on Thursday they got their board meeting for the New York Times.
These board of director types?
Right and it's the same person, I think actually Pfizer is the one that has the incestuous
relationship with New York Times.
There's several of them, yeah.
But that's the way it is.
So Merck has a seat at the table for New York Times and New York Times has a seat at the
table with Exxon and Exxon has a seat at the table with Wells Fargo.
Now I'm just using those as an example, I'm not saying they 100 percent, those are the
people.
But that's how the boards work.
Yes.
You share your board members with everybody else.
Right.
And so they're the same people who get paid tens of millions to go around and you know,
basically rubber stamp whatever it is the CEO wants.
Now, what's interesting about this story, about, you know the proposal to reinstate
the tax code to what it was versus what it is after the past year, Dean Baker at Truthout,
is talking about doing it not just for the safety of the workers but for the shareholders
because they're also getting screwed over in all of this because they, that is money
that if it weren't going to, the CEO would be redistributed.
Okay.
You want to hear...
I've just got through with a series of depositions on the opioid case and that's why it makes
me think about this.
There's a guy named Hammergren who was the CEO for McKesson, okay.
Now, McKesson was one of the key companies that created the opioid catastrophe in America.
They were selling, they were illegally selling narcotics all over the country.
They knew they were selling it.
Hammergren was in charge while it was going on.
It was so bad that McKesson had actually internalized the illegal sale of their narcotics.
Oxycontin, Oxymorphone, all of these narcotics that they were distributing to pharmacies.
They understood that a huge amount of that was not reaching where it's supposed to go.
For example, there'd be a city with maybe a thousand people in this city, okay, and
McKesson would distribute 6 million pills to the city.
Well, they knew that a thousand people couldn't absorb 6 million pills.
So they understood that it then became something called the Oxy Express.
Take a look at it, it's an interesting story, but Oxy Express ran all up the eastern seaboard.
Now, so Hammergren started making the company billions of dollars basically illegally.
I mean they knew they were breaking the law.
So they give Hammergren $680 million dollars in compensation, $680 million dollars because
he was willing to do what most CEOs wouldn't do.
Now most honest CEOs is going to say, you know what, because of what we've done, 150
people are dying every day.
Probably we shouldn't do that.
But the board of directors said, yeah, let's give him this money.
Then the shareholders, thank goodness, said uh-uh, that ain't gonna work Mr. Hammergren.
You know what you've done to our company, it's going to cost us billions of dollars
to get out of this problem.
We're going to have to pay for it.
So they're actually suing Hammergren and they're suing the board of directors to get the money
back.
Well, that's what needs to happen.
It needs to happen at more places than just you know McKesson because right now we do
have CEOs who make the decisions, yeah, we can poison this entire Ohio community with
our, with our DuPont poisoned or whatever it is.
Or Monsanto doing it or Bayer doing it and they get rewarded.
Meanwhile, 10 years from now, 5 years from now, in some cases, the shareholders are the
ones who they lose tons of money in their stocks, tons of money in their holdings of
the company because of the multibillion dollars in some cases, lawsuits because, oh, that
guy who got his golden parachute and left us three years ago, he also gave 10,000 people
cancer and so now we're on the hook for that while he's retired down in Cayman.
Well, let me tell you what else is being affected.
The entire stock system is being affected.
You know, a lot of people watching the show, maybe they don't, they're not part of the
stock market, but the people who are the, you know, there's a lot of mom and pop pension
programs that rely on the stock market.
Okay.
If you go back, this story does a great job, Truthout again does a great job saying that
there was a time in the 40's up to the up to maybe the 70's, the late 70's when you
could be in the stock market and you could maybe count on about 8 percent return if you
were, you know, if you did things right.
Now, no matter how much you do right, and it's been like this for a very long time,
you're going to get 4 percent.
I mean, if it comes to paying pensions for mom and pop, why is that?
The connection is very obvious.
I mean, you know, you've got CEOs that are making decisions that are affecting the infrastructure
of the stock market.
And so I think this story goes well beyond, gee whiz, we're paying CEOs too much money.
I think what has to happen is you've got to.
There's got to be some laws that talk about the pay scales of these ceos and the shareholders
need to take control of their companies again, because they've lost control of their companies.
Absolutely, and there needs to be some kind of retroactive, you know, liability for these
CEOs for what they do to the companies.
Well talk about that, that's brilliant.
Talk about that a little bit.
Well, here's something, and this is, you and I have talked about this dozens of times in
the past, but back in the 80's and before that, CEOs would come to a company and they'd
stay there for 20 years.
Right.
The average lifespan of a CEO now at a major corporation is 3 to 5 years, but they don't
just retire.
They then go to a different corporation.
They do the same kind of scam.
Get as much money for me, if I mess up consumers, if I create a bunch of liabilities for the
future of this company, that's fine, because by the time I'm done here, I'm going to Merck
or I'm going to Exxon.
It's called.
There's actually a name for it.
It's called a quick profits massive risk.
Yeah.
That is the term, it's terminology.
And they actually teach this in MBA school.
They say, look, you're passing through, and it used to be you weren't just passing through.
The decisions you made in year one would affect how you were compensated in year 15, but now
that's all changed.
Right.
It's quickly moving through.
It's like musical chairs isn't it?
Exactly, and a lot of times these CEOs, the decisions they make, especially the bad ones,
you don't even know about those consequences 'til long after that person has left.
Now they knew about it.
They knew how bad it would be for the company, but they also knew they weren't going to be
a part it when those bad consequences came to light, and that's why they get their golden
parachute.
They'd get their $680 million dollars and they're out the door.
And somebody who's sitting there saying, ah, so what, it doesn't affect me.
It does affect you.
It affects the pay scale than a worker gets.
If you're giving an extra $20 million dollars to a CEO, you know, it means you got employees
there that can't make an extra $2,000 because all the money's going to the CEO.
Or if you are working in the company and you have a pension with that company, these thugs
are affecting your pension.
So to say, oh, this doesn't affect me, you're not thinking clearly.
For more infomation >> Live PD: Attitude Is Everything (Season 3) | A&E - Duration: 3:42. 
For more infomation >> Noticias Telemundo Mediodía, 11 de diciembre de 2018 | Noticias Telemundo - Duration: 21:44. 
For more infomation >> Entrevista con la ministra de Comunicación de Bolivia - Duration: 4:53. 
For more infomation >> Torta Delizia - Duration: 7:55. 
For more infomation >> Cada vez llegan más personas a honrar a la Virgen de Guadalupe | Noticias Telemundo - Duration: 2:04. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét