CBC article on amount of US debt

[sdw]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/reportsfromabroad/macdonald/20070303.html

The article starts out talking about the plight of the people who are actually fighting Bush's "war on terror" and the lack of emotional, financial and medical support they receive when they come home. The Iraq vets are going to make it look like the Vietnam vets were treated well.

The article then talks about the 8.8 Trillion Dollar debt that the US currently has and contrasts that to the current debt that Canada has.

Also in the article is a reminder that Americans are carrying, on average, $35,000 in unsecured debt and have mortgaged their homes beyond the home's real value.

The article asks where is the money to fund boomer's retirement going to come from. Any young person knows the answer to that. They can never have the lifestyle their parents had, they will be too busy paying for their parents retirement lifestyle. These young people will never inherit their parents houses, will never have their parents pay for their education, will never have financial assistance as they start out. No, their parents have made sure that their children will continue to support their lifestyle.

The economic powerhouse is no longer to the south of us. Look west young man, look west. The nations that will run this world are the ones who's parents didn't spend the future.

 

[luckydog71]

SDW - the US debt is out of control as is our trade deficit.

We need to get rid of politicians who promote spending my money as if it was theirs.


http://www.ndir.com/SI/education/debt.shtml
The Canadian debt according to this link is 25,120 per person.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
The US debt according to this link is 29,200 per person.

Obviously we need a better way.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/reportsfromabroad/macdonald/20070303.html


The economic powerhouse is no longer to the south of us. Look west young man, look west. The nations that will run this world are the ones who's parents didn't spend the future.

SDW - By look west, I'm sure you mean the far east, ie. China, that communist evil empire which is in fact one of the major sources of financing for the US deficit.

 

[sdw]

SDW - By look west, I'm sure you mean the far east, ie. China, that communist evil empire which is in fact one of the major sources of financing for the US deficit.

There is more to the west of us than China. There is Japan, there is Indonesia, there are the Philippines and there is Australia and New Zealand.

With the exception of Japan, Australia and New Zealand; most of these nations haven't been participating in the world economy except as cheap sources of labour and materials.

China is very old land. There are still resources there to be exploited because prior civilizations didn't know how to exploit them; however, China doesn't have the resources to keep a thriving free economy going. The model that China is currently using, where they provide cheap consumer goods, only works if they ensure the US doesn't flush itself. That doesn't work when you are trying to prop up a civilization that increases it's consumption to the most extreme extent of the credit others are willing to extend to it. Eventually, China will move much of that debt to Western societies who believe that the US can continue to operate in the current manner. That will take down the remaining Western societies.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

The U.S. trade deficit set a record for a fifth straight year, and the imbalance with China soared to an all-time high as well.

The Bush administration pledged to keep pursuing its free-trade policies, while Democrats now controlling Congress demanded a change in course.

The gap between what the U.S. sells abroad and what it imports rose to a record $763.6 billion last year, up 6.5 percent from the previous record of $716.7 billion in 2005, the Commerce Department reported Tuesday.


SDW - you might also want to consider this:

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/about/pdfs/UStrade.pdf

and this:

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Wolf%20%20Drescher/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/GHIJKLMN/setser%5B1%5D.ppt#256,1,Chinese Financing of the United States

 

[citylover]

SDW - the US debt is out of control as is our trade deficit.

We need to get rid of politicians who promote spending my money as if it was theirs.

Damn, LD is slippery... I figgered he was a conservative Reagan Republican, but he must be a Clinton Democrat.

After all, the budget deficit swelled to the historical highest levels ever under Reagan w/his tax giveaways to the rich & his mammoth defense spending... larger than all previous deficits combined...

Was cut & approaching zero under Clinton's budgets, & then the Shrub balooned the deficit up again, even before the Afghanistan & Iraq wars, using the same policies as Reagan. As Cheney said, speaking to the treasury sec'y he would soon fire for daring to question him,

"You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.

Yes, LD, you are a sly dog, a riddle, an enigma..

 

[sdw]

Randy, you should adjust your settings. Having to scroll back and forth to read your post doesn't invite the casual viewer.

The problem with the Yale position is that they seem to have forgotten the Tobacco Trade.

The problem that the US is having with their economy isn't confined to their trade imbalance with China and cannot be cured simply by preventing Chinese imports.

The tobacco/cotton/molasses trade sent those goods to one destination where they were exchanged for finished product that was sent to another destination where it was exchanged for slaves who were used as cheap labour to grow more tobacco/cotton/molasses.

http://bell.lib.umn.edu/Products/tob1.html
http://www.beyondbooks.com/ush72/2d.asp
http://cghs.dadeschools.net/slavery/antebellum_slavery/interstate_slave_trade/passage1.htm

The problem with any trade triangle is that it only works while the superior nation is able to impose, what is to all intents and purposes, a tax on the nations they trade with.

Back when the tabacco/cotton/molasses trade was happening, the "Great Powers" of Europe were in the driver's seat. Where are Spain, France, the Dutch or England now? They certainly no longer have the ability to draw lines on the globe to indicate where others may not go.

It appears to be the natural course of events that every "Great Power" forgets that a nation must provide real value or their trading partners will cease to trade.

This happened to the Romans, it happened to the Europeans and now it is happening to the Americans.

The materials necessary for China to produce what they send to the US are coming from somewhere. The nations that provide those materials are buying the equipment and knowhow to produce those materials from somewhere.

add to post from here:

Up until the Second World War the US was still engaged in taking raw materials to create products and exporting what was surplus to other nations. The US wasn't producing large surpluses because they didn't want to open their markets. After WWII the US had all the production capability they had built up to support the war effort and the people that owned that capability wanted to keep it running. Political pressure was put on the government to "ensure free access to markets" and also open up markets that were closed to them.

As a result, the US took on the role that the "Great Powers" of Europe were no longer able to sustain as a result of their war debts.

The problem with becoming an Imperial Power is that a government is no longer solely concerned with the good of their own population. Now, they must also fund their military presence, protect their access to materials and protect their ability to sell what they produce.

Just as with the "Great Powers of Europe", America discovered that the people who finance the industries have no desire to pay more than is absolutely required. America found that the people who owned their production capacity insisted on either being able to import cheap labour or the ability to locate their production capacity where the cheap labour was.

Just as the European powers discovered, America found that this is a two edged sword. The Europeans lost their colonies because once war had changed their ownership, the colonies had no interest in returning to the fold. Because the European powers had located the dirty smelly bits of their production capacity in their colonies, they lost the ability to create wealth as they lost their colonies.

This is what has happened to America. The dirty smelly bits of their production capacity were moved bit by bit to other nations because of the desire of the owners to have cheap labour and the desire of the American population to not have to live next to a noisy, dirty, smelly factory.

The average American began to think of themselves as the new nobility. They wouldn't learn how to do demeaning jobs with their hands. Instead, they would learn how to move ideas and paper around. The citizens that couldn't learn, after all half of every population is below average, would become entitled to be taken care of. So, America voted itself the Education system and Welfare system they now have. They had learned nothing from Europe's loss of her colonies. They had forgotten all of the reasons that America had freed themselves from the Europeans in the first place.

America is now where the Brits, French and Dutch were in the 1950s. The places that America had moved it's production capacity now see the chance to be free of America's influence and as a result, America loses the influence they had in their satellites and production capacity that the satellite represented.

If we look at France, we see where the US will be in a few years. I'm not sure who will be the America who benefits as America benefited at the end of WWII. I am sure that it won't be China. I see China as being like Italy at the end of WWII.

 

[Mr.O]

And you citylover... You ???...

Damn, LD is slippery... I figgered he was a conservative Reagan Republican, but he must be a Clinton Democrat.

After all, the budget deficit swelled to the historical highest levels ever under Reagan w/his tax giveaways to the rich & his mammoth defense spending... larger than all previous deficits combined...

Was cut & approaching zero under Clinton's budgets, & then the Shrub balooned the deficit up again, even before the Afghanistan & Iraq wars, using the same policies as Reagan. As Cheney said, speaking to the treasury sec'y he would soon fire for daring to question him,

"You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.

Yes, LD, you are a sly dog, a riddle, an enigma..

... are the reason left wing liberals can't be taken seriously!

It is true that the Liberals have a very intellectual component to them but they are never really taken too seriously because of the WACKED OUT!! - Freaky, Left wing... no.. make that Far Left wing emotionally unbalanced & seriously delusional scarry people that flock to the socialist ideals which are so prominent in the liberal camp!

Somehow the REASON gene, just did'nt get passed down in the procreation process.

I identify the inability to see or even consider various points of view, but instead spew out repetitive rhetoric implanted or absorbed from those with a very tenuous grip on reality to begin with, a sure sign that you are dealing with a person who is just not relevant.

Those who clearly show that they, in thier actions & words, are not apropos toward sound reasoning will never gain a majority of converts!

How do you deal with that???

How do you reason with a crazy person??

You can only Hope!!


Now, on the other hand, when presented with facts & historical axiom, if the person were to show the ability to accept these truths instead of reverting to ignorant almost psychopathic ranting & raving, you would conclude them to be a person of "reason".

Let us now,
bow our heads.....

& pray!

 

[Old Lover]

Budget deficit

How did America go from a balanced budget to a record deficit? How did America go from a rhodes scholar to a grade c student for a president? Easy, we elected an idiot.
A few years ago I was sitting on my couch having breakfast and King George came on the tv. He said he just decided to spend 300 billion dollars invading, conquering and occupying Iraq. Not his money, my money. Well I was not happy then or now. It turns out it will cost a trillion. The only winner of this war is halliburton. We invaded a little impoverished third world country that was no danger to anybody. The year before the war Iraq put 1.75 billion into its military, america 300 billion. Gee, who was going to win? Oh, and by the way there were no weapons of mass destruction,
Right now that war is costing ten billion dollars a month. Americas war office is getting 1/2 trillion per year. How long do you think that can keep up?
I wonder if America can last 2 more years of this bonehead. King George may have tried to ad one too many colonies to the empire.

 

[luckydog71]

OL and CL - I hope your simplistic view of problems with America is true.

If the US was perfect before W came to office and everything that went wrong is a direct result of the "idiot" then we only have a few months left and he will be term limited out.

In my opinion our difficulties are much greater than just one man, as powerful as he is, he is not the cause he is a symptom.

The American's have failed to act when action was necessary. We have given up control to powerful lobbyists and influence peddlers.

Our country has an estimated 11 million illegals (I have heard as high as 30 million) and our politicians are talking about make them legal. Most Americans oppose illegal immigration, but we do nothing about it.

OL / CL - you have fallen into the same pattern many have down here have; do not take responsibility for anything just blame the other side.

 

[citylover]

... are the reason left wing liberals can't be taken seriously!

O,O,O, what an assO... can't do math, doesn't understand the simple aspect of "budget deficits" or the facts that the size of defecits under different presidents can be actually compared.

(Ohole says: "what's a budget deficit? what's bigger mean? what do you mean one set of numbers are more than another set? what's a number? Who's this Cheney figure you talk about? how dare you quote him!")...

& simply shouts to try to make up for his ignorance & drown out anyone who might actually have a brain

Give us your great critique of anything left or liberal or socialist again... oh, wait, it's simply "LEFT BAD! RIGHT GOOD!" ... just like the li'l piggies in Animal Farm, it seems.

What nice, reasoned posts you make.

SHEEESH!

 

[citylover]

OL and CL - I hope your simplistic view of problems with America is true.

If the US was perfect before W came to office and everything that went wrong is a direct result of the "idiot" then we only have a few months left and he will be term limited out.

How is anything in my posts optimistic? Just because I, unlike you, rightly point out the stupidity of the Shrub's policies, you ASS-u-ME quite a lot.

& just cause I point out a few indisputable facts, like Clinton was improving ONE thing you raise, the budget deficit, after years of mismanagement from "conservatives" who gave away the bank; & the current administration undid everything Clinton did.

Do you really care about the budget deficit? You say it's a problem, but you don't act like it in whom you support. You reward the political side that busted the budget the worst (Reagan first & thent he president-select Shrub) and continually attack the politicians who did something about it, Clinton (& his VP Gore, whom you seem to viscerally hate). Before them, the only prez since Johnson to actually work progressively on dealing with the deficit was Carter. I haven't seen you say anything about him, but I can guess.

I can see the wheels turning... "Hmmmm, the most recent Conservatives/Republicans have been horrible at the budget, the most recent Dem presidents have actually worked on solving the problem & made progress, altho undone by the Conservatives/Republicans . Should we give them credit? NAHHHH, let's bash Hollywood some more!"

I guess in the end, you come down to, like Cheney, "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due."

& I bet most of your "problems" are problems of you & people like Rush Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter, not real problems.

E.g., Your generic blast against lobbyists sounds good, except in your specific posts you only complain about some generic "left" or "liberals" or, shudder, Hollywood. It also ignores whether the specific policy, pushed by an interest group, might be right, even if it is opposed by someone else. Or what lobbying tactics make the practice bad.

The bad things about Bush/Cheney energy policy is that they're demonstrably bad (see other threads) AND that they were created secretly & purely in the economic interests of one sector, at the expense of the nation & the rest of the planet. These are "bad" lobbyists, but bad because they create bad policy in a bad way.

Other lobbyists, like the environmental groups, might be promoting good policies, in a more democratic and representative fashion, & w/o doing so purely because of their pocket book. They're actually representing the feelings of a majority of the US people, unlike our poloticians

&, e.g., immigration is not the problem you seem to think it is, it's a pure red herring for people. Hi immigration is an economic good for a country.

I am hardly optimistic; the decline in America's image internationally, for example, is something that was happening slowly before Bush but I think w/ him, he has harmed it irreparably. He unilaterally pulls out of treaties, and shows the world he's nothing but a cowboy.

There will be no recovery for the US, as those of us who actually travel to other lands have learned by actually talking to people. No matter who replaces Bush. He singlehandedly & quickly undid all the good will the world had after 9/11 for the US, & has only inflamed the MidEast to a far worse state than it was when he found it.

No foreign leader will ever give the US the benefit of the doubt again. The people of foreign countries have solidly rejected US goals & leadership.

That's just one example, that can be laid squarely at the Shrub's feet, & cannot be undone.

 

[luckydog71]

How is anything in my posts optimistic?

I did not say you were OPTIMISTIC.

I said you were SIMPLISTIC

OL and CL - I hope your simplistic view of problems with America is true.

 

[LonelyGhost]

I'm a hard-core NDP-voting socialist and here's what's wrong with
our country:

Its run by people who think you can govern the same way that
you manage a business and it doesn't work:

1. Governments need to cut out every social program in existence
and have one (1) method of 'securing income' for those who
need it.

2. Governments need to fire every manager, administrator, director
director-general, etc, and put that money into providing front line
workers.

2a. Governments do not need 27 managers to figure out how the
money should be spent, they need one budget and everyone follows it.

3. Governments need to stop propping up business with tax cuts,
tax incentives, grants, interest-free loans and any other kind of
corporate welfare: if fucking capitalism works, then the government
doesn't need to financially support it.

4. Stop spending money it doesn't have: simple economics, you either
earn more (taxation) or spend less ... taxation in Canada costs more
than housing!

5. Simplify taxation from income-based (bad) to consumption-based (less
bad) -- have zero taxes on income below $100,000 per year (this will
balance the consumption taxes) and then set indexed flat rates linked
to 20% increments above $100,000 per year.

6. Make all 'stock options' illegal for CEO's.

7. Legalize drugs and prostitution, and put police resources toward
other 'crimes'.

8. Put all doctors on salary.

9. Stop hosting the Olympics etc. If private businesses want to host
the event, and earn any profits, let them. Get Government out of the
business of entertaining the voters!

 

[LonelyGhost]

Your number 6 is a joke, because it's designed to align the interest of shareholder's with management. And believe it or not, most individuals are shareholder's in some fashion or another, (ie mutual funds, pensions etc)

huh? stock options to CEO's doesn't 'align' the interest of shareholder's
with management, it actually dilutes share value and can result in further
decreases when those options are exercised.

as well, there is no proof yet that stock options to CEO's has resulted
in more value to shareholders ...

think Worldcom, Enron, etc. ... all those CEO's did was cook the books
to make the company look good, exercised their options and watched
the stock value tank.

 

[chilli]

You need a basic understanding of corporate governance. If this where the case than why would the Board of Directors (who are mandated to act in the best interest of the shareholders' authorize this?)

According to you there should be all kinds of lawsuits being filed against the Board of Directors for not adhering to their fiducary duties.

And don't confuse Eron etc with normal business procedures, whether they were had stock options are not they undertook criminal behaviour and the biggest losers where the stockholders themselves, many of whom where workers who had these stocks within their pensions.

Wow

Just wow

Enron is a tip of the ice berg - the examples of corporate CEO's taking bonuses etc... while their company languished, did poorly in sales, etc...
is simply too mind blowing for me to understand where you are coming from.

Let me teach you something about human nature.

It's called "ME"

Looking out for number 1

That is pretty well the mantra that most people operate by, in fact I would be willing to say there are many times in your life where you have lived by that exact same code.

So please don't try to pass off Enron as some sort of annomoly. Because it isn't. I have been in business all of my life - and I have seen every kind of corporate fraud you can think of to people "stretching" what's ethiccal and what isn't.

Is everyone corrupt - no... but most act in self interest. And that my friend is human nature.

 

[LonelyGhost]

You need a basic understanding of corporate governance. If this where the case than why would the Board of Directors (who are mandated to act in the best interest of the shareholders' authorize this?)

According to you there should be all kinds of lawsuits being filed against the Board of Directors for not adhering to their fiducary duties.

And don't confuse Eron etc with normal business procedures, whether they were had stock options are not they undertook criminal behaviour and the biggest losers where the stockholders themselves, many of whom where workers who had these stocks within their pensions.

wow, where did I say there should be any lawsuits????

the BOD acts in their best interests, not the shareholders ... if they did,
they would listen to their shareholders.

as for Enron etc., they presented their company as following 'GAAP'
when in fact they were issuing stock options left and right and making
a killing!

 

[luckydog71]

I'm a hard-core NDP-voting socialist and here's what's wrong with
our country:

Its run by people who think you can govern the same way that
you manage a business and it doesn't work:

1. Governments need to cut out every social program in existence
and have one (1) method of 'securing income' for those who
need it.

2. Governments need to fire every manager, administrator, director
director-general, etc, and put that money into providing front line
workers.

2a. Governments do not need 27 managers to figure out how the
money should be spent, they need one budget and everyone follows it.

3. Governments need to stop propping up business with tax cuts,
tax incentives, grants, interest-free loans and any other kind of
corporate welfare: if fucking capitalism works, then the government
doesn't need to financially support it.

4. Stop spending money it doesn't have: simple economics, you either
earn more (taxation) or spend less ... taxation in Canada costs more
than housing!

5. Simplify taxation from income-based (bad) to consumption-based (less
bad) -- have zero taxes on income below $100,000 per year (this will
balance the consumption taxes) and then set indexed flat rates linked
to 20% increments above $100,000 per year.

6. Make all 'stock options' illegal for CEO's.

7. Legalize drugs and prostitution, and put police resources toward
other 'crimes'.

8. Put all doctors on salary.

9. Stop hosting the Olympics etc. If private businesses want to host
the event, and earn any profits, let them. Get Government out of the
business of entertaining the voters!

LG - This is NDP policy???? If I had known that I would have joined the party.

These are the same as conservative principals. I only have two items that I have a small disagreement:

6. Gov't should not regulate CEO pay. But CEO's should pay taxes on their options from day 1. If the option rise in value from the option price the income is taxed in the year the stock went up. If the stock price goes down the option price for tax purposes would be reset. No capital loses allowed.

8. Doctors are an independent business and should be allowed to charge what the market will allow.

But if I could get a gov't to adopt everything else, I would throw the Doctors and CEOs overboard in a heartbeat.

 

[sdw]

I'm a hard-core NDP-voting socialist and here's what's wrong with
our country:

Its run by people who think you can govern the same way that
you manage a business and it doesn't work:

1. Governments need to cut out every social program in existence
and have one (1) method of 'securing income' for those who
need it.

Agreed, a individual base amount that is made up if the person can't earn it and is not taxed if they do earn it, it should be transferable so that a income earner can claim their spouse and children.

The taxable income after the base amount(s) have been deducted should be subject to a graduated tax rate something in the range of 10% of the 100K of taxable income, 25% of the next 400K of taxable income and 50% of the remaining taxable income.

For example:

Jane earns an income as an Interior Designer. Her spouse stays at home and cares for the house and children. Jane can deduct her base amount, her spouses base amount and her children's base amount before determining her taxable income.

Orum is a handicapped, mentally challenged resident of a care home. His base amount is claimed by the care home who use it to provide a residence, food, clothing and a comfort allowance for Orum. If Orum moves, the ability to claim his base amount moves with him.

Nancy is an abused wife, she can use her base amount and her children's base amount to escape her husband without having to worry about trying to get child support from him or make it easily possible for him to find her.

Crusty Baker is a business, they directly deduct all costs for wage, material, facility, extended health, etc from their gross income and pay tax on the net income at 10% for the first 100K of net income, 25% of the next 400K of net income and 50% of the remaining net income.

The reality is that while the majority of people are employed by government and it's organizations, the majority of the remainder are employed by businesses that don't have 100K in net profit per year. Only a small portion of people are employed in businesses that have more than 100 employees. Since the actions of a Nortel are very negative, we should be discouraging the very large businesses and strongly encouraging the small businesses.

2. Governments need to fire every manager, administrator, director
director-general, etc, and put that money into providing front line
workers.

Get real, government shouldn't be a growth industry. Right now, government or government organizations are the largest employer in both Canada and the USA.

If you have reformed to a base income system as I laid out in 1, you no longer have all the support workers, clerks and managers that we require under our current system.

Government gets very streamlined.

2a. Governments do not need 27 managers to figure out how the
money should be spent, they need one budget and everyone follows it.

As I pointed out in 2, government gets a lot smaller under a base rate system. A system of checks and balances is still needed for what money the government does directly distribute and what services government does still directly provide. Someone has to be the person responsible to explaining to a committee of our elected government members what they spent, why they spent it and under what authority they operated.

3. Governments need to stop propping up business with tax cuts,
tax incentives, grants, interest-free loans and any other kind of
corporate welfare: if fucking capitalism works, then the government
doesn't need to financially support it.

Agreed. Under a base rate system it won't be as difficult to find the money to start a business.

4. Stop spending money it doesn't have: simple economics, you either
earn more (taxation) or spend less ... taxation in Canada costs more
than housing!

Agreed.

5. Simplify taxation from income-based (bad) to consumption-based (less
bad) -- have zero taxes on income below $100,000 per year (this will
balance the consumption taxes) and then set indexed flat rates linked
to 20% increments above $100,000 per year.

I've mostly covered this under 1. "For each according to their needs" has not worked anywhere it was tried. The reason we have government as our largest employer is because it takes people to administer all the entitlements that people can think up.

6. Make all 'stock options' illegal for CEO's.

Why would I work for a company who can't pay me if I can't get stock that may be valuable if I do a good job?

7. Legalize drugs and prostitution, and put police resources toward
other 'crimes'.

Mostly Agreed. If drugs and prostitution are not criminalized, we remove the money and the need for dealers and pimps. This means that some 60% of work that police and courts deal with is no longer necessary.

8. Put all doctors on salary.

Get real. If I am a good doctor, at the top of my profession in education, knowledge and skill, I am going to work where I am properly paid. If I am lazy, not current with practice and technique, and ham handed. I would be willing to accept a salary, would you still be willing to pay it? Slavery doesn't work, no matter what you call it.

9. Stop hosting the Olympics etc. If private businesses want to host
the event, and earn any profits, let them. Get Government out of the
business of entertaining the voters!

Agreed.

 

[chilli]

Thanks for helping me with my argument. Yes people act in their own best interest, that's the whole philosophy behind stock options. Good job.

Listen if your going to "run around the mulbery bush" and act cute I'm not going to bite.

Please respond to legitimate posts "in context"

It would be nice to function in a business model as you described, but it just doesn't work like that.

Laying off 5000 workers and closing plants doesn't require talent,
generally when your company reaches that point you DON'T have any other options.

So why are you being given stock options, a raise and a golden parachute for doing the obvious?

The whole reason we are having this discussion is that CEO's were not being rewarded for turning companies around so much as getting rid of dead weight.

Even a 14 yr old can figure that one out.

and yes - there are many examples of Enron's out there - probably far more the norm than not.

Screwing over people doesn't seem to bother most people in business.