I do not agree with Obama... I think everyone should be able to earn as much as possible - as long as they earn it honestly. In earning it a "good" CEO recognizes the value of his labor force, hires good people and pays them accordingly, it is a win-win for everyone and for the country.. there is a finite difference.
To be a little more clear.......
A company has $100 million in sales
The company owns its factory
The company employees 200 people
This means the company has capital
Capital produces the product.
Product produces sales
The workforce is a talent pool
The company uses their talent pool to innovate
With innovation a company invests in technology.
Technology keeps the factory cutting edge
The cutting edge factory has material value.
Material value + capital value = enhanced stock value
Enhanced stock value = an asset to stockholders.
On the other hand:
The company that sells off its means of production
The company outsources manufacturing
Stakeholder value is now diminished in value
CEO's take their: contract guaranteed - bonuses and stock options
The CEO is the winner, the employees and stakeholders are the losers.
++++++++++++++++++++
If your motive is actually growing a business and accomplishing something you take door one, if your only motive is greed you take door two.
You're so blinkered by ignorance or envy - I can't tell which - that it's shocking. You and Obama are philosophical siamese twins when it comes to this subject.
Why don't you first try and strip all of the pejorative terms out of your description - remember what democrats do, they inflame emotions to overcome rational thought - and then rewrite your descriptions.
But first, let's deal with your "other hand" because it's so full of falsehoods it's not even funny.
What happens when a company sells off its means of production? Why, it gets money back - cold, hard cash. Who owns that money? Why the owners of the company, that's who. Who are they? Why, the shareholders, that's who. Who profited by that? Why the shareholders, of course,
as it was supposed to be all along.There is absolutely no diminishment of value - unless you're going to take the position that when management sells off the means of production it's always a fraudulent transfer and the company does not get equal value in return.
Now, let's suppose this company is still going to continue selling the product it historically made in-house. It's now purchasing the goods at wholesale from another producer, and selling at retail.
What's wrong with that? Or are you now going to tell me that every merchant, every five-and-dime that buys goods at wholesale from other companies that made the goods, and sells those same goods at retail is somehow evil, greedy, what have you?
In other words, what you are saying is that once a company starts off as a manufacturer it can never, ever, ever become a mere retailer without engaging in evil greedy actions that diminish the value all 'round.
Is that what you're saying? Because if it is then you're irrational because there is utterly nothing in that process - stripped of your hatred of it - that in the least necessitates a diminishment of value.
Now, answer my question: what is the difference between profit and greed.