I read a lot of financial publications: BusinessWeek, Investor’s Business Daily and the Wall Street Journal regularly and others when I get around to them. I don’t know why—I suppose I’m a masochist. In a two-hour window I came across these articles.
Freddie Mac loses $151M in 1Q, but beats expectations
Eurozone finance ministers take aim at 'scandalous' executive pay
Exxon: Profit Pirate or Tax Victim?
Well, Freddie Mac, being one of the many government programs responsible for the current "subprime crisis", is hemorrhaging money. $151 million in the first quarter this year and $4.5 billion in the previous two quarters--how about that: a government economic program demonstrating the government's complete inability to deal with matters economic.
And "scandalous" executive pay. I hate this topic so much that I could kick a kitten through a steel fan whenever it comes up. Let's go over this again: A good CEO is indispensable to a corporation. Hell, a competent CEO is still pretty valuable. The CEO must project a very complex, long-range business plan to be successful. As an analogy, there is a reason the quarterback is paid more than the long snapper. A good long snapper is desirable, of course, but a good quarterback is much, much more valuable. (I'm not responsible for that analogy, but I don't recall where I first saw it--it may have been in an article by Andrew Bernstein). And I am not at all surprised that an article on executive pay from AFP begins by referring to executives as "corporate fat cats".
And Exxon is getting reamed for being successful again. The article focuses briefly on the exorbitant taxes the company pays, but not for long. Hilary Clinton is quoted in that article as saying, "There is something seriously wrong with our economy when Exxon's record $11 billion in quarterly profits are seen as a disappointment by Wall Street...This is truly Dick Cheney's wonderland." Really, Hil? That is something a belligerent college freshman with zero knowledge of economics screams at a protest in front of the university library.
And her statement is quite telling. She has dropped even the pretense of assuming that $11 billion is "too much" when others have eared "too little". That a company is earning record profits period is enough to condemn them. That we expect them to earn record profits is indicative of "something seriously wrong with our economy". Beg pardon, but aren't profits good for the economy? I suppose not, when profit-seeking is a trait to be damned as insufficiently self-abnegating.
Lastly, here is an interesting article about the effects of farm subsidies on the "food crisis". It is a decent read until the very end where it calls for the money dumped foolishly into subsidies that distort market prices be dumped foolishly into programs like The World Food Program.
Farm Subsidies are the Real Culprit
I'm going to go take some Advil.
Ghouls and slugs--
Matt
No comments:
Post a Comment