He's off to a good start with his EPA Pick.

"It'll be interesting to see how DJT handles the next budget."

Very much so.

Based on some of the silly things I've seen that we pay for, it appears as if a good deal of $$ could be saved. Also, I think there are many millions being spent that should be the job of private industry to pay for rather than subsidized by the government. It'll be interesting to see how DJT handles the next budget.

True, but this issue is an examination of an existing "business" rather than a a plan for a new business. They don't have to worry about product placement, advertising, financing, etc. - it's just a strict "this is where the money goes" look.

What I saw great potential in is the separation by Constitutional duty - meaning that one it is finally admitted that certain duties being carried out aren't Constitutionally authorized, we can get pretty quick cost savings estimates for chopping those programs which can provide a counterpoint to any CBO estimates.

Numbers aren't people. Often, leaps of faith trump numbers, like, er, sorta Microsoft? First come the concepts, then come the numbers Then comes success or failure. Without an idea, all the spreadsheets in the world are not worth a sheet.

Investors Vote with their Feet...if the company screws up...It was meant to keep them accountable to the end user...which as I say...should of been their first priority in the first place.
But I agree...this needs some more thinkin about...this is just where I am on this now.

The word vermin for a destructive person of no value comes into old dino's head.
Yeah, well, that's a troll. Same thing,
Thinking out loud by tapping keys here.

I agree that the current trend in executive leadership is significantly undermined by the incentive packages which seem to be the norm. The focus on the short-term places undue and often-times conflicting interests (in opposition to the interests of consumers) into play, I agree. I think that the solution is to re-structure executive payment packages to emphasize the long-term instead, but I don't know how one does that by cutting off investors - who create the executive incentive plans in the first place - from involvement. I hear your frustration, I'm just trying to figure out a solution which respects the rights of property ownership.

You operate the corp as if it was private but stock is sold on the market.
The way I see it, we have to stop all this crony crap, non humans from exerting too much control or someone that's Only worried about money at the expense of the consumer. As I said, if the corporation and the heads of the corporation concentrated on honestly competing, creating business, bring genuine value without harm to the end user...the investors will make out just fine.
It's just the opposite in today's world.

I also point out that the invention of so called professional CEO's ruined the value once created by the originator of the business product or service. Most so called pro's know squat about the business. All they know is influence and connections. They just perpetuate business instead of creating business. It would never get that way if the original value creator was always in charge or at least passed on to someone whom started at the bottom and worked their way up and had reverence for all the employees that make everything work. That is what has been lost by hiring a know-nothing to run the business. I have observed this my whole life because I never was able to stay at anyone place during my working life like my father did. Businesses would be great for a while, some other creature would come along to run things and it all would fall apart and I'd be back on the street looking for what I could do next.

I wonder who it could be and if the admins could look into it. Anyone who is just serially downvoting isn't interested in creating value and should be booted.

I don't know how you prevent stock holders from wanting a say in how their investment moneys get used. Frequently when a company goes public, the architects sell themselves enough shares to maintain a 51% share so they can continue to control the business. Your plan would really cut down on the number of companies who go public. I'm thinking there is a better way.

This guy should also investigate and include the Governments CAFR report (comprehensive annual financial report)...I think he'd find that there is no reason what so ever to tax anyone.
What we should work on in conjunction with his work is somehow preventing majority stock holders have Anything to say within the corporations they hold stock in.
The free market should be able to determine whom it will do business with.
I stated in my book that if the corporation just concentrates on the end users....the investors will do just fine.

Within the last 2 hours and 39 mites of posting, our trolling mouse coward paid you a visit. +1 by the title.