DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on May 07, 2007, 07:33:24 PM
-
L'Adulte
Can Sarkozy reform France?
Monday, May 7, 2007
Conservative Nikolas Sarkozy's comfortable victory over Socialist Ségolène Royal in France's presidential race may that indicate Europe's slowest-growing major economy is finally ready for some change.
Long derided as a "center of social rest" for its cradle-to-grave welfare state, mandatory 35-hour work week, public-sector strikes and ossified employment rules, France has voted for a new president who claims he wants to shake things up. "France does not fear change," Mr. Sarkozy told his supporters as the vote progressed yesterday, "France hopes for it."
That's unclear. It's certainly true that Mr. Sarkozy styled himself as a reformer who wants to arrest the pessimism gripping a country where polls show 70% of voters think their country is in decline. He advocated tax cuts, allowing overtime, and shrinking the central government's bloated bureaucracy by filling only half of the slots opened up by retirement. "The best social model is one that gives work to everyone," he would tell audiences in calling for more dynamism in the economy. "That is no longer ours."
But at the same time the former interior and finance minister has shown a willingness to bail out failing French companies and to embrace greater protectionism. Mr. Sarkozy is certainly no heir to Margaret Thatcher or even Tony Blair, but he is someone that free-market advocates can at least do business with.
So too can Americans. Mr.Sarkozy was willing to take a lot of heat back home from his visit to America last September on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. While in the U.S., he made it clear that although France's foreign policy will often be opposed to America's, he puts great importance on improving relations. "He's very admiring of the dynamism of the American people, and of their capacity to give an opportunity to everyone," says Michel Barnier, a former foreign minister who is advising Mr. Sarkozy.
By French standards Mr. Sarkozy is positively effusive about the need for the two countries to emphasize their points of agreement. "My dedication to our relationship with America if well known and has earned me substantial criticism in France," he said. "But let me tell you something, I'm not a coward. I embrace that friendship. I'm proud of the friendship . . . and I proclaim it proudly." He then went on to say that France's foreign policy had often suffered from an arrogant and insensitive approach, a clear reference to the haughty attitudes of retiring president Jacques Chirac and his prime minister, Dominique de Villepin.
But the clearest break that Mr. Sarkozy represents from leaders like Mr. Chirac is in his background. The son of a Hungarian immigrant, he has always been viewed as an outsider by French elites. He failed to attend the prestigious National School of Administration, where almost every leading figure in French politics, including purported populist Ségolène Royal, went.
It is difficult for Americans to appreciate just how removed from the French people the nation's bureaucratic elite is. Its arrogance is mind-boggling. One of Mr. Chirac's ministers privately compared the public's repudiation of the EU Constitution in 2005 to a temper tantrum. Listen to former president Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the prime architect of the now-rejected 448-article European Constitution, when he was asked to respond to complaints that voters would have trouble understanding the dense document: "The text is easily read and quite well phrased, which I can say all the more easily since I wrote it myself."
Even Jean Michel Fourgous, a parliamentary member of Mr. Chirac's own Union for a Popular Movement, bemoans his party's refusal to adopt more-transparent and -consultative government. He told Time magazine that the country has "been hijacked by an intellectually brilliant elite that's dangerously ignorant about the economy." He notes that while the current government is made up largely of people who call themselves conservative, 80% of ministers have never worked at all in the private sector. The few who have "are tolerated, but shoved into subaltern posts."
Mr. Sarkozy acknowledges he is now part of the elites of French society, but he pledges he will govern in a way that is beyond their interests. "If I'm elected," he told reporters before yesterday's balloting, "it won't be the press, the polls, the elites. It will have been the people." His clearest break with much of French elite opinion came last week when he made a dramatic speech about a "moral crisis" the nation entered in 1968, when the "moral and intellectual relativism" embodied by the 1968 student revolt that helped topple President Charles de Gaulle from power the next year. Today, many philosophers and media commentators routinely pay homage to "the élan of 1968" and lament that the revolutionary spirit of the time did not succeed in transforming bourgeois French society more than it did.
Mr. Sarkozy took on that '60s nostalgia. He labelled Ms. Royal and her supporters the descendants of the nihilists of 1968, and even appealed to France's "silent majority" to repudiate the false lessons of that period. He claimed that too many Royal backers continue to hesitate in reacting against riots by "thugs, troublemakers and fraudsters." He declared this Sunday's election would settle the "question of whether the heritage of May '68 should be perpetuated or if it should be liquidated once and for all."
It appears that Mr. Sarkozy may have found the ultimate "wedge" issue in France, judging by the solid margin he won many traditional working-class neighborhoods that normally support Socialist candidates. Mr. Sarkozy's triumph provides at least a chance that there will be a real debate on the role of the state in France's economy and, yes, even some discussion of whether France should be in perpetual conflict with America.
With the victory last year of Angela Merkel, the pro-U.S. leader of Germany, and the impending changeover in power in Britain from pro-American Tony Blair to equally pro-American Labor leader Gordon Brown, there is also at least a chance that Europe will begin to address its problems straight on and avoid needless scapegoating of the U.S. With Mr. Sarkozy's victory, France's government looks like it will finally have some energetic adult supervision.
Article (http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110010037)
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sarkozywins.jpg)
-
Before you bring yourself to full orgasm, keep in mind that this "pro-American" politician was also against the Iraq war. It seems that "pro-American" and "anti-American" are kind of relative terms in France. Nobody is going to follow your moron "President" over a cliff. Sorry 'bout that.
-
Before you bring yourself to full orgasm, keep in mind that this "pro-American" politician was also against the Iraq war. It seems that "pro-American" and "anti-American" are kind of relative terms in France. Nobody is going to follow your moron "President" over a cliff. Sorry 'bout that.
Lemme know when you plan to ratchet down the hyperbole to facilitate some sort of dialog. If you're planning just to foam at the mouth, then by all means, don't let me interrupt. "Full Orgasm"?? ::)
-
Don't take it too literally, sirs. In a manner of speaking, I thought you were getting prematurely excited over M. Sarkozy, that's all.
-
Don't take it too literally, sirs. In a manner of speaking, I thought you were getting prematurely excited over M. Sarkozy, that's all.
I'm not, and never was. The only thing of interest was how given the choice between a more Conservative or a more Soclalist leader, and despite the continued claims of how Bush has completely abolished any and all credibility with other nations, somehow the French people chose to pick the more Conservative leader, who promotes decreasing the welfare state, increasing job opportunities, and pledging continued support of her ally, the U.S. THAT's what I was intrigued with. That, and how expectant it was to see the left have a hissy fit over it with riots. Perhaps Sarkozy stole the election. ;)
-
With all due respect, I don't think friendship with the U.S. played a major role in this election. Could even be that Sarkozy won despite his nice words for the U.S.A. and not because of them. And they weren't all nice words either, he also said something about the U.S. having to accept the fact that its friends will not always see things the American way, although I don't have the exact quote at hand.
The problems of the French are declining job opportunities, immigration and loss of cultural identity, the latter being associated with globalization as well as immigration. Franco-American relations would be very much of a side issue for most of them. (I stand to be corrected by any recent polls, that's just my impression.)
-
With all due respect, I don't think friendship with the U.S. played a major role in this election.
Please pay attention Tee, I never claimed it did. Nor did I claim Iraq had any significant role with the elections either. I claimed, actually made the observation that: given the choice between a more Conservative or a more Soclalist leader, and despite the continued claims of how Bush has completely abolished any and all credibility with other nations, somehow the French people chose to pick the more Conservative leader, who promotes decreasing the welfare state, increasing job opportunities, and pledging continued support for the U.S. Hardly a ringing endorsement for the Anti-American Socialist agenda
I'm stunned you haven't started claiming stolen election. You know those conservatives, always stealing away the will of the people. ;)
-
<<I'm stunned you haven't started claiming stolen election. You know those conservatives, always stealing away the will of the people.>>
You shouldn't be stunned. I only claim stolen election when the evidence indicates stolen election. No evidence, no claim.
-
You shouldn't be stunned. I only claim stolen election when the evidence indicates stolen election. No evidence, no claim.
Hasn't stopped you here, so where's the consistency? Lemme speculate it's because you like the French more than the U.S., right? So what they do is unfortunate, but acceptable, but when it's the U.S. and anything Bush, it just has to be nafarious and sinister. Just a guess though, since the only thing you have as supposed "evidence" is a Salon piece, debunked by report after report, committee after committee, and conclusion after conclusion, demonstrating nothing "stolen" in EITHER 2000 or 2004
-
<<I'm stunned you haven't started claiming stolen election. You know those conservatives, always stealing away the will of the people.>>
You shouldn't be stunned. I only claim stolen election when the evidence indicates stolen election. No evidence, no claim.
No evidence ? No problem........Just say what you wish.
If there really were evidence we would most definately be in court with it .
-
<<If there really were evidence we would most definately be in court with it .>.
Well, there really is evidence and you are most definitely not in court with it. Obviously (love that word!!!) the system doesn't work the way you think it does.
Personally, I think that with a ballsier candidate than Al Gore, you WOULD have been in court with the evidence.
-
<<If there really were evidence we would most definately be in court with it .>.
Well, there really is evidence and you are most definitely not in court with it. Obviously (love that word!!!) the system doesn't work the way you think it does.
Personally, I think that with a ballsier candidate than Al Gore, you WOULD have been in court with the evidence.
If there were evidence what could possibly keep it out of court?
There really is no evidence , and there being no court case , when the motivation to bring one is immense, serves as a proof of this negative.
Every single voter who was denyed hisvote would have standing to complain , no one is waiting on Al Gores reluctance to complain.
-
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/20070509ST2AP-WorldHateUs.jpg)
-
Interesting how you all have turned the entire French election into a pro-US or anti-US matter.
I'm sure it had little to do with internal French politics and was all about the United States <sarcasm>
-
Interesting how you all have turned the entire French election into a pro-US or anti-US matter.
I'm sure it had little to do with internal French politics and was all about the United States <sarcasm>
that is a good point
The French Presidents term is not a success unless it is good for France.
Is a freindly relationship with the US a large or a small part of that?
-
It really depends. The French have a lot of investments in the United States and have made a great deal of money off of our market (even despite O'Reilley's idiotic boycott of their wine ;) ). Yet, most of that lies outside of US Government control and more within cyclical economics.
The European Union is extremely important to France and despite a great deal of talk about short work weeks, the French workers are more productive than their British counterparts who work much longer hours.
The French Government is a very complex system and not at all similar to the American Government. The Prime Minister is of great importance and the French people are as well. They generally do not tolerate acts that are rammed through with little respect for constitutional law. This was a primary reason for the earlier riots. We generally thumb our nose at any riots, but for the French it is a time-honored tradition to bring out the barricades and show disfavor with the Government.
I'd take the talk of "rolling back everything from May 1968" with a grain of salt. No French President wants to be the cause of another Republic ;)
-
<<Just a guess though, since the only thing you have as supposed "evidence" is a Salon piece, debunked by report after report, committee after committee, and conclusion after conclusion, demonstrating nothing "stolen" in EITHER 2000 or 2004>>
Hey, thanks, I didn't even know about the Salon report. The evidence that the election was stolen in 2000 was put together in a very compellinga and basically unanswerable case by three investigative reporters for Vanity Fair. Lanya was actually able to track the article down on the net and posted either the article or a link to it here in this NG.
You could have saved yourself a lot of typing effort by leaving out "report after report, committee after committee and conclusion after conclusion" and just used the generic term "whitewash." We all would have known what you meant.
-
<<Interesting how you all have turned the entire French election into a pro-US or anti-US matter.>>
"you all" my ass. I pointed out in post #5 in this thread that the French election wasn't a referendum on Franco-American relations.
-
Interesting how you all have turned the entire French election into a pro-US or anti-US matter.
I'm sure it had little to do with internal French politics and was all about the United States <sarcasm>
Funny, I coulda swore I made it perfectly clear, when Tee had broached this subject, that the French elections did not include either the U.S. or the war in Iraq as its predominant reasons for Sarkozy's win. I do believe I've been referencing how the election of Sarkozy simply demonstrates how the U.S isn't this big blackhole of an albatross in Europe, and how given the choice between a conservative leader or a socialist leader to run their country, they chose conservative.
So, why this effort to highlight that and twist it into a claim of making the Sarkozy win based on some pro-U.S. movement, is beyond me :-\
-
<<Just a guess though, since the only thing you have as supposed "evidence" is a Salon piece, debunked by report after report, committee after committee, and conclusion after conclusion, demonstrating nothing "stolen" in EITHER 2000 or 2004>>
Hey, thanks, I didn't even know about the Salon report.
I was wrong *gasp* It was in fact your Vanity Fair article. Bad recollection on my part. Don't ever say I don't recognize when I've been in error
You could have saved yourself a lot of typing effort by leaving out "report after report, committee after committee and conclusion after conclusion" and just used the generic term "whitewash."
Translated; Don't confuse me with the facts, when my mind is already made up. Funny how 1 article in 1 magazing is the gospel truth, according to Tee, but multiple official and unofficial reports and conclusions contrary to Tee's predisposed made up mind is deemed a "whitewash" Gotta love it ;D
-
(http://www.al.com/opinion/birminghamnews/cartoons/050807b_stantis.jpg)
-
<<Funny how 1 article in 1 magazing is the gospel truth, according to Tee, but multiple official and unofficial reports and conclusions contrary to Tee's predisposed made up mind is deemed a "whitewash" Gotta love it >>
Yeah, why can't the government just limit themselves to one whitewash when they're gonna cover something up? Isn't the whitewash overkill kinda wasteful?
Newsflash, sirs: the government works overtime to protect itself and one hand washes the other. That's what a free press, independent of the government, is supposed to do. It's a sad commentary on the state of journalism today when Vanity Fair digs out a story that the MSM has no interest in whatsoever. Hmmm, wonder if corporate ownership of the MSM by giant conglomerates allied on many levels with big business and big defence contractors and dependent on government licensing of the broadcast media would have anything to do widdat? Nah . . .
-
<<Funny how 1 article in 1 magazing is the gospel truth, according to Tee, but multiple official and unofficial reports and conclusions contrary to Tee's predisposed made up mind is deemed a "whitewash" Gotta love it >>
Yeah, why can't the government just limit themselves to one whitewash when they're gonna cover something up? Isn't the whitewash overkill kinda wasteful?
Goodness Tee, it apparently wasn't just a bipartisan government whitewash, where Democrats apparently joined in to make sure Bush stole the election from messers Gore & Kerry, those dastardly news media outlets are all in cahoots as well, to make sure Bush got elected, when many of them underwent their own independent recounts and research. How impressive that out of all the conclusions made, by both official and unoffical committees & sources, your little 'ol Vanity Fair article, the one that mirrors what you have concluded is what happened, is the only one that seemed to get it right. Imagine that ;)
-
It's a sad commentary on the state of journalism today when Vanity Fair digs out a story that the MSM has no interest in whatsoever.
It's a sad commentary on Vanity Fair, when they write an article that is thoroughly debunked by other MSM outlets.
Hmmm, wonder if corporate ownership of the MSM by giant conglomerates allied on many levels with big business and big defence contractors and dependent on government licensing of the broadcast media would have anything to do widdat? Nah . . .
Vanity Fair is owned by a pretty big corporation itself. It's not like it's published in some guy's backroom.
-
This crap about Sarkozy being elected because he favors the US is crap. The French, 85% of whom voted, compared with the puny 50 odd percent of Americans, most likely voted for Sarkozy because they were annoyed by a small number of unemployed Algerian punks incinerating their Peugeots and Citroens, and perhaps want France to be more assertive in the EC.
US foreign policy has very little support in France. Perhaps only a fraction of those who voted for LePen. And pretty much all ogf them think Juniorbush is a warmongering moron oilman, because that is what he is.
-
This crap about Sarkozy being elected because he favors the US is crap.
Yo Xo.....would you care to show us anyone who claimed, or even implied, that it was because Sarcozy was more friendly to the U.S. than Royal was, as the primary reason he won the election. Inquiring minds, would like to know.
It appears to me that the "crap" is the continuing efforts to minimize his victory by complaining about an issue that was never made an issue
-
We gonna get any examples, Xo? Or are you pleading the 5th?
-
<<Vanity Fair is owned by a pretty big corporation itself. It's not like it's published in some guy's backroom.>>
Ridiculous. Vanity Fair is owned by Conde Nast, a company that's in the business of publishing magazines. And I think they just established a web presence very recently by buying Lycos. Network TV is owned by multimedia conglomerates any one of which could buy and sell Conde Nast in the blink of an eye.
Besides which, if there's a niche market for leftist screwballs or anarchist crazies, the giant corporations aren't averse to cashing in on it. They can run a subsidiary organization that caters to the niche, earns a healthy profit and still swamp its message with the sheer volume of crap that gets poured out by the MSM every hour on the hour. Vanity Fair, regardless of who owns it is just pissing in the ocean.
American ruling class circles figured out a long time ago that it's better NOT to monopolize the news 100% - - they can always afford to have a few marginalized "left wing" publications to point to as examples of a free press, while the lion's share of the consumers is subjected to an unremitting blizzard of right-wing garbage .
-
<<Funny how 1 article in 1 magazing is the gospel truth, according to Tee, but multiple official and unofficial reports and conclusions contrary to Tee's predisposed made up mind is deemed a "whitewash" >>
Yes, a lot of things are funny, aren't they?
Funny how Democrats and Republicans all voted together to give Bush the power to invade Iraq.
Funny how the people never got a chance to vote between a Democratic "pull 'em out next Wednesday afternoon" candidate and a Republican "onward to victory" candidate but were offered only a choice between a Republican war candidate and a Democratic "me too" candidate. (some choice!)
Funny how even after an electoral reversal of fortunes, the Democratic legislature continues the Republican war even though it's within their power to pull the plug on the financing of it.
But the funniest thing of all is how, when the warmongering politicians of both parties investigate themselves and decide in " multiple official and unofficial reports and conclusions" that everything that happened was strictly kosher from every angle, there are people who actually believe that the participation of Democrats in the process is a guarantee of impartiality and bona fides.
NEWSFLASH, sirs: The system is fixed. It ain't what it seems. The "opposition" isn't really an opposition. Get it? They take turns fucking you ["you" being the people of the U.S.A., not sirs personally] and you think it's true love.
-
NEWSFLASH, sirs: The system is fixed. It ain't what it seems. The "opposition" isn't really an opposition. Get it? They take turns fucking you ["you" being the people of the U.S.A., not sirs personally] and you think it's true love.
Yea, Bush & Reid are regular golfing buds, while Cheney & Pelosi are hunting buddies. Yea, right Tee. Can I have some of that stuff, you're smoking? :P Oh, BTW, weak deflection effort I might add
-
Ridiculous. Vanity Fair is owned by Conde Nast, a company that's in the business of publishing magazines. And I think they just established a web presence very recently by buying Lycos. Network TV is owned by multimedia conglomerates any one of which could buy and sell Conde Nast in the blink of an eye.
Vanity Fair (the current incarnation) is owned by Condé Nast Publications. And Condé Nast Publications is owned by Advance Publications (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_Publications). Advance Publications owns newspapers, magazines, business journals, a couple cable television networks, some news services, internet providers, etc.
-
<<Vanity Fair (the current incarnation) is owned by Condé Nast Publications. And Condé Nast Publications is owned by Advance Publications. Advance Publications owns newspapers, magazines, business journals, a couple cable television networks, some news services, internet providers, etc.>>
And that's supposed to make them the equal of Time-Warner or Viacom? Give me a break.
-
And that's supposed to make them the equal of Time-Warner or Viacom? Give me a break.
Perhaps you can show me where I said they were the same size as Time-Warner or Viacom?
I said they were owned by a large corporation; $7 Billion+ meets my definition of a large corporation.
-
And that's supposed to make them the equal of Time-Warner or Viacom? Give me a break.
Perhaps you can show me where I said they were the same size as Time-Warner or Viacom?
I said they were owned by a large corporation; $7 Billion+ meets my definition of a large corporation.
I think it's called moving the goal posts. Tee's initial claim debunked, so he needs to move what he meant to say
-
<<Perhaps you can show me where I said they were the same size as Time-Warner or Viacom?
<<I said they were owned by a large corporation; $7 Billion+ meets my definition of a large corporation.>>
Well, thanks for helping me clarify and focus my argument.
Apparently, there are large corporations and there are large corporations. Not all "large corporations" are on the same level. What I should have made clear when I first raised the point that there are some media corporations large enough to be embedded within and a function of the ruling class. That is to say their interlocking directorates and financial interests are such that they and/or the interests they represent are players in the very events they are "observing." Their commentary or lack of commentary is not objective any more, but partisan and interested. And then there are the lower-tier "large corporations" with what any of us would consider major bucks, but nevertheless (a) dwarfed by the Viacoms and Time-Warners of the world and (b) not "players" in the events they report. Minor players or bit-part players sometimes, maybe, wannabe players, sure, but not players.
My mistake was to use the term "large corporation" without further qualifiers, and assume that all "large corporations" would necessarily be in the same relative size and the same role of player. I wasn't thinking it through.
-
Apparently, there are large corporations and there are large corporations.
Advance Publications: $7+ billion
Viacom: $9+ billion.
So, where in that $2 billion do they change from "large corporation" into "embedded within and a function of the ruling class"?
-
Advance Publications: $7+ billion
Viacom: $9+ billion.
So, where in that $2 billion do they change from "large corporation" into "embedded within and a function of the ruling class"?
It's the point where one large corporation has one of its magazines write a report that favors his POV, and is obviously the gospel truth, while all the rest of the large corporations, with all their magazines and newspapers, are obviously in cahoots with BushCo. That extra $2 Billion does buy alot of copy paper and white out, ya know. In fact, they probably invest and apply it to carbon paper offsets ;)
-
<<Advance Publications: $7+ billion
<<Viacom: $9+ billion.>>
Interesting, particularly since Advance Publications is a privately held corporation. Basically, it's owned by the two Newhouse brothers, whose late father built the whole thing single-handedly. What does "$7+ billion" represent exactly and what is the source of this information?
I suppose you're aware that the market cap of Time-Warner before the AOL merger was $84 billion (Wikipedia) which rose to $280 billion with the merger (Wikipedia again.) $81.01 billion is where Yahoo Finance currently places the market cap. Time-Warner is not in the same league as Advance Publications and it's ridiculous to claim that they are.
Viacom's market cap is $29.11 billion (Yahoo Finance) not exactly in the Time-Warner league but still about triple your unsourced Advance Publications figure. It's almost as absurd to claim that Advance Publications is in the same league as it is to claim that it's in the same league as Time-Warner.
-
What does "$7+ billion" represent exactly and what is the source of this information?
Yahoo Finance, Annual Revenue for 2005. Ditto for Viacom.
-
<<Yahoo Finance, Annual Revenue for 2005. Ditto for Viacom.>>
Ludicrous to measure the relative worth of two corporations by their respective annual incomes for a single year. Even more so when one of the two corporations is privately held and not subject to the same auditing, reporting and oversight requirements as the others. As you probably know already.
-
<<I think it's called moving the goal posts. Tee's initial claim debunked, so he needs to move what he meant to say>>
sirs, if you're not going to participate meaningfully in the debate, at least wait till the smoke clears and you know who won before you start your little victory dance.
-
Ludicrous to measure the relative worth of two corporations by their respective annual incomes for a single year. Even more so when one of the two corporations is privately held and not subject to the same auditing, reporting and oversight requirements as the others. As you probably know already.
Ludicrous to measure the relative worth by assets, since a company that has been in business longer would always have a higher net worth.
Besides, if the privately held company is hiding some of their income, then that would just make them closer in revenue to Viacom, wouldn't it?
Annual revenue is a fairly standard way of measuring company size, and it's a required report for tax purposes.
-
<<Ludicrous to measure the relative worth by assets, since a company that has been in business longer would always have a higher net worth.>>
Totally asinine comment. Obviously initial capitalization would have a lot to do with the corporate assets and they don't all start with the same capital. Market cap is a good way of gauging relative worth, since the market is supposed to possess an all-seeing wisdom that technocrats and bureaucrats lack. Market cap factors in assets AND earnings and all other relevant factors. Who are we mortals to quarrel with the wisdom of the free market?
<<Besides, if the privately held company is hiding some of their income, then that would just make them closer in revenue to Viacom, wouldn't it?>>
Unless they were inflating it to make them a more attractive take-over object. That's the problem with privately-held corporations, Ami - - they're PRIVATE. They don't have to tell you what's going on and they do what's good for them, from their POV, right or wrong.
<<Annual revenue is a fairly standard way of measuring company size. . . >>
It has its uses. Only a complete idiot would take one single year's income as any kind of indicator.
<< . . . and it's a required report for tax purposes.>>
Yeah. That's because it's an INCOME tax, remember? Try calculating income without knowing the revenues. Just as a learning experience.
-
Market cap is a good way of gauging relative worth, since the market is supposed to possess an all-seeing wisdom that technocrats and bureaucrats lack. Market cap factors in assets AND earnings and all other relevant factors. Who are we mortals to quarrel with the wisdom of the free market?
Market cap is a calculation of the worth of outstanding shares of stock. Pretty useless figure on privately owned corporations.
Or, I guess you think all privately owned corporations are worth $0?
Market capitalization, or market cap, is a measurement of corporate or economic size equal to the stock price times the number of shares outstanding of a public company.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_capitalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_capitalization)
-
Yeah. That's because it's an INCOME tax, remember? Try calculating income without knowing the revenues. Just as a learning experience.
Yeah, but then again, I wasn't the one concerned with "one of the two corporations [being] privately held and not subject to the same auditing, reporting and oversight requirements as the others."
Last time I checked, reporting revenues was something that all corporations are required to do (public and private), and it's generally audited in some way and therefore fairly reliable.
-
<<Market cap is a calculation of the worth of outstanding shares of stock. Pretty useless figure on privately owned corporations.>>
I guess you never heard of "fair market value" which is how ownership of all the outstanding shares of a privately held corporation could be evaluated. Same underlying principle as market cap, smaller market; and a hypothetical predicted value instead of actual value as dictated by the market on a daily basis.
<<Last time I checked, reporting revenues was something that all corporations are required to do (public and private), and it's generally audited in some way and therefore fairly reliable.>>
You should check again, then. The standards for auditing public corporations are exhaustively detailed and minutely regulated, whereas for privately held corporations, the standard is usually "generally accepted accounting principles," a rubric within which generations of genuinely creative CPAs have flourished and occasionally fallen, and which, moreover, allows a considerable latitude for discussion as to what "generally accepted" really means.
-
I guess you never heard of "fair market value" which is how ownership of all the outstanding shares of a privately held corporation could be evaluated.
This is not a legal case, where "fair market value" is determined by courts, nor are we talking about tax assessments. Those are the only uses of "fair market value" that are applied to private corporations.
You should check again, then. The standards for auditing public corporations are exhaustively detailed and minutely regulated, whereas for privately held corporations, the standard is usually "generally accepted accounting principles," a rubric within which generations of genuinely creative CPAs have flourished and occasionally fallen, and which, moreover, allows a considerable latitude for discussion as to what "generally accepted" really means.
Sure, I'll check again. States have been cracking down on "accepted practices" for 30+ years. According to the state of NY: "Organizations with gross revenues greater than $250,000 must undergo a financial audit by an independent CPA. Those with revenues between $100,000 and $250,000 must file a CPA’s review report. Those with revenues below $100,000 are not required to retain a CPA, but must submit a financial report certified by its board with its CHAR 500 to the NYS AG’s office."
Most state have similar regulations. Plus, there is also the threat of an IRS audit if the numbers look fishy.
-
<<According to the state of NY: "Organizations with gross revenues greater than $250,000 must undergo a financial audit by an independent CPA. Those with revenues between $100,000 and $250,000 must file a CPA’s review report. Those with revenues below $100,000 are not required to retain a CPA, but must submit a financial report certified by its board with its CHAR 500 to the NYS AG’s office.">>
This is kid stuff. None of it adds up to more than saying they need independent audits. The standards for the audits are what they've always been, "generally accepted accounting principles," which haven't changed much in the past 30 years or so. Sarbanes-Oxley mandates federal oversight of the accountants and accounting standards for all publicly traded companies, and for those traded on the NYSE like Viacom and Time-Warner, the audits have always had to comply with the NYSE standards as well, even before Sarbanes-Oxley.
-
None of it adds up to more than saying they need independent audits. The standards for the audits are what they've always been, "generally accepted accounting principles," which haven't changed much in the past 30 years or so. Sarbanes-Oxley mandates federal oversight of the accountants and accounting standards for all publicly traded companies, and for those traded on the NYSE like Viacom and Time-Warner, the audits have always had to comply with the NYSE standards as well, even before Sarbanes-Oxley.
Actually, the "generally accepted accounting principles" are the same rules used for publicly traded companies and large private corporations. CPAs are required to follow them for both public and private corporations.
-
<<Actually, the "generally accepted accounting principles" are the same rules used for publicly traded companies and large private corporations. CPAs are required to follow them for both public and private corporations.>>
The generally accepted accounting principles are a pretty basic framework. They're the starting point for auditors of publicly traded companies, but NYSE rules and Sarbanes-Oxley take the generally accepted accounting principles to whole new levels. The difference between following generally accepted accounting principles for auditing a privately-held corporation and following them and the overlay of further regulations governing the auditing of publicly traded companies is like the difference between following Biblical schemes of taxation and the tax codes of modern industrial nations.
-
I would guess that the annual income of a publishing company would measure indirectly how much they were publishing , how much they were being read , somewhat it would measure how much influence they had with the public.
Whether large or small ,corporations have a "corporate culture" lax or formal , cutting edge or stodgy , many things about a company are determined by its policy's ,and the people who make them ,and the people who obey them, or don't.
The ownership is not the greatest element in corporate culture ,the underlyng culture is .
Is Vanity Fair known for verity? Partisanship?
History is not evidence , but it is an indicator.
-
The generally accepted accounting principles are a pretty basic framework. They're the starting point for auditors of publicly traded companies, but NYSE rules and Sarbanes-Oxley take the generally accepted accounting principles to whole new levels. The difference between following generally accepted accounting principles for auditing a privately-held corporation and following them and the overlay of further regulations governing the auditing of publicly traded companies is like the difference between following Biblical schemes of taxation and the tax codes of modern industrial nations.
In the United States, generally accepted accounting principles, commonly abbreviated as US GAAP or simply GAAP, are accounting rules used to prepare, present, and report financial statements for publicly-traded companies and many privately-held companies. Similar to many other countries practicing under the common law system, the United States government does not directly set accounting standards, in the belief that the private sector has better knowledge and resources. US GAAP is not written in law, although the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requires that it be followed in financial reporting by publicly-traded companies. Currently, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) sets accounting principles for the profession. The US GAAP provisions differ somewhat from International Financial Reporting Standards though efforts are underway to reconcile the differences so that reports created under international standards will be acceptable to the SEC for companies listed on US markets without reconciliation to US GAAP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generally_Accepted_Accounting_Principles_%28USA%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generally_Accepted_Accounting_Principles_%28USA%29)