• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The "Occupy" Movement

Professor Henderson is right and it is the stupid conceit of the "occupiers" to think ... no, wrong word, there was precious little thinking done during the "occupations" ... to believe that they spoke for anything but a collection of tiny minorities. Maybe if ALL the "occupiers" and all the hangers on could believe in one single element they might be a fairly large minority, maybe 25% of Americans or Canadians, but still a minority who want to impose their will on all the other minorities.

It was a silly movement "done," such as it was, by silly, childish people - even the 50 something university professors were spoiled children ... it was "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
 
Much hilarity as #occupy now wants to seize a church (and another church's response):

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/17/nyregion/church-that-aided-wall-st-protesters-is-now-their-target.html?_r=1

Occupy Group Faults Church, a Onetime Ally
By MATT FLEGENHEIMER

For months, they were the best of neighbors: the slapdash champions of economic equality, putting down stakes in an outdoor plaza, and the venerable Episcopal parish next door, whose munificence helped sustain the growing protest.

But in the weeks since Occupy Wall Street was evicted from Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan, relations between the demonstrators and Trinity Wall Street, a church barely one block from the New York Stock Exchange, have reached a crossroads.

The displaced occupiers had asked the church, one of the city’s largest landholders, to hand over a gravel lot, near Canal Street and Avenue of the Americas, for use as an alternate campsite and organizing hub. The church declined, calling the proposed encampment “wrong, unsafe, unhealthy and potentially injurious.”

And now the Occupy movement, after weeks of targeting big banks and large corporations, has chosen Trinity, one of the nation’s most prominent Episcopal parishes, as its latest antagonist.

“We need more; you have more,” one protester, Amin Husain, 36, told a Trinity official on Thursday, during an impromptu sidewalk exchange between clergy members and demonstrators. “We are coming to you for sanctuary.”

Trinity’s rector, the Rev. James H. Cooper, defended the church’s record of support for the protesters, including not only expressions of sympathy, but also meeting spaces, resting areas, pastoral services, electricity, bathrooms, even blankets and hot chocolate. But he said the church’s lot — called Duarte Square — was not an appropriate site for the protesters, noting that “there are no basic elements to sustain an encampment.”

“Trinity has probably done as much or more for the protesters than any other institution in the area,” Mr. Cooper wrote on his parish Web site. “Calling this an issue of ‘political sanctuary’ is manipulative and blind to reality. Equating the desire to seize this property with uprisings against tyranny is misguided, at best. Hyperbolic distortion drives up petition signatures, but doesn’t make it right.”

The criticism of Trinity was coming not only from protesters, but even from some Episcopal priests and other Protestant clergy members.

“Trinity Church had a fantastic opportunity to be a Christlike presence by openings its doors to the protesters,” said the Rev. Milind Sojwal, the rector of All Angels Church, an Episcopal parish on the Upper West Side. “And I believe Trinity blew it.”

On Thursday, some church leaders and protesters brought a Nativity scene to Trinity’s main entrance on Broadway, with a sign attached. “There was no room for them in the inn,” it read in part. “Trinity has plenty of room.”

Occupy Wall Street plans to hold a demonstration on Saturday at the lot. Some clergy members have said they planned to attend, and a handful said they may join protesters who have discussed taking down the fences around the lot, risking arrest.

“I’m willing to occupy space in an act of civil disobedience in order to shine a light on social and economic injustice,” said the Rev. John Merz, of the Episcopal Church of the Ascension in Greenpoint, Brooklyn.

Trinity is not the first Anglican church to grapple with how to respond to the Occupy movement. In London, protesters have camped outside St. Paul’s Cathedral for weeks, and the city has sought to evict them.

So vexing is Trinity’s dilemma that one of the world’s most prominent Anglicans, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, has issued two statements on the matter: one posted on the Occupy Wall Street Web site, imploring Trinity to “find a way to help” the protesters, and a second, posted on the Trinity Web site, in which Archbishop Tutu said his comments were “not to be used to justify breaking the law.”

Bishop Mark S. Sisk, the Episcopal bishop of New York, and Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, the top official of the denomination nationally, issued statements on Friday supporting Trinity’s position.

“It is regrettable that Occupy members feel it necessary to provoke potential legal and police action by attempting to trespass on other parish property,” Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori said. “Seekers after justice have more often achieved success through nonviolent action, rather than acts of force or arms.  I would urge all concerned to stand down and seek justice in ways that do not further alienate potential allies.”

Older than the country in which it stands, Trinity has a long and storied history. Alexander Hamilton was once a pew holder. The church shook, amid a storm of debris, as the towers of the World Trade Center fell.

Less known, though, is the church’s status as a real estate titan. Since 1705, when Queen Anne of England bequeathed more than 200 acres of what was then farmland to the church, Trinity Real Estate has come to control six million square feet of property, much of it office space around Hudson Square, financing an operation most parishes could never fathom.

“No matter how supportive they may appear to Occupy, no matter how much hospitality they show to Occupy, Trinity Wall Street owns a lot of Lower Manhattan,” said Jim Naughton, a longtime observer of Episcopal Church issues who works as a partner at Canticle Communications, a public relations firm. “They’re vulnerable in that regard.”

On Nov. 15, hours after they were driven from Zuccotti Park, many Occupy Wall Street protesters reconvened at Duarte Square, which some knew to be Trinity’s property. Even before the eviction, protesters had asked that Trinity allow them to use the space, said Bill Dobbs, a spokesman for the group.

A portion of Duarte Square, a small sidewalk with leafless trees, is public. But Trinity owns a larger area that is filled with wooden benches and shrubbery. The private area is currently vacant, enclosed by a locked chain-link fence, but the church says it has licensed the property through April 2013 to a nonprofit arts organization, which holds occasional art exhibitions there.

Critics argued that Trinity’s resources and influence carried with them an added responsibility. The Rev. Earl Kooperkamp, of St. Mary’s Episcopal Church in West Harlem, noted that many churches hung signs from their chapels, welcoming passers-by.

And the Rev. Michael Ellick, of Judson Memorial Church, a Greenwich Village congregation affiliated with the American Baptist Churches and the United Church of Christ, said Trinity needed to do more.

“Charity is not enough,” Mr. Ellick said. “Charity keeps things the same.”

Some clergy, though, said Trinity had already exceeded its Christian obligations.

“Trinity has been more than accommodating to a marginal group of protesters,” said the Rev. J. Douglas Ousley, of the Church of the Incarnation in Murray Hill, an Episcopal parish.

And Robert Bruce Mullin, a professor at the General Theological Seminary of the Episcopal Church, said it was easy for other churches to criticize Trinity’s use of its property.

“It’s cheap grace,” he said. “It’s great to defend the rights of protesters in someone else’s backyard.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: December 17, 2011

An earlier version of a caption with this article misstated the proximity of Trinity Wall Street’s vacant lot to the New York Stock Exchange.
 
More to do with the idea of school meal programs. This is a horrifying example of the law of unintended consequences, students moving from pizza to cheetos rather than accept the (substandard) "healthy" offerings.

The lesson I draw from this is it may be far cheaper and more effective to support voluntary programs and charity initiatives (like the one Cora's is offering), or for that matter, starting your own rather than getting an expensive and counterproductive program like the one outlined here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/why-pilot-projects-fail/250364/

Why Pilot Projects Fail
By Megan McArdle

Dec 21 2011, 2:22 PM ET 430

It seems that the LA Unified School District recently revamped its lunch menus to eliminate fattening standbys like chicken nuggets, nachos, and flavored milk.  The resulting meals are much healthier, but apparently also much less appetizing.  As a result, participation in the program is down, and the LA Times found students replacing the Beef Jambalaya and lentil cutlets with things like Cheetos.

This happened despite the fact that the menu was tested extensively before they put it into operation:

    Andre Jahchan, a 16-year-old sophomore at Esteban Torres High School, said the food was "super good" at the summer tasting at L.A. Unified's central kitchen. But on campus, he said, the chicken pozole was watery, the vegetable tamale was burned and hard, and noodles were soggy.

    "It's nasty, nasty," said Andre, a member of InnerCity Struggle, an East L.A. nonprofit working to improve school lunch access and quality. "No matter how healthy it is, if it's not appetizing, people won't eat it."

    At Van Nuys High School, complaints about the food were so widespread that Principal Judith Vanderbok wrote to Barrett with the plea: "Please help! Bring back better food!"

    Among other complaints, Vanderbok said salads dated Oct. 7 were served Oct. 17. (Binkle said the dates indicate when the food is at its highest quality, not when it goes bad. They have been removed to avoid misinterpretation.) On campus, even adults -- including a Junior ROTC officer and an art teacher -- have been found selling black market candy, chips and instant noodles to hungry students, she said.

    "I compare it to Prohibition," Vanderbok said.

This is one more installment in a continuing series, brought to you by the universe, entitled "promising pilot projects often don't scale".  They don't scale for corporations, and they don't scale for government agencies.  They don't scale even when you put super smart people with expert credentials in charge of them.  They don't scale even when you make sure to provide ample budget resources.  Rolling something out across an existing system is substantially different from even a well run test, and often, it simply doesn't translate.

Sometims the "success" of the earlier project was simply a result of random chance, or what researchers call the Hawthorne Effect.  The effect is named after a factory outside of Chicago which ran tests to see whether workers were more productive at higher or lower levels of light.  When researchers raised the lights, productivity went up.  When researchers lowered the lights, productivity also went up.  Obviously, it wasn't the light that boosted productivity, but something else--the change from the ordinary, or the mere act of being studied.

Sometimes the success was due to what you might call a "hidden parameter", something that researchers don't realize is affecting their test.  Remember the New Coke debacle?  That was not a hasty, ill-thought out decision by managers who didn't care about their brand.  They did the largest market research study in history, and repeated it several times, before they made the switch.  People invariably told researchers they loved the stuff.  And they did, in the taste test.  But they didn't love the stuff when it cost them the option of drinking old Coke.  More importantly, they were being offered a three-ounce cup of the stuff in a shopping mall lobby or supermarket parking lot, often after they'd spent an hour or so shopping.  New Coke was sweeter, so (like Pepsi before it) it won the taste test.  But that didn't mean that people wanted to drink a whole can of the stuff with a meal.

Sometimes the success was due to the high quality, fully committed staff.  Early childhood interventions show very solid success rates at doing things like reducing high school dropout and incarceration rates, and boosting employment in later life.  Head Start does not show those same results--not unless you squint hard and kind of cock your head to the side so you can't see the whole study.  Those pilot programs were staffed with highly trained specialists in early childhood education who had been recruited specially to do research.  But when they went to roll out Head Start, it turned out the nation didn't have all these highly trained experts in early childhood education that you could recruit specially--and definitely not at the wages they were paying.  Head Start ended up requiring a two-year associates degree, and recruiting from a pool that included folks who were just looking for a job, not a life's mission to rescue poor children while adding to the sum of human knowledge.

Sometimes the program becomes unmanageable as it gets larger. You can think about all sorts of technical issues, where architectures that work for a few nodes completely break down when too many connections or users are added.  Or you can think about a pilot mortgage modification program.  In the pilot, you're dealing with a concrete group of people who are already in default, and in every case, both the bank and the individual are better off if you modify the mortgage.  But if you roll the program out nationwide, people will find out that they can get their mortgages modified if they default . . . and then suddenly the bank isn't better off any more.

Sometimes the results are survivor bias.  This is an especially big problem with studying health care, and the poor. Health care, because compliance rates are quite low (by one estimate I heard, something like 3/4 of the blood pressure medication prescribed is not being taken 9 months in) and the poor, because their lives are chaotic and they tend to move around a lot, so they may have to drop out, or may not be easy to find and re-enroll if they stop coming.  In the end, you've got a study of unusually compliant and stable people (who may be different in all sorts of ways) and oops! that's not what the general population looks like.

So consider the LAUSD test.  In the testing phase, when the program was small, they were probably  working with a small group of schools which had been specially chosen to participate.  They did not have a sprawling supply chain to manage.  The kids and the workers knew they were being studied.  And they were asking the kids which food they liked--a question which, social science researchers will tell you, is highly likely to elicit the answer that they liked something.

That is very different from choosing to eat it in a cafeteria when no one's looking.  And producing the food is also very different.  Cooking palatable food in large amounts is hard, particularly when you don't have an enormous budget--and the things that make us fat are, by and large, also the things that are palatable when mass-produced.  Bleached grains and processed fats have a much longer shelf life than fresh produce, and can take a hell of a lot more handling.  Salt and sugar are delicious, but they are also preservatives that, among other things, disguise the flavor of stale food.

I think one anecdote in the article is particularly telling.  People complained that salads dated October 7th were served on the 17th--and the district responded by first, pointing out that that was the "best served by" date, not the date when the food actually went bad; and second, removing the labels because they were "confusing".  Now, as anyone who has forgotten to eat a bag of lettuce knows, while it may not actually be rotten after 10 days, it probably doesn't look much like something you'd eat voluntarily.  This is not something that you can change by stamping a different "sell by" date on the container.  If that were my choice, I too would come to school with a backup bag of Cheetos.

So why would he say something so obviously weird?  There are two reasons I can think of:  1) in a large and complicated distribution system, and with their limited funds, he knows that there is no way to actually solve this problem, so they mounted the only defense they could.  Or 2) the school district still has the mentality of the old system, which is mostly focused on not poisoning anyone.  In fact, there isn't much difference between Chicken nuggets that won't poison you, and Chicken nuggets at their absolute peak of freshness.  And the employees just sort of assumed that the same set of rules would work for lettuce.

That's what real world applications are up against.  They're not an awesome pilot project with everyone pulling together and a lot of political push behind them; they're being rolled out into a system that already has a very well established mindset, and a comprehensive body of rules.  The new program implemented by the old rules often turns out to be worse than the old program.  You don't move kids from pizza to salad; you move them from pizza to cheetos.

This is not, obviously, an argument against ever changing anything.  It is, however, an argument against assuming that your changes will work.  No, not even if you had a great pilot.
 
But wasn't the TEA Party movement supposed to be the violent movement?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/12/occupy-eugene-protester-choked-and-beaten-to-death-at-camp-occupy-death-toll-at-9/

#Occupy Eugene Protester Choked and Beaten to Death at Camp – #Occupy Death Toll at 9
Posted by Jim Hoft on Sunday, December 25, 2011, 11:29 AM

#Occupy Eugene protester Rich Youngblood was choked and beaten to death at the camp this week.
Kristen Carpenter, Chair of Occupy Eugene’s Action Committee said they had hoped to prevent acts of violence, like the incident involving Youngblood… where he died.

Yesterday more than 30 people gathered for a vigil to remember 54-year-old Rich Youngblood of Florence who was murdered at the #Occupy Eugene camp.
Herald.net reported:

    More than 30 people gathered for a vigil to remember a man who died after a fight in the Occupy Eugene camp.

    Occupy Eugene leader Kristen Carpenter told KVAL-TV, “We’re sorry we couldn’t have stopped the violence in the system sooner.” She said the Friday night vigil was not just for 54-year-old Rich Youngblood of Florence but also for all victims of street violence.

    Police said Youngblood was beaten and choked at the camp on Monday. Authorities are still investigating.

    The City Council ordered the camp be disbanded.

With the Eugene beating death, the #occupy death toll stands at 9. This does not include the #Occupy Raleigh protester who shot up a food store injuring three people then committed suicide.

"The System" beat and choaked a man to death? Pathetic evasion of responsibility. The fact the city council waited until now is also a pathetic evasion of responsibility as well...
 
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-wilson/2011/12/28/99-percent-top-25-occupy-wall-street-backers-worth-over-4-billion#ixzz1hqMZ2AOC
 
muskrat89 said:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-wilson/2011/12/28/99-percent-top-25-occupy-wall-street-backers-worth-over-4-billion#ixzz1hqMZ2AOC


.......and most of the 'support' that these 1%ers gave was moral ::) The big money came from Unions and other communist front groups. Of course no one can account for that money, who spent it or who banked it. Couldn't have been the 'organizers'. There weren't any, right?


Arrrggghhh. I let myself get dragged back here :blotto:

OK, gone again :salute:
 
E.R. Campbell said:
As usual, the Good Grey Globe's Jeffrey Simpson manages to get economic issues wrong, in this colmn which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/who-wants-to-talk-about-income-inequality/article2245133/

The problematic inequality is very narrowly focused: mainly on the celebrity CEOs. There is not significant problem with, for example, super-rich entrepreneurs like Bill Gates or with super-rich inherited wealth holders like the Rockeffelers - both are super rich but both are productive.

About 50 years the ratio of CEO salary (and bonuses) to unionized factory worker salary was about 40:1; that was not a problem, nor was 50:1 or 70:1. A ratio of 100:1 is a bit hard to justify by 60,000:1 (Disney's Michael Eisner circa 1995) is impossible to reconcile with any sane definition of "value." The Eisners and the Blankfeins (Goldman sachs) and the Fulds (Lehman Bros.) of this world are the face of the real inequality problem ...{/quote]


Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail is some data on income inequality in Canada:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/top-ceos-take-three-hours-to-make-an-average-workers-yearly-salary/article2289438/
Top CEOs take three hours to make an average worker's yearly salary

HEATHER SCOFFIELD

OTTAWA— The Canadian Press
Published Monday, Jan. 02, 2012

The richest of the rich have gained more ground in Canada, and are now making 189 times the average Canadian wage, according to a new report.

The 100 highest paid chief executives whose companies are listed on the S&P/TSX composite index made an average of $8.38-million in 2010, according to figures pulled from circulars by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a left-leaning think-tank

That's 189 times higher than the $44,366 an average Canadian made working full time in 2010, the report says.

And it's a 27 per cent raise from the $6.6-million average compensation for the top 100 CEOs in 2009, the report says.

Regular Canadians, on the other hand, have seen their wages stagnate over the past few years. In 2010, after adjusting for inflation, average wages actually fell.

“The gap between Canada's CEO elite 100 and the rest of us is growing at a fast and steady pace, with no signs of letting up,” says economist Hugh Mackenzie, who authored the report.

“The extraordinarily high pay of chief executive officers is more than a curiosity. It actually is a reflection of a troubling redistribution of society's resources in Canada and the United States, and in most of Western Europe,” he said in an interview.

He points out that in 1998, the top 100 CEOs were paid 105 times the average wage. Since then, the ratio has generally climbed up.

In 2008, it was 174, dropping back to 155 during the recession in 2009. The high-water mark was 2007, when it peaked over 190.

It means that by noon on Jan. 3 (the first working day of the year), the average top executive will have already made as much money as the average Canadian worker makes in a year.

The driving forces behind the inequality gap are complex, and lie in the structure of executive compensation packages, Mr. Mackenzie says.

Consultants giving advice to corporate boards on how much to pay their CEOs only compare to other CEOs, perpetually driving up the average in the race to be above-average, he explains.

The corporate board members all run in the same circles.

And many companies use stock options for a large part of their executives' bonuses, a practice that not only drives up pay packages but also ties compensation to share price rather than company performance, Mr. Mackenzie notes.

“The process of paying CEOs is really quite incestuous.”

Solutions are equally complex. Debate in the United States has raged over this subject since the sub prime fiasco of 2008, and the consensus seems to be that regulating the structure of compensation packages won't really work, Mr. Mackenzie says.

Instead, taxation is a better way to go, allowing corporate boards to compensate as they please, but putting governments in a position to claw back excesses and redistribute them as they see fit.

While Mr. Mackenzie does not expect Prime Minister Stephen Harper to hike taxes on the rich tomorrow, he does see some kind of policy response eventually.

“I actually see this kind of growing income inequality as inherently unstable. I think there will be a response,” he said.

“The people at the very top of the income scale — and CEOs are at the top of the top — have really launched themselves into a kind of economic interplanetary travel. If the rest of us are on earth, they're off somewhere else in a different world. I think that's unstable.”

The top earner on the list is definitely in a galaxy of his own. Frank Stronach, the honorary chairman of auto-parts manufacturer Magna International Inc., took home almost $62-million in 2010.

Excluding Mr. Stronach from the Top 100 calculation would bring the average pay package down by about $62,000, Mr. Mackenzie said.

Number two on the list — Donald Walker, also of Magna — made $16.7-million in 2010.

The top banker was Richard Waugh of Bank of Nova Scotia, pocketing $13.8-million in pay, bonuses, options and perks.

But Mr. Mackenzie points out that the compensation information companies include in their circulars don't catch the pay packages of investment bankers, whether or not they work for publicly traded companies.


As I said I have no trouble with 40:1, 50:1 and I could even, just, swallow 100:1 (e.g. CEOs earning $4 Million per year would not horrify me). But I cannot fathom how a CEO, any CEO except maybe RIM circa 2005, is worth 189:1.

I had no problem with Frank Stronach making two digit millions when he owned Magna, now that he is an employee of a publicly traded company sharholders ought to be up in arms - he's just not that good; his contribution to shareholder value this year is not worth what he's being paid. (See here: "Magna International Inc. (MGA) posted a decrease in profit to $272 million or $1.11 per share in the second quarter of the year from $315 million or $1.39 per share in the prior-year quarter (all excluding unusual items). With this, the company has missed the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.36 per share.") (I know he's gone, now - or going, but he ought have left or leave $60 million behind.)
 
From the New Yorker on a book the movement published about the movement - highlights mine:
.... Robinson describes OR Books’ business plan as more “nimble” and less “stupid” than the standard publishing model. “We don’t have warehouses,” he said. “We only do print-on-demand and e-books, and we sell directly from our Web site.” This allows OR to work quickly. All the chapters of “Occupying Wall Street” were in by Tuesday, November 29th, mere hours behind schedule. Robinson and a few other editors spent three days cobbling together a draft, which they sent to a copy editor that Friday night. On Monday, Robinson e-mailed a Word file to a typesetting company in Chennai, India. Four days later, he approved the final proof, and sent a PDF to a digital printing company in Minneapolis. On December 16th, the book was mailed to more than a thousand people who had preordered it. Its cover was Robinson’s handwriting on a beer-stained cardboard box.
Helping grow the 99% by foreign outsourcing?  @#$%^&*('ing hypocrites....
 
E.R. Campbell said:
As I said I have no trouble with 40:1, 50:1 and I could even, just, swallow 100:1 (e.g. CEOs earning $4 Million per year would not horrify me). But I cannot fathom how a CEO, any CEO except maybe RIM circa 2005, is worth 189:1.

I had no problem with Frank Stronach making two digit millions when he owned Magna, now that he is an employee of a publicly traded company sharholders ought to be up in arms - he's just not that good; his contribution to shareholder value this year is not worth what he's being paid. (See here: "Magna International Inc. (MGA) posted a decrease in profit to $272 million or $1.11 per share in the second quarter of the year from $315 million or $1.39 per share in the prior-year quarter (all excluding unusual items). With this, the company has missed the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.36 per share.") (I know he's gone, now - or going, but he ought have left or leave $60 million behind.)

I was watching BBN on the plane last night and they were talking about this report. Apparently, those 100 CEOs also have an average of 20 million in stock options available.

But don't worry Mr. Campbell, all this wealth is going to "trickle down" right?

 
ballz said:
I was watching BBN on the plane last night and they were talking about this report. Apparently, those 100 CEOs also have an average of 20 million in stock options available.

But don't worry Mr. Campbell, all this wealth is going to "trickle down" right

So lets imagine a world where these evil CEO's did not exist.

Subtract the amount of economic activity their companies add to Canada's GDP both directly and also eliminate the tax receipts the various levels of government receive from them.
Eliminate the jobs of all the people employed by their companies and add that number to the unemployment rate.
Calculate the second and third order effects of these companies no longer existing and ordering raw material and finished products and sub assemblies, buying energy or hiring advertizing agencies, transport companies to deliver finished goods, buying support services ranging from janitorial jobs to running the company cafeteria, etc.
Remove the economic activity and employment of these supporting companies from the national totals since their main source of income has been eliminated.

Since the CEO's don't exist in your world, the chances of their companies existing in anything like their present form is also non existent. Thinking there will be "substitute" companies is problematic, to say the least (based as they are on individual talents and interests). If there are active measures to curb executive incomes, the chances of equally talented people exerting themselves to create such "substitute" companies is correspondingly less.

Congratulations. We are now in a much poorer nation with fewer opportunities and outlets for all Canadians.

If you don't like the CEO's pay, you do have options:
Don't patronize these companies or purchase their products, goods or services.
Divest your investment portfolio, mutiual funds etc. of all shares and investments in these companies.
Become an active shareholder and make your objections known at the annual meeting.
 
Thucydides said:
So lets imagine a world where these evil CEO's did not exist.

We don't have to imagine, just go look at the country that's occupied the #1 spot of the UN Human Development Index for 9 of the last 11 years.

Thucydides said:
Subtract the amount of economic activity their companies add to Canada's GDP both directly and also eliminate the tax receipts the various levels of government receive from them.
Eliminate the jobs of all the people employed by their companies and add that number to the unemployment rate.
Calculate the second and third order effects of these companies no longer existing and ordering raw material and finished products and sub assemblies, buying energy or hiring advertizing agencies, transport companies to deliver finished goods, buying support services ranging from janitorial jobs to running the company cafeteria, etc.
Remove the economic activity and employment of these supporting companies from the national totals since their main source of income has been eliminated.

Since the CEO's don't exist in your world, the chances of their companies existing in anything like their present form is also non existent. Thinking there will be "substitute" companies is problematic, to say the least (based as they are on individual talents and interests). If there are active measures to curb executive incomes, the chances of equally talented people exerting themselves to create such "substitute" companies is correspondingly less.

I'll let everyone else use their own common sense to realize how realistic or not this claim is....

Thucydides said:
Congratulations. We are now in a much poorer nation with fewer opportunities and outlets for all Canadians.

Kind of like Norway? As opposed to a world where Canadians see absolutely no increase in their average wage, despite a ton of economic growth? Because all that wealth isn't trickling down like your flawless supply-side theory claims it will?

Thucydides said:
So lets imagine a world where these evil CEO's did not exist.

As per usual, you're trying to pretend that I am a complete left-winger. I never said CEOs were evil, I never said they shouldn't exist. I just don't believe in your ridiculous absolutes. I believe every country has it's own problems, and it's own solutions... which conflicts with your train of thought, where every country's problem's can be solved with the exact same solution.
 
And no, I'm not going to ever call CEOs "job-creators." While they usually do create jobs, it's purely out of inconvenience to them. If they could build a product/company by themselves to increase their wealth, they would. And if transferring those jobs to China increases their wealth, they will.

I'm not blaming them. There's nothing wrong with wanting to increase your personal wealth.

But for the same reason, there is nothing noble about paying someone a wage only because it will make you more money, either.
 
ballz said:
there is nothing noble about paying someone a wage only because it will make you more money, either.

It may not be noble but there's nothing wrong with it either.
 
ballz said:
As per usual, you're trying to pretend that I am a complete left-winger.
A downside of the internet is that people are judged merely upon their words.

It's not simply a matter of losing inflection and nuance, it's the reality that if it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck, people are pre-disposed to believe....
 
Thucydides thinks Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan are left wingers. To him 98% of the population is too left wing. Don't be ashamed of liberal and pragmatic values that deal with reality. An ideologue that openly supports the ridiculous tenets of Ayn Rand's objectivism cannot be taken seriously.
 
Nemo888 said:
Thucydides thinks Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan are left wingers. To him 98% of the population is too left wing. Don't be ashamed of liberal and pragmatic values that deal with reality. An ideologue that openly supports the ridiculous tenets of Ayn Rand's objectivism cannot be taken seriously.

Like the gun registry? ::)
 
CDN Aviator said:
It may not be noble but there's nothing wrong with it either.

No there's not and I certainly never said/meant that there was. It's a mutually-beneficial relationship. A welder does not owe any more thank-you's to his boss than his boss does to him. His boss certainly does not deserve to be held up on some pedestal as the saviour of the unemployed.

Journeyman said:
A downside of the internet is that people are judged merely upon their words.

It's not simply a matter of losing inflection and nuance, it's the reality that if it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck, people are pre-disposed to believe....

I realize and accept that when discussing things with Thucyclides I'm going to look like and quack like a left-winger. That's sort of a given, seeing how far to the right on the spectrum he's coming from.

That said, if anyone were to read my other posts that aren't contesting his points, they should know better. I have said in the Attawapiskat thread that entrepreneurship is ultimately going to be what improves their living conditions, I have suggested that small-businesses should be taxed at 0% for the first five years unless they record a certain level of profit in order to encourage entrepreneurship, and on the provincial level here in NFLD I've gone batshit insane arguing about why we should privatize the liquor industry and snow-removal/road construction, etc. EDIT: Oh yes, and cut the amount people are getting for unemployment and increase the amount of hours they need to get it. The old 10 weeks on / 42 weeks off thing does not ring well with me /EDIT. Those are clearly not left-wing arguments.

And other than pointing at Norway, I haven't even hinted that Canada should take state-control of it's natural resources, and I certainly don't think that we should. I was just pointing out that Thucyclides's frequent arguments that suggest that it's as simple as the further left you go the shittier everybody's life gets, and the further right you go the better everybody's life gets, are simply not as "absolute" as he tries to make it seem.
 
Back
Top